Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill — Clause 151 — Definition of Miscarriages of Justice — 4 Feb 2014 at 15:15

Julian Huppert MP, Cambridge voted to require a person be shown to be innocent of the offence they have been convicted of for a miscarriage of justice to be considered to have taken place (rather than making the test showing conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it).

The majority of MPs voted to require a person be shown to be innocent of the offence they have been convicted of for a miscarriage of justice to be considered to have taken place. The alternative definition of a miscarriage of justice rejected in this vote was showing conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it.

MPs were considering the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill[1]. The motion passed in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 112.

Lords amendment 112[2][3] stated:

  • Page 121, line 23, leave out from “shows” to “(and” in line 24 and insert “conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it”

This would have affected clause 151 of the Bill[4] titled Compensation for miscarriages of justice. Lords amendment 112 would have changed wording of the definition of a miscarriage of justice in that clause from:

  • if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence

to

  • if the new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that the evidence against the person at trial is so undermined that no conviction could possibly be based on it

The Lords wished to retain the concept of innocent until proven guilty; the text in the Bill which the majority of MPs voted to retain requires an individual's innocence to be shown.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con251 (+2 tell) 0083.0%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab0 223 (+2 tell)087.5%
LDem41 2076.8%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:292 239084.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
John HemmingBirmingham, YardleyLDem (front bench)no
Sarah TeatherBrent CentralLDem (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive