|Proceeds of Crime Bill
Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are still slightly at cross purposes. If one were to specify the existence of a tort based solely on a breach of observance of the code, it would be necessary to consider specifying statutory exceptions and the precise circumstances in which that tort could be established. That is why I am not in favour of going down that road, and I do not suggest it. However, I do suggest that it ought to be possible, when a breach of the code by an officer has been sufficiently flagrantand possibly with motives underlying itfor a person to bring civil proceedings based upon a failure to observe the code. That is what subsection (6) is trying to exclude. Because I believe in a flexible legal system, I do not see why we should do that.
Mr. Stinchcombe: The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes would surely amount to misfeasance in public office, in respect of which breach of the code would be admissible in evidence under subsection (7).
Mr. Grieve: I agree. Suppose that the hon. Gentleman wished to bring a claim, on behalf of a client or for himself, against an officer for misfeasance in public office, it would be possibleif I understand the wording of the clause, although I do find it a rather
Column Number: 831odd argumentto say that one of the things that he had done had been to breach the code. However, that on its own would not be sufficient to found a course of action. Other things done by the officer would have to be identified in order to maintain the claim. I do not see why subsection (6) needs to be there at all. That is why I invite the Committee to vote for its deletion, and I do not intend to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 13.
Division No. 22]
Column Number: 832
Column Number: 832
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 291 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock, till Thursday 10 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.
Column Number: 833
Gale, Mr. Roger (Chairman)
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Clark, Mrs. Helen
Harris, Mr. Tom
Column Number: 834
Johnson, Mr. Boris
|©Parliamentary copyright 2002||Prepared 8 January 2002|