David
Howarth: On the basis of what the Minister has said, I
will seek leave to withdraw amendment 168, but will move amendment 174
formally. I thank her for her remarks on honour killings. I hope that
she is right and that what we are doing has the effect that she says.
There are, of course, the classical problems of interpreting what
clause 41(1)(c) says and the degree to which particular mores and
groups will come into the definition of “normal”, but I
assure her that we all agree with the intention of what she has
said. I
also thank the Minister for what she said about going away and thinking
about other aspects of the drafting. There is a broader consensus than
previously imagined on what we are trying to do, but there are some
difficulties in how it is being done. I shall go away and think about
her procedural explanation of amendments 170 and 171, and I hope that
she is right. There is a problem of putting into a statute something
that is
already the law, because it makes lawyers think that it means something
else, which is always a
difficulty. My
overall conclusion is that there is a problem of treating the fear
defence and the anger defence with the same basic concepts. I do not
think that loss of control should come into the fear defence at all,
because it has nothing to do with the fear argument. On the anger part
of the problem, loss of control is not enough. Simply losing control of
oneself because one is angry should not be a defence, whereas in the
fear part of the clause, it seems to me to be
irrelevant.
Mr.
Garnier: Is it the distinction between an external
influence and an internal
influence?
David
Howarth: It is partly that, but it is actually the quality
of the emotion concerned. I think that the fear cases and anger cases
are so different that they should be treated with different
defences.
I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 266, in clause 41, page 25, line 24, after
‘could’, insert
‘reasonably’.—(Maria
Eagle.) Clause
41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
