Overview

This bill, an amendment to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, focuses on clarifying the legal threshold for challenging evidence in criminal trials. Specifically, it alters the wording used to describe when evidence is so weak that a conviction is impossible.

Description

Amendment Context

The House of Lords proposed an amendment (No. 112) to change the wording related to challenging evidence in a trial. This amendment aimed to raise the bar for successfully arguing that evidence was so flawed that a conviction was impossible.

Commons Response

The House of Commons disagreed with the Lords' amendment (No. 112). Instead, they proposed a replacement amendment (No. 112A). This amendment replaces the phrase "was innocent of" with "did not commit," refining the wording around the required standard of evidence undermining a potential conviction. The key change is a shift in focus from the defendant's innocence to the strength (or lack thereof) of the evidence presented against them.

Government Spending

This amendment is not expected to have a significant direct impact on UK government spending. The changes are procedural and relate to legal wording, not to funding for specific programs or initiatives.

Groups Affected

This amendment primarily affects:

• Defendants in criminal trials: The change in wording could subtly alter the legal standard for challenging evidence, potentially impacting the outcomes of trials.
• Prosecutors: The altered phrasing may influence how prosecutors present and defend evidence in court.
• Judges and juries: They will be required to interpret and apply the amended wording in their legal deliberations.
• Legal professionals: Lawyers will need to adapt their strategies and arguments based on the revised legal language.

Powered by nyModel