Member

Similarly, we must understand what the “interests of justice” means in reality. In what sorts of scenario does the Minister expect people to be able to apply successfully? She helpfully pointed out that there is clearly a difference in the obligations towards an ordinary member of the public, or even an MP making use of such a scheme, versus those who are directly affected. I do not think—I know that Katie and others feel the same way—that this provision should necessarily be exceptional in any way. If someone’s sister is murdered, as in Katie’s case, think about the gravity of the situation they are going through at the time of the court hearing and the sentence. To be told that they have to make some argument for why they needed 28 days—[Interruption.] The Minister says they do not, but there is that test of something being “in the interests of justice”, and we must be clear about exactly how it will work. If it is overly restrictive in how it is interpreted, that person will have to make some kind of argument for why they should have a little bit longer. As the Minister knows, our position throughout has been that there should be parity, as well as a little bit longer for those who are affected.