| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.27 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): Thehon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) movingly put the case for controlling this evil trade. There is no difference between us about how we feel about the subject, but the problem is whether we can find effective legal ways to deal with it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on the Bill; he has been in close contact with us over its preparation. The Bill involves paedophilia, one of the most disturbing and distasteful aberrations of the human mind. It is much more widespread--not just abroad, but here in this country--than many people realise.
I am afraid that for the six offences under which people can be prosecuted for the abuse of children, there were 2,272 convictions in 1994 in this country. Three of the
offences carry a maximum sentence of life--as has been said, that is the substantive offence which the penalties in the Bill would match if a person were convicted of incitement or conspiracy.
It is a sad fact that the problem may be getting worse, here as well as overseas. It has been said that foreign travel has made it much easier for people to exploit children in poor countries and for people from the west, using their economic muscle, to corrupt families and children in those countries. Jet travel becomes ever cheaper and more available, and that has made the problem worse.
I am afraid that the availability of so much pornography on the Internet, a phenomenon that has arisen and come into serious use in the past couple of years, will exacerbate the problem because people who have such sexual tastes encourage each other. They talk to each other about what they wish to do to children, and they distribute literature to each other, usually covertly. Increasingly, such material is getting on to the Internet and is being distributed under all sorts of codes so that the sources can be disguised. That will undoubtedly encourage more people with such tendencies to wish to carry out their fantasies on children. They will want to go to countries where opportunities to do that are available because corrupt people in those countries make them available.
We are lucky that child prostitution on the scale that we have heard about in the debate is not a feature of Britain.I hope that it will never become so. However, it is available in different countries such as Thailand,Sri Lanka and the Philippines. A case has been noted in Cambodia and there are cases in other countries, especially those in south-east Asia. There are child prostitutes in many parts of the third world and, with sex tourism, the trade could spread to other parts of the world. We should all unite in trying to find an effective way to control it.
There has been much debate here, at yesterday's conference and in other places over the past few months about whether extra-territoriality should become part of our law--whether jurisdiction should be extended to cover crimes that are committed overseas specifically to catch people who engage in these filthy habits. A number of arguments, some of which have been heard in this morning's debate, have been advanced for extending jurisdiction. The first and most general argument is that we all deplore sexual abuse and the exploitation of children and that everything possible should be done to prevent or deter people from engaging in it. It has also been said that failure to extend jurisdiction means that child abusers from this country will commit offences overseas for which they cannot be prosecuted here and will go free. That is a powerful argument.
It has been said that reliance on extradition is unsatisfactory because the countries concerned may not request it or may not have sufficient political will to carry it out. Another argument is that we already take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a number of offences and that there are precedents. It should not be forgotten that, before taking the route that led to the War Crimes Act 1991, two distinguished lawyers, one of them a former Director of Public Prosecutions for England, were sent abroad to collect and assess the quality of evidence that could be found so as to come to a decision about whether a reasonable prosecution could be mounted.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
In the War Crimes Act, the age of the evidence rather than its relevance was the point.
Mr. Sackville:
Not entirely. The availability of evidence that would be admissible in this country was clearly a key factor.
When those two distinguished lawyers returned here, they presented a report to the Home Secretary and others and it was decided that it would be worth amending the law because prosecutions could be brought. We must be very clear that there is adequate probability that the quality of the evidence that is needed in British courts, which is different or perhaps of a higher quality than is required in many other countries, would be available.I shall deal with that later.
It has also been said in support of extending jurisdiction that abusers often return home with a video of themselves committing an act and that that might provide evidence. That is certainly a strong argument, although defence lawyers would want to ask questions about the provenance of the video. It could not be seen as absolute evidence, although we should consider it in the review of extra-territorial jurisdiction that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced. The other strong argument is that other countries have taken extra-territorial jurisdiction and that we should do the same to declare and prove our abhorrence of these practices.
The case against extra-territorial jurisdiction is principally that criminal jurisdiction in England and Wales is traditionally territorially based. That is to say, there is an assumption that for any conduct to constitute an offence under English law, it must to some degree be connected to the territory of England and Wales. The strength of that argument is its simplicity. We take the view that crimes are best investigated in the country in which they are committed by the relevant prosecuting authorities. Subject to certain conditions, we are willing to extradite our nationals to stand trial abroad and we have extradition agreements with many countries.
Of the European Union states, only Britain and Italy are completely free in extraditing nationals but France and Germany, for example, never do that. Where agreements do not exist, ad hoc arrangements may be made in certain circumstances. We take the view that one sovereign state should not interfere in the internal affairs of another.
Mr. Michael:
How many examples can the Minister give of extraditions under that head?
Mr. Sackville:
I am not aware of anyone who has been extradited for this offence. There is a lack of will at present in many countries, and that must be taken into account.
Although other countries have adopted extra-territorial jurisdiction, the number of prosecutions based on the principle is small. We know of only two successful extra-territorial prosecutions for child sex offences. Therefore, the practical value may be limited. Later in my speech, I shall mention some of those cases.
If extra-territorial jurisdiction were to be adopted, we could use it only in cases of dual criminality, that is to say, in cases where the behaviour constituted an offence here and under the laws of the country in which the offence occurred. The disadvantage is that there are wide variations in the law between different states. For example, the age of consent varies widely, even among
European countries. Although an act of sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old child is illegal in the United Kingdom, it is not an unlawful act in Spain, under Spanish law.
Although there is legislation in the United Kingdom to allow prosecutions to be brought extra-territorially in specific circumstances, in practice that is seldom done. Precise figures for the number of successful prosecutions have not been compiled, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been only one in the past three years.
We also cannot disregard the considerable practical difficulties that are involved in mounting prosecutions in the United Kingdom of offences committed within another state's territory, which would be likely to render extra-territorial legislation unenforceable. Our police have no authority to gather evidence abroad. Contrary to the prevailing system elsewhere in Europe, in which written evidence can be admissible, our courts have a long tradition of oral evidence and cross-examination. However, there is no power to compel witnesses from abroad to attend court in this country.
There are doubts as to whether extra-territorial jurisdiction would be of assistance in bringing to justice British nationals who commit offences against children in other countries. Therefore, we feel--subject to the current review--that our efforts should be concentrated on assisting foreign authorities as much as possible. Later in my speech, I shall give some details of the actions that we are taking to give such assistance.
Some of the cases that have taken place have already been mentioned. Some countries have taken extra-territoriality, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. However,I must say that the number of successful prosecutions that we are aware of is fairly limited. Germany, for example, passed legislation such as this in July 1993. Proceedings were instigated against three German men, again in relation to alleged offences against children in Thailand, but all three prosecutions failed due to a lack of evidence.
In Norway, three men were convicted in 1990 for sexual offences against children in Thailand and the Philippines. They were sentenced to 18 months', eight months' and six months' imprisonment respectively. They had been found guilty of sexually abusing 13-year-old boys in the Philippines, and two of them had also been found guilty of the same offence while on holiday in Thailand. Apparently, the boys were local prostitutes.
In those cases, films and videos which showed scenes of the offences taking place were confiscated and used in evidence. As well as the videos, the prosecution produced letters that the defendants had written to each other which mentioned the acts that were committed against the boys. No proof of the boys' ages was required or provided, and there was no requirement to show that the acts that were involved constituted offences under the law of Thailand or of the Philippines. An expert witness from Norway, who was a medical practitioner, gave an estimate of the boys' ages after viewing the videos. No affidavits were required to support the allegations, and no witnesses were called from the Philippines or from Thailand.
It is therefore unlikely that the evidence which was produced in that case would have been adequate to secure a conviction were a similar case to be brought in the United Kingdom--of course assuming that we had the necessary jurisdiction.
The Bolin case from Sweden has been mentioned by hon. Members several times. While not wanting in any way to minimise the desire to pursue such individuals, I must say that we are not confident, having carefully examined the Bolin case, that the evidence that was produced in court would have secured a conviction in the United Kingdom under our rules of evidence. I understand that the offender in that case was initially arrested by the authorities in Thailand but absconded. He returned to Sweden. However, because the Swedes do not extradite their nationals, they could not send him back to Thailand. Had a similar incident occurred involving a British national, we would have been able to extradite him to stand trial in Thailand; we would certainly prefer to take that approach.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |