| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: No. The criminal is the inciter, the person who puts the information on the Internet, or communicates the message by fax or whatever. That person is inciting others to go to countries to do certain things with children. The innocent person who is browsing the Internet and stumbles across that information does not commit any offence. If a person lifts paedophile material or indecent photographs of children from the Internet, or from any other source, and then uses them or trades them, that person is guilty of existing offences.
A person may well read such messages in a newspaper where such advertisements, which are carefully worded, escape existing law. That will not happen in the future. I have been sent some of those sex tour advertisements by hon. Members. Of course the innocent person who reads such advertisements is not guilty of an offence, but the person who plants them with intent is guilty of an offence.
Reference has been made to the fact that Northern Ireland is omitted from the text of the amendment. I hasten to explain that that is not an error. Clause 4 applies the provisions of clause 2 to Northern Ireland. The amendment to clause 2, which refers to England and Wales, encompasses Northern Ireland by virtue of the provisions
of clause 4. I do not want any hon. Member from Northern Ireland, or indeed any other hon. Member, to believe that that part of the United Kingdom has been given any less prominence than any other part.
Hon. Members may recall the Bolin case in Sweden. Last year, the Swedes successfully prosecuted one of their own nationals, Bengt Bolin, for sexual offences committed against a boy in Thailand. It was an interesting case, because many people wrote to me and urged me--incited me, perhaps--to change the law to allow our courts extra-territorial jurisdiction over child sex offences. They believed that that successful prosecution showed that we could do the same.
I looked at the case carefully, took advice from appropriate professionals, and came to the conclusion that, on the facts of the case as presented to the court in Sweden, we could not have secured a conviction under English law. I do not want any hon. Member to get me wrong--I am not saying that the conviction in Sweden was unsafe, unfair or in any way tainted. Under their rules of evidence, they secured a conviction, and one pervert had to pay his dues to society by serving a term of imprisonment and paying compensation to his victim. I am sure that we are all pleased about that.
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting):
It is interesting to hear the Minister's comments. Did he get in touch with the Swedish Government about the matter?
Mr. Maclean:
I did not get in touch, but my Department has a huge staff to do that sort of thing. We received transcripts of the case, which were in Swedish, not surprisingly, and we had them translated. We analysed them in great depth and took expert legal advice. We could not reach a conclusion without reading those transcripts. But good luck to the Swedes, because, under their perfectly legitimate and sensible law, they managed to get a conviction, but under English rules of evidence we would not have managed to secure one.
Mr. Michael Alison (Selby):
I hope that you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to refer briefly to the Bolin case, which my right hon. Friend has raised. I believe that he is being disingenuous by suggesting that that case would have failed in a British court. The English prosecution service would not have presented the case in the same way. The essence of the case would have been presented to a British court, which uses the jury system, in a different way from how it was presented to a Swedish court, where a judge sits with other adjudicators.
An eminent Swedish juryman has written to the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism:
I suspect that that is the case. My right hon. Friend is slightly misjudging the relevance of the Bolin case by saying that, if it had been presented here as it had been presented in Sweden, it would not have stood up. The prosecution would have approached it in a different way in the British courts, and a conviction would have been secured.
Mr. Maclean:
My right hon. Friend is right to say that, if the evidence was ever put before a jury, one would hope that an English jury would convict. He is also right to say that an English prosecutor would have to present the facts in a radically different way if he was to secure any conviction or ensure that any part of the case was heard.
Mr. Maclean:
I shall give way in a moment.
If one studies the evidence given by the boy, one will find that he alleged that he settled on the final version of his story after, as he claims, he was threatened by a police officer in his own country, who was waving a gun at him. We do not quite allow that under the rules of evidence in this country, but that at least is what he said.
The boy was looked after and prepared for his court hearing by a non-governmental organisation. Can one imagine what would happen in our courts when the defence lawyer stood up and said that the boy had been prepared for his court hearing? The defence would certainly claim that the boy had been prepared and made to recite his evidence backwards, whether that was true or not. We do not allow that in an English court. Can one imagine what would happen if the boy gave evidence in an English court under cross-examination? Even the most newly qualified lawyer would tear his evidence apart.
One of the main reasons that the Swedes got a conviction and preferred the boy's version of events to that of the defendant was that the defendant had admitted assaulting the boy to an off-duty Swedish police officer who was posing as a fellow child molester. That conversation was clandestinely recorded by a Danish television crew. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which we could manage to get such evidence accepted in an English court.
Mr. Michael:
I fear that the Minister is allowing himself to go down avenues that are not necessary to our debate. Frankly, the Swedish case is irrelevant, and the Minister has said why. It took place under different rules of evidence, and under a different legal system. Surely we are interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about how his inquiries and conclusions may make it easier for the law of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to deal with the actions of our citizens abroad. The Minister undertook that his investigations would be directed at that objective.
Mr. Maclean:
I am grateful for that opportunity to move on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested, erroneously, and in the nicest possible way, that we could easily get a conviction in similar circumstances to the Bolin case. I could not let him get away with that. As I have said before, because of some of our defence lawyers, we have difficulty getting convictions when an armed robber in this country is caught on camera in front of 12 police officers.
Mr. Maclean:
I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Garnier:
The Bolin offence could not have been tried in this country because we do not have extra-territoriality. That is the end of the argument.
Mr. Maclean:
Yes. We could not try that case in this country because we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Some people argue, however, that, if we merely had such jurisdiction, there would be no problem, and we could convict people like Bolin. A mere change in the law does not give us carte blanche to change our rules of evidence. In similar circumstances, we would not get convictions. If it was that easy, why do we not get convictions in those countries where those crimes are committed and where we are willing to extradite those involved? In the context of these amendments, that case illustrates the differences in the legal systems of various countries--the different concepts, the different traditions, and even the different kinds of behaviour.
Conspiracy and incitement--which are at the heart of the Bill--are not recognised as criminal offences in many countries, but they may have other offences that cover some of the same ground. These amendments are necessary because it is unlikely that we would have the essential dual criminality for the incitement acts which may originate in another jurisdiction to be a criminal offence there and for us to seek a prosecution under the laws of the foreign state.
While the case of Mr. Bolin was perhaps a disappointment for those who felt that it would demonstrate that our courts could easily convict people of crimes committed abroad, it illustrated to us the need ensure that our legislation covers adequately, and to the extent that our courts can and should take jurisdiction, all the possible avenues of, in this instance, incitement that should be explored. We must leave no stone unturned, particularly as communication is so rapid and reaches all corners of the world. There is no longer any part of the globe which can truly be said to be cut off from the reach of the child molester and his propensity to incite, encourage and recruit converts to his evil ways.
Sadly, there are child molesters in all parts of this country who travel abroad to indulge in their filthy practices. They include lawyers, doctors, bank managers, social workers, manual workers, travel agents, clerks, lorry drivers and pensioners. You cannot tell that someone is a child molester just by looking at them. That is what is so difficult about dealing with these perverts--they appear to be so normal, but, secretly, they are looking for children to abuse.
I cannot say often enough: we must make the Bill a shield to protect children. Children deserve our protection no matter where they are in the world. That is why the Bill is taking powers over acts committed here in the preparation for, or furtherance of, sexual offences committed abroad.
In this context, these amendments are even more important because so often the incitement will come from abroad. One pervert will go to a country where, sadly, children are sold for sexual favours, find a brothel or a bar where these poor souls are for sale, indulge in his wicked ways, and then call his friends in the United Kingdom and tell them to come over there and indulge in the same abuse. That is incitement--the message is sent from abroad, and no matter what coded language it may be, if that is the intention and it is received here, we have caught them--and we would all say, "Hear, hear" to that.
In the past, many hon. Members have proposed that we take extra-territorial jurisdiction, and they have considered that this country, by not taking such jurisdiction, is letting these perverts get away with it. Although we are prepared to extradite our own nationals, subject to the usual rules, to stand trial in countries where an offence has been committed, it is argued that that is not enough. The country concerned may not seek extradition--indeed, we may not have an extradition arrangement with them. The proposals for an extension of the scope of incitement go some way to meeting the concern expressed by hon. Members.
It is true that we already take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of offences. Specific statutes have extended the criminal law to cover the conduct of persons outside the territory of England and Wales, often with the objective of implementing an international convention or of protecting a particular domestic interest. There are some precedents for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction.
There are precedents for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction. It has been suggested that the practical difficulties of mounting successful prosecutions could be overcome. The corrupt nature of the official systems in many countries could be bypassed by using non-governmental organisations to investigate allegations of abuse and to obtain the evidence necessary to secure a conviction in this country.
Perverts often return to this country with clear evidence of their crimes--video tapes, for example--and other countries have taken extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with these offences. It has also been suggested that the United Kingdom should join the international consensus on this issue to mark its abhorrence of the activities of child molesters.
"From a purely practical viewpoint, I would dare to venture that the English jury system might tend to favour the prosecution--I reckon that a 60-year-old retired civil servant proven to be found in a bedroom at night with a twelve year old Thai boy regularly engaged in prostitution might be off to a bad start with twelve English jurors!"
10.15 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |