| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Certainly the occupant of the Chair has not been informed of any intention to make a statement now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 7, line 12, after 'Act' insert
'(except section (Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland))'.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 2--Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kirkhope: The consultation period on the paper "Stalking in Northern Ireland" ended on 2 December. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that, as all responses broadly supported the introduction of legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. There are differences between the current criminal and civil legislation for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, and the new clause therefore permits the Bill's replication in Northern Ireland by negative resolution. If legislation were to be by affirmative resolution, there would for some time be a gap in the legislation between the jurisdictions, for which, given the vulnerability of the victims that the Bill is designed to protect, we might be criticised. New clause 2 puts into effect the request by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Bill be replicated for Northern Ireland under the negative resolution procedure.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I appreciate the Minister's words in introducing the amendment. We have had the time since the Loyal Address to refer to the fact that we believe that the Bill should be extended to Northern Ireland. I understand some of the difficulties in legislating for other parts of the kingdom, which were obvious in the debate on amendment No. 27, and I also understand that there are people in Northern Ireland who keep telling us that the differences in legislation make it difficult to do so, but they do not make it impossible. I appreciate that steps have been taken to fill that gap so that we might go forward fairly quickly together.
Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I am sure that he was involved in the consultation on "Stalking in Northern Ireland" and that he and his colleagues will be pleased. We are, of course, delighted to do what we can to make the Bill applicable there. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 982
New clause 2
'. An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of sections 1 to 7 and 12 of this Act--
(a) shall not be subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.--[Mr. Maclean.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 1
'. In any proceedings under this Act, where it appears to the court that distress is being caused to any person who may have been the victim of any act of harassment to which this Act applies by reason of the decision of the person accused of that act of harassment to represent himself in those proceedings, it may require the person accused of the act of harassment to be legally represented.'.--[Ms Janet Anderson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause's purpose is to highlight a problem about which the Minister and I have corresponded. It concerns the arrangements for defendants to cross-examine witnesses in person. Recently, two cases aroused particular public concern. The first involved Julia Mason, who was cross-examined for six days by the man who was eventually found guilty of raping her. The second case was that of Margaret Bent, to whom I have already referred. Margaret was cross-examined by her alleged stalker, Dennis Chambers. At the time of the case, the National Association of Victim Support Schemes called for the victims of domestic or sexual violence or similar cases to have the right not to be examined by the accused. In view of what happened to Margaret Bent, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a progress report on the deliberations in which I know that his Department is engaged.
Mr. Maclean: The new clause would give the court discretion in any proceedings under the Act to require a person accused of an act of harassment to be legally represented if it appears to the court that distress is caused to the victim of that harassment by reason of the accused representing himself. The Government recognise that serious concerns have arisen from the recent cases in which victims of rape and stalking offences have been caused enormous distress by being cross-examined by defendants who are not legally represented and who appear to take the opportunity during the cross-examination to make the victims relive some of the horrendous experiences they have endured. We find that unacceptable. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in a speech in October that he was determined to ensure that it was prevented. A review of the law covering this matter is under way.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 983
Depriving a defendant of the right to represent himself if he chooses to do so is a serious matter, and there are some complex issues to consider carefully, including the range of offences to which such measures might apply. Confining it to proceedings relating to harassment alone, which is what the new clause would do, would not meet the concerns of one of the rape victims about whom we heard earlier and would not cover the case that gave rise to the most concern. There are also other serious offences to which this provision would sensibly apply.
Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us the timetable for the review?
Mr. Maclean: No, I cannot. The review is being conducted as speedily as possible. I have not set an artificial time scale, but we want the answers as soon as possible. It is not an easy thing to do. The mischief--I use that word in its technical legal sense--or the evil, which is a more colloquial word, caused by the comments and behaviour of those representing themselves is a complex thing to try to prevent. The damage that we want to prevent is simple to describe, as is the concept, but the practical issues are tricky.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham): I can well understand that depriving a defendant of the opportunity to be represented at all would be a very serious matter. However, many people within and outside the House of Commons would think that to tell a defendant that he must be represented by a lawyer would not be such a serious deprivation and would not outweigh the right of the complainant not to be subjected to the indignity that the two unfortunate women to whom the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) referred had to endure.
Mr. Maclean: I have heard my hon. Friend's point of view; he is experienced in these matters. If we propose taking away the right of defendants to represent themselves, we have to be careful how we do it, in what cases we do it and where we draw the line. It could be a slippery slope towards removing the right of defendants to represent themselves in quite the wrong cases.
When we reach our preliminary conclusions, we will discuss them with the Law Society and the Bar Council, but we are not at that stage yet. We wish to make progress as quickly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I and all right-thinking people were appalled at the way in which one defendant in particular behaved in the rape cross-examination. We would all like to stamp out such mischief, overnight if possible, but as I have said, this is a complex area of law.
We fully understand the concerns that lie behind the new clause. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) intends to insist that this should be built into the Bill for harassment only. When we find a solution to the problem, we want it to apply to a sensible and coherent range of measures. There may be a range of offences where we would want to make some changes, if we conclude that change is possible and can be done sensibly.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
The Minister's account of these matters is well judged and appropriate. If one is to innovate on the constitutional right of any individual to defend himself or herself, one must be certain that it is entirely justified. I have not had the benefit of reading the transcripts of the two trials to which reference was made. However, in my experience, which is perhaps becoming increasingly outdated and is confined to Scotland, any effort at repetitious or offensive cross-examination from an individual defending himself or herself was almost always dealt with extremely severely by the judge. The point at which it becomes offensive is a fine judgment to make, but, for most people, the offensive nature of the two cases to which we have referred must have been evident to all who were participating. I am a little surprised that the judges did not feel able to take what one might regard as a firmer hand.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |