| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Witness Protection Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
1.59 pm
Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful to hon. Members from all parts of the House who are sponsors of the Bill. It is a simple one-clause measure that would afford some anonymity to witnesses in major criminal trials, especially drug-related trials. It may be small, but it would bring major improvements for witnesses who are brave enough to come forward in such trials.
I commend Strathclyde police, who have tried hard to introduce measures on witness protection, but legislation is needed to help the police in that task. There are regulations that could be changed, but a change in legislation is required.
The greatest difficulty that the police have experienced in criminal and drug-related trials is in encouraging witnesses to come forward and to continue until the case comes to trial. The Bill would assist the police in bringing witnesses forward.
Questions have been raised about the restrictions that the Bill would impose on the press. I do not believe that it would restrict the press, but the press would have to take responsibility for what it prints. It does not apply to the national press or to television or radio generally, and I have found no case in which they were involved. The Bill applies particularly to small local newspapers which often print the names of witnesses before trials, as well as during and after trials. That is done mainly out of naivety, I think. I was asked whether the local press would be able to interview an old lady who had been beaten up and left in a bad way. Of course a newspaper could interview her, but if she were to be a witness at a later date, reporters would be asked not to identify her. That is a small price to pay for enabling witnesses to feel that they have some protection.
We sometimes do not realise the extent of witness intimidation. During the past two years I have raised questions in the House about a security company that operates in my constituency and which may be involved in criminal activities. As a result of my inquiries, my life and the lives of my children were threatened. That is not a very nice occurrence. However, threats against Members of Parliament make newspaper and television headlines. Hon. Members are used to seeing their names in print--that is often our ambition--but it is not always so for the general public. Threats against those who live in deprived areas on peripheral housing estates are unlikely to make the headlines. Such people are simply left to their own devices.
It is intimidating for witnesses to come forward in the first place, so we must ensure that they do not suffer further intimidation after the event. Witnesses often withdraw before a case comes to trial. The House has a responsibility to protect those witnesses who are brave enough to give evidence. Witnesses have many fears: they are afraid of coming forward initially and they may not want to see their names in print. Sadly, a witness who lives in a less salubrious area may labelled a "grass". The Bill would allow witnesses to come forward, safe in the knowledge that their identities would remain secret within their communities.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 638
Witnesses who are identified publicly often face intimidation. They may be told to keep their mouths shut, threats may be levelled against them, or they may be bribed to keep silent. The intimidation of witnesses may continue in court, as they--particularly the young--are often frightened by the court and its procedures. Many frightened witnesses from recent trials in my constituency have come to my office. One woman had a child who was a witness in a major murder trial in Glasgow. The family had been threatened and intimidated for two years, and their 10-year-old had become the main witness in the trial, which subsequently saw five people convicted.
The family had moved house three times and have only just found a permanent home. During that time, the child's father was beaten so badly that he lost an eye. The family eventually split up, and they feel that their lives have been wrecked because they did the right thing. They were public-spirited citizens who stood up to be counted when the chips were down. They do not seek any reward for their actions, but we should have been able to give them a guarantee that their living standards would not be diminished. We cannot ask people to put their lives on hold--and risk ending up in a worse position--in order to do the right thing. That family did not flinch from their duty: they are still convinced that they did the right thing. However, they have paid a terrible penalty. We should not be asking that of a family. It is our duty to give the members of that family all the support that they need.
Concerns have been expressed about the right of the defence to interview witnesses for the prosecution. I would not, of course, wish to deny the defence that right. It will be a poor day when someone is accused and he does not know who his accuser is. Through the Bill, however, I am attempting to keep the list of witnesses who might be interviewed by the defence very tight. Only those who need to know who the witnesses are should be able to have that knowledge.
I have spoken of a security firm in my constituency, which was subsequently investigated by the police. There is a continuing police investigation. The firm has folded with £500,000-worth of debts. The firm had been set up by the public purse through a Scottish Office-led partnership. There was, of course, a vast sum of public money involved. I understand that a report will be sent to the Crown Office and that there will be further criminal inquiries.
Leading on from those matters, there was a murder in my constituency last year in which a young man called Mark Rennie--who was 24 years of age--was shot down in the street in broad daylight. Mark Rennie's crime was owing a local money lender £40. Mark was a drug addict who was probably involved in minor supplying. He was not a major criminal. Instead, he was an unfortunate young man who had become caught up in the seedy world of drug abuse. To keep his habit going, he had to borrow £40. Of course, he failed to pay back the £40. We know that £40 to a money lender is not actually £40 and can become many thousands of pounds of debt owed.
As I have said, Mark Rennie was gunned down in broad daylight. That was a warning to others in the community and not a punishment. Subsequently, three people were brought to trial for murder and for conspiring to murder. It was only because the people who witnessed the killing had had enough in the community and were brave enough
31 Jan 1997 : Column 639
During that trial my office saw at least a dozen people who were witnesses in the case. On two occasions, I had to have two of the witnesses taken into police custody. They were so frightened of what was happening to them that they were scared even to move out of my constituency office. They had been threatened with violence and their families had been threatened. In two separate cases, they had been told that either their mothers or their children would be shot if they did not desist in coming forward as witnesses.
A number of witnesses had to be removed from their communities and they are now in other places in the United Kingdom. Even I do not know where they are. It is a poor day when people who come forward to do the right thing have their lives wrecked and uprooted rather than those who carried out the crime in the first place. It is our job to ensure that that does not happen.
Despite what I have described, the witnesses refused to be intimidated despite all the threats against them. Attempts were made to bribe some of them up to the tune of £10,000. They came forward. Subsequently, Stuart Gillespie was convicted of the murder. I might add that that happened while he was wearing a security company jacket from the security company FCB, about which I first raised questions in the House two and a half years ago.
That trial would have failed without the assistance of the police, especially Tom Caldwell, commander of K division, Strathclyde police, and Chief Inspector Ronnie Beattie, who led the investigation into that crime. It almost failed when a number of witnesses saw their names in the local newspaper. I stress that the newspaper printed those names out of naivety, and not in an attempt to disrupt the trial. That put the investigations back by six weeks. Some witnesses were frightened off, but thankfully the majority were not, and the police got the result that they so richly deserved. Strathclyde police have been a tower of strength, especially the two officers to whom I referred, who gave assistance well beyond the call of duty. Without that, the trial would not have had such an outcome.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |