| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BILL PRESENTED
Waste Prevention
Mr. Gary Waller, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Sir John Hunt, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Sir David Knox, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Barry Sheerman, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 108].
Victims of Crime
3.32 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Sweeney--just hold on a moment. Would Members leaving please do so quietly? We have business to conduct in the House. Come along. Mr. Sweeney, raise your voice.
Mr. Sweeney: The purpose of the Bill is to make it less likely that a person who purports to act in self-defence or in defence of property against a criminal will himself end up being sued or prosecuted for his actions. My Bill is not designed to give victims licence to attack criminals in any way they choose, and it is not intended to create an American-style gun culture. However, it would help to correct the impression that is sometimes given by the media, that the courts and Parliament care more about the welfare of criminals than about their unfortunate victims.
All hon. Members will be aware of the well-publicised cases in which victims have been taken to court for acts of self-defence, only to be acquitted months later by a jury which, having considered the evidence, has concluded that the behaviour complained of was reasonable in the circumstances. In the meantime, the defendant, who has already had to put up with a crime committed against his person or property, has the added worry of court proceedings against him, and the risk of imprisonment in a serious case.
My Bill would address those problems in three ways. First, a victim who committed a common assault--the most trivial type of assault known to the law--would have an absolute defence if he could show that, at the time of the assault, his victim was engaged in committing a criminal offence. For example, if a woman's handbag was being snatched and she hit her assailant across the face, she could not face charges, provided that she did not injure her assailant, even though her action would amount to a technical assault.
Secondly, in the case of more serious assaults by victims of crime, my Bill would provide that no criminal proceedings could be brought against the victim unless the approval of a judge in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court had first been obtained. Similarly, no civil
proceedings could be brought against a victim for compensation without the approval of a judge of the appropriate civil court.
Thirdly, my Bill would provide that a victim of crime, even if found guilty of assaulting his criminal attacker, could not have a criminal injuries compensation award made against him. That would not prevent the injured criminal from mounting a civil claim, subject to the success of a preliminary application to a judge for leave to bring the proceedings.
My Bill would not prevent a victim of crime from being sued or prosecuted for going too far in an act of self-defence. However, it would provide a screening device, making it less likely that victims would be prosecuted or sued. The need for a preliminary application by the prosecution, or the plaintiff in civil proceedings, to a judge would make the Crown Prosecution Service or the plaintiff think twice before proceeding. In considering the applications, judges would have to consider the public interest and take into account the desirability of ensuring that, in a finely balanced case, the law should lean in favour of victims rather than villains.
The Government have done much to help the victims of crime. For example, they have improved facilities so that, in all our modern courts, witnesses can be segregated from defendants. Furthermore, the Government have improved the efficiency of the police, increased the number of police officers, and of course, introduced tougher penalties to deal with villains. Nevertheless, the public still remain concerned, as my postbag demonstrates, that the law is biased in favour of the villain and against the victim. That grievance, which is shared throughout the country, will be redressed by my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter Sweeney, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Edward Leigh, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Redwood, Sir Trevor Skeet and Mr. Michael Stephen.
Mr. Walter Sweeney accordingly presented a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 109].
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe):
I beg to move,
The Bill itself was first published on 1 November 1996. In less than four months, it has passed through both Houses, to reach its final consideration stages this week. Both Houses have given the highest priority to the serious matters in it, and that priority must continue, to ensure that it reaches the statute book without delay. The allocation of time order allows the House five hours in total to consider this order and the amendments to the Bill that were tabled in another place.
3.39 pm
That the Order of the House [18th November], as varied by the Order of the House [25th November], be supplemented as follows:
18 Feb 1997 : Column 748
1.--(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table and, subject to the provisions of the Order [18th November], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings
Nos. 8 and 12 6.15 p.m.
Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 93 7.30 p.m.
No. 40 8.15 p.m.
Remaining Amendments 9.00 p.m.
2.--(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall--
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
The first anniversary of the dreadful tragedy at Dunblane will be in three weeks. In the year that has passed, the Government have established a public inquiry under Lord Cullen, responded to each of his recommendations, and prepared a major Bill which implements the tighter controls that he recommended. Those of his recommendations that can be introduced administratively will also be brought into effect.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion--
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall--
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords on all the remaining Lords Proposals.
(4) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Supplemental
4.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
5.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman and on the Report of such Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 at any time (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |