| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on securing tonight's debate and on the characteristically reasonable way in which he has presented his arguments. As he said, Mr. Hyam was convicted in June 1996 of 13 counts--of furnishing false information, using a false instrument and theft--
and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be inappropriate if I were to become involved in a debate about property law and still less the practices of the construction industry. He will forgive me if I do not take that path, tempting though it may be.
Mr. Hyam's offences related to documentation that he had furnished to the leaseholders of various properties. The properties were managed by a company that he ran, and in all but one case a company of which Mr. Hyam was a director owned the freehold of the property. The documentation was used to support claims for payment from the leaseholders for work carried out on the properties. The offences of theft related to cheques that Mr. Hyam had made out from the account of one of his companies. The cheques were made payable to various individuals, but their stubs purported to show they had been made out to firms for work done on the properties, as the hon. Gentleman conceded in his speech.
Mr. Hyam appealed against his convictions on grounds relating to the judge's summing-up. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the specific comments that were made. In January 1997, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Mr. Hyam was released from prison on licence last July.
I would not presume to comment on the merits of the case against Mr. Hyam, nor would it be proper or useful for me to do so. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not looking to me for such comment. What I can do briefly--and he may find it helpful--is to outline the avenue open to someone in Mr. Hyam's position who wants to continue to contest a conviction.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, before 31 March 1997, the Home Secretary had the power to refer a case in which someone had been convicted on indictment in England or Wales to the Court of Appeal. The court had to treat the referral as an appeal by the person convicted. The Home Secretary used that power to bring before the court cases, particularly where the court had already heard and dismissed an appeal, in which he believed there had been a miscarriage of justice, for instance, on the basis of evidence that had recently come to light, and that was a common practice.
Following a recommendation of the royal commission on criminal justice, the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 changed the arrangements for the review of an alleged miscarriage of justice. The Act transferred from the Home Secretary to a new and independent body, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. The commission is empowered to review and investigate alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The commission can gain access to documents and other material that may be relevant to its investigations and, if it thinks fit, can appoint an investigating officer. Anyone can apply to it to refer a conviction or sentence to an appellate court. If the commission makes a reference, the court has to treat it as a fresh appeal.
The commission may make such a reference only if it concludes that there is a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld. A conviction can be referred either because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings that led to the conviction or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or because the commission thinks that there are exceptional
circumstances that justify making such a reference. Either the applicant or the commission may identify the argument or evidence not previously raised, which does not necessarily need to be newly discovered.
I understand that to date, no application has been made to the commission in respect of Mr. Hyam. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if Mr. Hyam wants to continue to contest his conviction, he should make such an application. I would be happy, if he felt that it would be
helpful, to send the hon. Gentleman a leaflet that sets out what I have said about the commission's functions, and explains how to make an application. I am sure that his constituent may find it helpful.
Mr. Bottomley:
I am grateful to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |