| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.57 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): It is always helpful to have hon. Members taking part in our debates who have recent practical experience of working in the areas concerned, and not just lawyers. [Interruption.] I hesitate to upset the Minister of State--who is a lawyer--before he replies to the debate.
Although the Bill has some points of controversy in it, its aims, purposes and philosophy are fully supported by my party and very much in line with what we have sought to do and with what we put before the electorate at the general election.
The first part of the Bill aims to create a more coherent and effective youth justice system. The second part aims to provide greater protection to witnesses and victims during court proceedings. Both those areas--as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said--have been neglected in recent years, and reform is very much needed.
The first part of the Bill proposes a new sentence for young people convicted for the first time; that is, referral to a youth offender panel. The panel will then agree a contract with the young offender which will be based on the principles of restorative justice. The meeting between the panel and the young offender will seek to involve the parents and, where agreed, the victim.
It has been Liberal Democrat policy for some time that the youth justice system in England and Wales should be reformed by building on the best practice of the Scottish hearings system, and on other overseas experience of restorative and hearings-based justice. We welcome, therefore, that part of the Bill.
We should be clear that this is not simply creating a new sentence for young offenders, but that it is the first step towards a new system of youth justice; a system that
seeks to confront more effectively young offenders with the consequences of their actions, while providing a more comprehensive response to their offending to stop them reoffending in future. The measure is the first step in that direction.
The evidence available suggests that a restorative approach improves the satisfaction of victims with the justice system. Despite the obvious difficulties for victims in coping with participating in a restorative system, the evidence that we have so far suggests that it is so much more satisfying to a victim than the traditional court system tends to be that, for many victims, it overcomes the initial apprehension that they might have about coming face to face with someone who committed the offence against them. Too often, victims feel ignored by proceedings in the courts. This system allows much a greater role and consideration of the victim's perspective.
Reoffending rates for young offenders are extremely high. The Audit Commission and others have reported how the youth justice system has stagnated, and I hope that the new approach will breathe some life into youth justice.
Too little is done to provide an effective response to young offenders that will address the causes of their behaviour, which is one of the elements of the contract. That is a key advantage that the Scottish hearings system has over the youth justice system in England and Wales, as I have seen for myself.
The Government have decided to focus their new approach on first-time offenders whose offences are not serious enough to make them eligible for a custodial sentence. We accept that there is merit in carefully and gradually introducing such an approach, but we very much hope that it will not be the end of the process. I hope that, on the evidence of success, the Government will be ready to extend the scope of those eligible for referral to a youth justice panel. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to do that and the intention is clearly that that power should be used.
My noble Friends referred to the make-up of youth offender panels and the question of discretion, which was the subject of a successful amendment in another place. We support the new referral order and the creation of youth offender panels and we want to ensure that they are widely used by the courts. We have always wanted to avoid the Government's being over-prescriptive towards the courts, so we are bound to have some sympathy with a power to exercise discretion.
The Bill may have defined too tightly who is eligible for a referral order, and seeks to impose a mandatory sentence, in effect, when that eligibility is established. We should look a little more carefully at those provisions.
Part II is designed to give greater protection to complainants and witnesses during court proceedings, thereby encouraging and enabling witnesses to give evidence that may lead to convictions. That is likely to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, by making it less traumatic for individuals to help to bring the guilty to justice. We support the raw thrust of that part of the Bill, which correctly identifies an area that is in need of reform. Victims and witnesses are too often neglected and too little thought is given to their role in the criminal justice system.
Rape has been identified for some time as an area in which conviction rates have plummeted, but we should not forget that conviction rates in general have been
falling over the past 15 years. At a time when recorded crime was rising year after year, not only conviction rates but the total number of convictions fell. Lord Warner referred to the worryingly low number of convictions for child abuse and other offences involving children.
One aspect of that downward trend may be the unease felt by many about giving evidence in criminal proceedings. It is bad enough to have gone through the trauma of the offence itself, and to submit oneself to legal proceedings that are traumatic in a different way is a pretty fearsome challenge for someone who has already had a harrowing experience.
It is important fully to maintain defendants' rights, but it should be made as comfortable as possible for complainants and witnesses to give evidence. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done research that identifies the often traumatic nature of court proceedings for young children.
Chapter II of part II is designed to protect children and complainants in certain sexual offence trials from the traumatic experience of cross-examination by defendants in person. That provision is clearly directly inspired by the controversy that followed two rape cases in which individuals were subjected to prolonged and distressing cross-examination by--as it was proved--their attackers: the Milton Brown and Ralston Edwards cases.
In one case, the cross-examination went on for days, with the defendant wearing the clothes that he wore in the original attack.
Mr. Hogg:
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the second of the two cases that he mentioned went to appeal and that the Court of Appeal made it very plain that the trial judge has robust powers to prevent the humiliation and intimidation of the complainant by the defendant, and that those powers should be exercised?
Mr. Beith:
That was indeed the background to the sentence that I was about to utter when the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened. I was about to say that, although there has been progress in the courts since the two cases to which I referred, the fact remains that they have left a legacy of anxiety and fear among potential complainants about how they may be treated. It will take more than the advice from the Court of Appeal to overcome that, which is why the Government are right to legislate on the matter.
We concluded in our policy paper that the reform could be undertaken without jeopardising defendants' rights in any significant way or breaching the European convention. Obviously, the Government have reached the same conclusion. The important point is that defendants should retain the right to use cross-examination but must use legal representation if they want to exercise that option.
We concluded that the circumstances in which the defence in a sexual offence trial may use evidence of the complainant's sexual history need to be reformed. That is also the Government's purpose in chapter III. We welcome their aim of minimising the use of such evidence. The perception that rape victims will be subjected to a barrage of personal questions clearly deters individuals from seeking justice and from contemplating a trial.
In roughly half of rape cases permission is sought to bring in evidence of sexual history, and in75 per cent. of those cases that permission is given. The law should be reformed so that such evidence is used only when it is absolutely relevant to the case.
Ms Drown:
In what sort of cases does the right hon. Gentleman think that such evidence would be relevant?
Mr. Beith:
One such possibility is specifically covered in the Bill. The immediate sexual history of the complainant in relation to the defendant could have some relevance--the Bill specifies a 24-hour limitation--when the issue at stake is whether the defendant could have had a reasonable belief in consent. It is a most difficult and contentious area, but we cannot exclude it wholly from consideration in a trial. If we did, as the Home Secretary said, we would risk making juries unwilling to convict, as it would be urged on them in the proceedings that they had not been able to consider that aspect.
It is arguable, although more questionable, that, if persistent rape accusations had been made by the complainant in comparable circumstances, all of which had been disproved, that might have a bearing on the case. The hon. Lady should be wary of attacking her friends on this issue, because it is certainly our view that there should be reform in the legislation to minimise the use of sexual history, which is so rarely relevant, in rape cases.
There could be a quid pro quo, so that, when evidence of the complainant's sexual history was allowed, the prosecution should be allowed to adduce evidence of the defendant's. That should certainly deter the unscrupulous use of sexual history by the defence in an attempt to excite hostility to the complainant among the jury. We will consider the Government's proposals during our further proceedings and we may table amendments to explore such possibilities.
We also want the Government to consider anonymity. Complainants in rape cases rightly have anonymity, which is critical in limiting intrusion into the alleged victim's life and in encouraging the reporting of crime. Consideration should also be given to granting anonymity to the defendant, as used to happen. The anonymity ofthe alleged victim can be completely undermined when the defendant is identified.
Because of the extremely grave social stigma of such cases, it can be argued that individuals should retain their anonymity while no case is proven. Reputations can be ruined merely by allegations, even when there is subsequent acquittal. Revelations about admitted sexual relations with the complainant may be damaging in themselves and would never have been made public but for the charge of which the defendant is acquitted. Even when the whole story is found to be false, people suffer from the claim that there is no smoke without fire. We have all heard that statement made, often in very unjust and inappropriate circumstances.
This is not a theoretical argument. Some individuals have committed or attempted suicide because of reports of the charges that have been made. We may never know whether they were innocent or guilty, but the knowledge that that pressure is there should be a warning to us.
We therefore want the Government to consider further the idea of anonymity for the defendant unless and until a conviction is obtained.
Another aspect of the Bill that has excited controversy and been referred to by everyone who has spoken in the debate is the extension of reporting restrictions. Part II, chapter IV extends those restrictions with the aim of giving clearer protection to certain witnesses. Clause43 extends current restrictions on the identification of alleged child and juvenile offenders and witnesses, and is to be applied before court proceedings start.
There has been some concern about that in the media. We understand and accept the aim of the clause, and recognise the fact that the Government have already attempted to tighten the provisions, but some criticisms are still being made and it is important that we get the rules right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |