| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss McIntosh: The point that concerns me under the Bill is that it does not clarify sufficiently what level of proof and evidence has to be brought on the particular point that the Minister has raised.
Kate Hoey: I did not quite grasp what the hon. Lady was asking. Will she repeat it?
Miss McIntosh: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to elaborate on this matter at greater length, but the Bill clearly talks about what should happen if the accused was insane at the time. Under clause 1(2)(a), the CCRC can refer a case
- "because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings which led to the verdict".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, again, we are going wide of the subject and extending the case being put before us on Third Reading. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister did talk about such matters, but sometimes the Deputy Speaker gives a Minister some leeway, in order to assist the House. Can we now return to the Third Reading debate?
Kate Hoey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Lady asked about is a matter for the CCRC. I suggest that she visits the commission, which will give her a full explanation of how it goes about its difficult job.
In the previous Session of Parliament, Lord Ackner introduced a Bill intended to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, to enable the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer a verdict of guilty but insane to the Court of Appeal, and to give the court powers to hear and dispose of an appeal on such a reference. That Bill was unable to complete its parliamentary passage, but on its Second Reading on 29 July last year, the Government made it clear that we fully supported its intention.
In this Session, Lord Ackner has introduced the present Bill, which has the same aim as the earlier one. It had its Second Reading in another place on 23 March, and was welcomed on both sides of the Chamber. No amendments were tabled, and no peer wished to speak during the Committee stage, so the order of commitment was discharged on 13 April. The Bill had its Third Reading, without debate, on 22 April. Its Second Reading and Committee stage in the House of Commons went through on the nod on 14 May. That is why, as I have already said, some hon. Members wanted to say something on Third Reading.
The Government accept that there is a gap in the law, which the Bill would fill. It is important for the maintenance of confidence in our system of justice--and important, above all, to individuals who believe that an injustice has been done to them--that there should be a means by which verdicts of the courts can be reviewed.
At present, someone against whom the verdict of guilty but insane has been returned has no avenue of appeal. That is the problem for Mr. Iain Hay Gordon. Although that verdict has been replaced, by today's standards the lack of an appeal right is an injustice--no less so for being a long-standing one. It seems particularly unjust when we remember that there is a right of appeal against the finding or verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
It is always difficult to give exact numbers, but it seems that there is only one other such case besides that of Mr. lain Hay Gordon, and there are not likely to be more. Moreover, there is no definite evidence that if the Bill is read for the Third time, the person concerned will use the change in the law to appeal. We are certainly not opening a floodgate.
I understand that if the Bill becomes law, the Criminal Cases Review Commission will carefully consider where Mr. Hay Gordon's case fits into the range of cases with which it is dealing. It may decide to give that case priority, or it may not; I am sure that its staff will read carefully what has been said in the House.
Mr. Swayne:
Does the hon. Lady accept that the number of cases to which the Bill may give rise is immaterial? If justice requires that a remedy be provided, even for only one case, is that not sufficient to merit the change in the law?
Kate Hoey:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That would be my view, and, I think, that of all hon. Members. If the law needs to be changed to prevent one case of injustice, that is worthy of a change in the law. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that earlier this morning there were some discussions about the CCRC's resources. I shall not talk about that now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apart from saying that we increased those resources by 15 per cent. this year, and there are now more workers in the commission. However, this case will not make a huge difference to the CCRC's work load or the resources that it will need.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South in the Home Affairs Committee, which recommended in its March report on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission that a fair passage should be given to this uncontroversial measure. The Government have sought to facilitate that, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have had some correspondence with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who has been helpful throughout. My officials kept closely in touch with Lord Ackner about the present Bill, and the Government are satisfied that it is properly drafted to achieve its objective and correct the long-standing anomaly.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
When the Bill was debated in another place, my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman said that the Opposition would welcome and support it, and I am pleased to repeat that welcome and that support for the Bill today. As my hon. Friend the
However, the case of Mr. Hay Gordon has done more than reveal a potential injustice to one man; it has drawn attention to a gap in the law, and to the existence of a category of people who, through legislative oversight, are denied the right of appeal that we would consider just and necessary for any citizen convicted of a criminal offence.
As the Minister said, the difficulties can be traced back to the interpretation placed on the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 by the House of Lords, which in 1914 ruled that a person found guilty but insane was deemed by the courts to have been acquitted, because the person lacked the guilty mind required for him to be convicted of an offence.
As the verdict of guilty but insane was equivalent to acquittal, it followed that there could be no right of appeal, as in law there was no guilt. That gave rise to the crazy situation in which a man could have been labelled both guilty and insane by a court of law, but have no right of appeal, whatever new evidence or legal challenge might in other circumstances have been available to him.
In the 1960s, as the Minister said, Parliament decided to abolish the verdict of guilty but insane and to substitute the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. At the same time, it introduced a right of appeal against such a verdict.
Mr. Leigh:
My hon. Friend described the situation as crazy, but perhaps it is not so crazy. Did not the Court of Appeal determination mean that the original verdict in effect found the accused to be not guilty, as he could not possibly have had the mens rea--the guilty mind--to commit the offence? Therefore, does not my hon. Friend agree that the jury and judge involved did not come to a determination about whether the person had committed an offence? No one has addressed that point adequately so far.
Mr. Lidington:
It is not for me to inquire today into the state of mind of the House of Lords in 1914. However, it is plainly wrong and unjust in terms of common sense and natural justice for any British citizen in the position of Mr. Hay Gordon--that is, suffering the stigmas of guilt and insanity attached by the public verdict of a court--to be denied any form of redress or appeal. Dickens described the law as "a ass--a idiot", and this provision needs to be amended.
The Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which set up the Criminal Cases Review Commission, provided that any reference by the commission to the Court of Appeal should be treated as an appeal against a verdict. Because the 1914 House of Lords decision meant that there was no right of appeal against a verdict of guilty but insane, it followed that there could be no reference of such cases by the commission to the Court of Appeal.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |