| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend may not be aware that there have been 80 similar prosecutions in America, not one of which has been successful. In such cases, it is virtually impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Dismore: I think my hon. Friend is making a slightly different point. What I am concerned about is ensuring a fair trial; I am also concerned about protecting the defendant.
Mr. Trend: There is a further complexity. I know that this is not a direct parallel, but, according to the hon. Gentleman's proposals, a case such as the Shipman case might be held in camera. Surely what the hon. Gentleman calls the media circus was helpful, in terms of the public good, in the Shipman case.
Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman should read the new clause a little more closely. I am not saying that there should be no publicity surrounding the case; I am saying that the publicity should follow, and not necessarily precede, the case. The new clause deals with circumstances in which it is open to the judge to say at the end of the case, "All bets are off. You can talk about the defendant." If the defendant is acquitted--Dr. Shipman was not acquitted, but Dr. Moor was--the position may be rather different. Irrespective of Dr. Moor's acquittal, what was the damage to his professional reputation as a result of his unsuccessful prosecution for murder? The new clause deals with that by allowing the judge to name the defendant at the end of the trial, and to allow everything that has gone on during the trial to be reported.
To an extent that already happens. Reporting is restricted in any event during a trial, but, once it is over, plenty of publicity can follow if a conviction is secured.
10.15 am
Mr. Miller: I found myself dealing with those very circumstances when one of my constituents was charged with murder in the United States. The difficulty lay in striking a balance between publicity that was beneficial to my constituent's defence--if it could be said to be beneficial for us to be followed everywhere by the wretched media circus, both in the courtroom and outside--and no publicity. I think that it would have been better for my constituent if there had been no publicity.
I do not think that the Shipman case can be separated from that case purely on the basis of the scale of Shipman's appalling offences. I feel that there must be a general rule covering all cases. Perhaps it is best to allow the judge to make the decision. Is that what the new clause does?
Mr. Dismore: Yes, it is a case of "On the one hand . . . on the other hand". My hon. Friend may have heard the old joke, "Please find me a one-handed lawyer."
If we do not address the matter in this way, by the time it reaches the judge it may be too late. If restrictions are not there in the first place and the judge tries to impose them after the event, he will be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Dr. Whitehead: I have read the new clause carefully, and it seems to me to constitute a catch-all publicity ban in all cases brought to court under the Bill, which, as we have established, concerns purpose rather than intention. It appears that there can be a range of degrees of prosecution. In some cases, it might be argued that disclosure was in the public interest; in other, borderline cases, it might be clear that it would be difficult not to prejudice the jury. I am thinking of cases that are very finely balanced. Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause does not distinguish between those two sets of circumstances, and thus over-eggs the pudding by failing to allow disclosure when it is clearly in the public interest?
Mr. Dismore: I see my hon. Friend's point, but I think he has misunderstood the Bill. It is an all-or-nothing Bill. My hon. Friend sees the distinction between the two sets of circumstances, and the wider public may also see it, but the Bill does not provide for the question of degree. It provides for one thing only: an extension of the law of murder. Only one count--effectively, a charge of murder--is available under the Bill, and only one sentence--life imprisonment--is available for murder under English law. There is no room for argument.
Although the circumstances were very different, Dr. Moor faced exactly the same charge as Dr. Shipman. At present, the law does not draw a distinction between Dr. Shipman and a doctor who is trying to do his best for his patient--in the case of Dr. Moor, by administering diamorphine to ease pain, but having the parallel effect of hastening death. If the Bill is passed, someone like Dr. Moor will be in exactly the same position as a mass murderer like Dr. Shipman. The restrictions that I propose are important to protect Dr. Moor, not Dr. Shipman.
Another aspect is the fear of lynch law. I say this with some diffidence, but again there is a distinction to be drawn between Dr. Moor and Dr. Shipman. After his arrest, I believe that Dr. Shipman was held in custody pending trial. Someone who is held on remand pending trial is protected to a degree in prison. Dr. Moor, however, would presumably have been out on bail pending his trial.
In the United States, people campaigning on the issue of abortion--which has some parallels with this issue--have behaved in a lynch-law manner towards doctors
accused of being abortionists. There is a website file listing the names and addresses of doctors, with old wild west-style "Wanted" posters. Four doctors and two clinical workers were killed; they were simply crossed off the list. A sniper used a high-powered rifle to kill a doctor as he stood in his kitchen. The same sniper was linked to several similar attacks on other doctors.I am concerned that if the names of doctors who are being prosecuted get out, as they would be out on bail they would be at risk from people who felt strongly about these issues taking the law into their own hands, because we do not have the death penalty. The hon. Member for Congleton supports the death penalty. If it were in force, she would presumably be prepared for the natural consequences of her argument, so, should the Bill become law, a doctor prosecuted for murder under clause 1 would face the death penalty if convicted.
The issue of reporting restrictions is dealt with in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The Government published a consultation report "Speaking up for Justice" on the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
I shall leave the defendant and deal with the parts of the new clause that concern the protection of witnesses and the name of the victim--the patient. It is important to bear in mind the fact that, from the prosecution point of view, we must protect witnesses--other medical professionals--not just from the ire of those who promote the causes that the Bill would prevent, but from other medical professionals who may ostracise witnesses for the prosecution who have come forward with evidence against one of their colleagues. I suspect that we have all experienced this in our professions. People who have broken ranks could be severely victimised for giving evidence for the prosecution. They are equally entitled to the protection of the law through anonymity, pending the outcome of the trial.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was in favour of the death penalty. Is he sure about that, because my principled support for her Bill was on the basis that she believed in the sanctity of life? I would welcome his confirmation that that is what he said and what he believes to be the case.
Mr. Dismore: I understand that to be the position. The hon. Lady is in her place, and I would happily give way to her should she want to correct the record if I have misrepresented her position. I see that she is not asking me to give way, so I assume that I have correctly stated her position that she is in favour of the death penalty. It would inevitably follow from a prosecution under clause 1--because she equates withdrawal or withholding of treatment to murder--that the doctor would face execution if she had her way.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): My hon. Friend will recall that when the Human Rights Bill was going through Parliament, I moved the only successful amendment against the Government, which took the death penalty completely out of British law. I also support the Bill. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will bear that in mind.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct. The death penalty is not part of United Kingdom law, and I welcome
that. I have been a long-standing opponent of the death penalty. However, who knows what will happen in a future Parliament? We know from our constituency work that many people support the death penalty. Should the hon. Lady's party come to power and a future Conservative Government be filled with people like her, who knows what legislation they would introduce? If I were still here, I would vote against the reintroduction of the death penalty, but neither this Parliament nor any other can bind its successors. I am highlighting the logical consequence of the hon. Lady's beliefs.Before the interesting intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), I was expressing my concern about the protection of prosecution witnesses.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |