| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Double Jeopardy Rule
10. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): What estimate he has made of the number of cases that resulted in an acquittal that would be the subject of a new trial were the double jeopardy rule relaxed in line with the Law Commission's current proposals; and how many of them would result from the application of DNA testing. [137455]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It is not possible to make an informed estimate. That is because the existing doctrine of autre fois acquit means that the police do not generally seek fresh evidence in relation to someone acquitted of an offence.
Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his attempt to answer my question. Does he agree that protection against being tried twice for the same crime is a fundamental protection in our law that has existed for many centuries, and that it exists to safeguard the individual against the power of the state? Before we tamper with such a safeguard, we ought to have answers to the sort of question that I have put today. Until we have detailed evidence, we should go no further in considering a change to our law.
Mr. Boateng: I must resist the temptation either to agree or to disagree with my hon. Friend, bearing in mind that the matter is being considered by the Law Commission. We have promised to reflect on its final submissions; when we have done so, I shall be able to give my hon. Friend some satisfaction, one way or the other.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Can the Minister confirm that the Government are not merely considering relaxing the protection against double jeopardy, but contemplating doing so retrospectively?
Given that the Government have now attacked most of the spheres in which people know there are protections in the law and care about them--the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence and now the relaxation of the rule against double jeopardy--is not justice being put in jeopardy and people's confidence in the law being undermined?
Mr. Boateng: The criminal law, rightly, takes a dim view of retrospectivity. The Government will, of course, consider the recommendation of the Law Commission, when it comes, but I should be extremely surprised if the Law Commission recommended retrospectivity.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Would it not be useful for the critics to study the recent publication by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the subject?I recognise that the issue cannot be lightly decided, but let me illustrate the essence of the matter. If a person has been acquitted of murder, but DNA evidence later demonstrates that there can be hardly any doubt that that person was involved in that serious crime, what consideration are we giving the victim of that terrible crime if we proceed on the basis that, regardless of any evidence, an individual who has been acquitted should not be brought before a court again?
Mr. Boateng: We had a good debate on the issue in Westminster Hall. The House has now heard the two sides of the argument. The recommendations and conclusions of the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, were well argued and highly persuasive. No doubt the Law Commission will take them into account when reaching its final opinion.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Does the Minister agree that the Lawrence report recommended that there should be a change in the law because in exceptional cases where there is overwhelming evidence--for example, from DNA testing--it is wrong that someone cannot be tried because of the current law on double jeopardy?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who sits on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, makes a powerful point on behalf of the victim, a point that the Government will surely take into account when reflecting on the Law Commission's final recommendations.
Domestic Burglaries
12. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): If he will make a statement on recent trends in the incidence of domestic burglaries. [137457]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The reported crime figures published in July 2000 show a fall in the total numbers of domestic burglaries of 24 per cent. in the past three years--down from 582,000 in the year ending March 1997 to fewer than 443,000 in the year ending March 2000.
The British crime survey shows that the total number of domestic burglaries, including those that are not reported to, or recorded by, the police, has fallen from just over 1.6 million in 1997 to under 1.3 million in 1999--a 21 per cent. reduction.
Mr. Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. I welcome especially the Government's efforts to reduce crime, particularly that of burglary. May I suggest that Governments cannot act alone? We need the police and voluntary organisations such as neighbourhood watch and Hillfields watch in Coventry. More importantly, of the 150,000 pensioner households that may come within the new lock scheme, what proportion will be in the west midlands, and what proportion of that will be in Coventry?
Mrs. Roche: I shall write to my hon. Friend about the precise breakdown. The schemes have been available and we have tried to target those who are in most need. I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures reflect a partnership approach, with the public, community groups and the police coming together to fight crime. Today's announcements on youth justice reform will also assist with the national roll-out of electronically monitored curfew orders for juvenile offenders.
Liquor Licensing
13. Mr. John Grogan (Selby): What assessment he has made of the responses to the liquor licensing reform White Paper. [137458]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We are considering responses to the White Paper. We hope to announce decisions on the way forward very soon. I am pleased by the level of support for the proposed modernisation of the system.
Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the responses to the White Paper indicate a widespread acceptance of the principle that more flexible opening hours for licensed premises would improve public order because no longer at closing time would many people, including some who had been drinking against the clock, spill out on to the streets at exactly the same time chasing fast food or transport home? Will he note the response of a Scottish publican who recently observed, rather pityingly, of the English and Welsh, "Even Cinderella was allowed to stay up until midnight"?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. There is strong support from the police for the way in which we are reforming our licensing system. The system that we inherited was out of date and bureaucratic. Our reforms will provide a streamlined and simplified system of licensing for the vast majority of premises that provide hospitality. We shall reduce the red tape that has constrained the industry and provide safeguards
against drunkenness, other anti-social behaviour and under-age drinking. We want to ensure that the police are given powers to deal with problems of anti-social behaviour that are associated with drunkenness. We have had support from landlords and community groups for our proposals.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Will the Minister confirm press reports saying that the Government do not now intend to introduce early legislation to reform licensing hours? If that is true, does he accept that many members of the public and many in the industry willfeel extremely let down? When will he publish the consultation responses and explain the Government's change of heart? The Minister has told us for four months that he will do so shortly. Will he promise to make his announcement to the House before telling the outside world his conclusions? Does he agree that it would be
monstrous if he made the announcement in his speech to the Local Government Association licensing conference tomorrow, without having told the House first?
Mr. O'Brien: I was not proposing to make a big announcement tomorrow, so the hon. Gentleman need not fear. The White Paper is long overdue. His party failed to deal seriously with licensing. The Government have introduced serious proposals which have received widespread support from the industry and from the police. We are giving serious consideration to the 1,200 responses to the White Paper. I shall ensure that those are available in the House of Commons Library when we have had the chance--[Interruption.] There were 1,200 responses. The White Paper provoked considerable comment, which we shall examine with great care. We want to ensure that we have a licensing system that works--something that we did not inherit from the hon. Gentleman's Government.
Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the Secretary of State for Defence is in Brussels today undertaking negotiations that will in effect undermine the coherence and success of the most successful military alliance that the world has ever seen. You will also understand that these actions on the part of the Secretary of State and the Government are being carried out without any consultation with the House at all. In view of the very serious nature of those talks and the events that may flow from them, may we look to you to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence gives the House tomorrow an account of what has transpired today and of what is in store for British forces?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |