| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I entirely associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments about the way in which this terrible case--not least, the image of that two-year-old child being led away to his death--traumatised a generation of parents more than any other event in the decade. It has
had serious consequences; children are under much greater supervision and are not allowed the freedom that our generation enjoyed to explore the areas in which we lived. All of us who are parents know the anxiety that single events--thankfully, rare events--cause parents.
The European Court was right to accept that our age of criminal responsibility is lawful. As it pointed out, the age of 10 is higher than in some other member countries, including--I add this to the judgment, which omitted it--Scotland, where the age of criminal responsibility is eight, not 10.
The court made two decisions in respect of articles3 and 6. One was in the United Kingdom Government's favour, and the other went in the applicants' favour. They must be studied with considerable care, but they have implications for the venue and form of trial. While the juvenile courts are able to deal with less serious matters--their sentencing power is about to be increased under the Detention and Training Order so that they can give sentences of two years--we would have to think long and hard about whether that venue would be appropriate for trying grave crimes. Frankly, I doubt it. We shall have to consider alternative systems for such trials.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
Those of us who practise in the criminal court--and, indeed, society as a whole--have great difficulty with the judgment. I have recently completed a trial of a murder case in which I acted for a defendant of 16. Neither the forum nor the procedures prevented me from properly representing that young man. I ask the Home Secretary to remind everyone that the two persons whom we are discussing are undoubtedly guilty of murder. Has there been a recommendation for compensation? If so, how much? How does it equate with any payments that may have been made to the parents of the young boy who was killed?
I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and ask the Home Secretary whether the language of the convention is being strained in this case. Should he not seek ways of impressing on the court that it should be wary of disturbing the practices and institutions of courts that have been established in democratic states by democratic bodies? If it goes on doing that, it will fundamentally undermine our respect for the convention and the court.
Mr. Straw:
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first observation, I of course accept his wide experience, as someone who practises at the criminal Bar. There are significant differences between a trial in which a 16-year-old is the defendant--[Interruption.] No, we must consider this serious point as we take account of the judgment. There is a huge difference between 10-year-olds and 15 or 16-year-olds, some of whom pass for adults and are only a year from the age at which they are treated as adults for certain purposes of the criminal law under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Indeed, only a few years ago, they were treated as adults for all purposes. This case has been made particularly difficult at all stages because the defendants were 10 when they committed the crime and 11 when they were convicted of it. I must also place it on record, as the court did, that the trial judge and everyone else made huge
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to say whether the two youths were undoubtedly guilty of those crimes. As he knows, that was the conviction of the court. I understand that there was no appeal against that conviction at the time to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, and it is not affected by this morning's judgment. There was no recommendation for compensation because no compensation was claimed by the applicants or their representatives. The other point that he made should be the subject of wider discussion at another time and I refer him to my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I would add, however, that I believe that, had we incorporated the European convention into our domestic law some decades ago--that was resisted by parties on both sides of the House for quite a period--we would have achieved in practice greater benefit than we have from the margin of appreciation.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I echo the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Does the Home Secretary accept that, from time to time in a mature democracy and a mature judicial system, we have the right to review what has been, and that what may have been appropriate 50 years ago may no longer be appropriate? Surely this case and others could show that it may be time to review altogether our relationship with the convention and the court. It may now be inappropriate for a body sitting in another country and far from here, and with perhaps a completely different outlook on life, to intervene--albeit with our voluntary consent up to now--in the proper, mature and accountable dealings of our judicial system, supported by our democracy.
Mr. Straw:
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to think about whether we should remain members of the Council of Europe, that is a matter for him. We cannot cherry-pick our international obligations. We are members of the Council of Europe, which, in my judgment, has been a huge force for human good and has reduced the risk of world war. There were two such wars in a generation in Europe and millions of people were killed. Applicant countries that have emerged from Soviet control are having to bring their judicial systems up to the standards set by the Council of Europe as a result of international obligations imposed on them. It is because of the international rule of law, from which this country benefits, that other Council of Europe members have also had to accept the decisions of the court--and they do accept them.
I--and Her Majesty's Government--have no proposals for withdrawal from the Council of Europe and its obligations. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the issue, that is a matter for him, but this is an argument in which he must engage within his own party. When his party was in government, it supported the convention, and supported the Council of Europe. His own shadow Lord Chancellor supported the incorporation of the convention into our domestic law when the Bill that became the
Human Rights Act 1998 was going through the other place; and I remind him that, on Third Reading here, the Opposition Front Bench supported incorporation, and did not vote against it. I am pleased about that, because it demonstrated all-party support. As I explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), incorporation will enable us to ensure, over time, that the court is more sensitive in regard to our domestic law and traditions. The answer is not withdrawal from the Council of Europe.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
I have no appetite for arguing with my own party, but the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State responsible for this matter. Will he consider the proposition that a perfectly proper and proportionate response to this judgment, and to a number of others, would be to conclude that the Council of Europe may have outlived its usefulness as far as the United Kingdom is concerned? [Interruption.] Such a conclusion might not be welcomed by certain Members who have made a career of the Council of Europe, but it would resonate among members of the public.
Mr. Straw:
I do not accept that view, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was never taken by the Conservative Governments whom he supported. I will not detain the House, but there is a long list of occasions on which the House has been asked to introduce legislation to bring our domestic arrangements in regard to one part of the law or another into line with judgments against us in the Strasbourg court. Under the last Conservative Government, that ranged from changes made with regard to the interception of communications to changes in respect of discretionary life sentences, included in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and changes contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, passed in the dying days of that Government.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
This case raises huge issues that go to the heart of our judicial system and, indeed, our democracy, and one tends to worry about whether people fully understand all the ins and outs of the legal system. Will the Home Secretary consider how we might continue to engage the public in a discussion of questions arising from the case? Today's statement has
Mr. Straw:
It remains an unfortunate fact that the public are too detached from the way in which our judicial system operates, which in turn leads to insufficient public confidence in our court system. There are a number of ways of dealing with that. One is through a thorough review of the way in which the courts operate. I am pleased to say that, on Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced just such a review, which is being undertaken by Lord Justice Auld, and which will take account of the implications of the Human Rights Act for the court system.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |