Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mrs. Brooke: I welcome the amendment. The naturists on Studland beach will be able to enjoy their time so much more. Obviously, they do not intend to cause offence but they have great concerns when they

3 Nov 2003 : Column 561

are aware that there are walkers on the beach who do not know that they are there. I am sure that naturists all over the country will welcome the amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I shall be glad if anybody welcomes any Government amendment this evening, but I have to say to naturists, on Studland beach or anywhere else, that they will be subject to the law. If they intend, by exposing their genitalia, to cause alarm or distress, a file will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, who will consider the sufficiency of the evidence and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Lady's remarks.

As the hon. Lady knows from her involvement in the proceedings, a number of amendments were made in Committee, including the removal of recklessness, which reassured naturists that they would not be caught by the offence. However, it was clear from the debate in Committee and from the correspondence that we have received that naturists were still worried about this offence. We undertook to look at the clause again, and the amendment is our response. Hopefully, genuine naturist activity, whatever that might mean, does not include the intention to cause alarm or distress, so I hope that now that we have dropped knowledge from the offence and left only intention, naturists will be reassured.

Mr. Grieve: I can be very brief. All the Government amendments are acceptable. There is only one that I need positively to welcome because it does more than tidy up the provisions, and that is the amendment on which the Solicitor-General has just touched. That reassures naturists by removing knowledge from the offence, leaving intention. The right hon. and learned Lady will remember the debates in Committee. Clearly this is not a blanket dispensation to naturists to practise naturism wherever they choose. They will have to continue to exercise restraint and show due consideration for other people.

The point that is successfully met by the amendment, which I welcome, is the need to get rid of a situation in which a naturist goes to a remote beach where they legitimately do not expect, and certainly do not intend, anyone to be in any way insulted or distressed, but nevertheless are constantly aware that somebody might turn up unexpectedly. The amendment strikes the right balance, and I hope that it will allow naturists to practise naturism discreetly, freeing them from fear that they might be unfairly prosecuted while ensuring that there is still a robust framework to ensure that the situation is not abused.

The Solicitor-General: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Anonymity Of Suspects And Defendants In Certain Cases (No.2)

'(1) Where an allegation has been made that a person has

3 Nov 2003 : Column 562

committed an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, no matters relating to that person shall be included in any broadcast or publication that would result in his identification prior to such person being charged.
(2) If any matter is published or broadcast in contravention of subsection (1) the following persons, namely—
(a) the author or broadcaster, if the publication or broadcast took place with their consent;
(b) in the case of a publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor and publisher of such newspaper or periodical;
(c) in the case of any other publication, the person who publishes it; and
(d) in the case of matter included in any broadcast, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the broadcast is involved and any editor or controller of such broadcast
shall be guilty of the offence.
(3) Any offence hereunder shall be punishable
(a) on summary conviction by—
(i) a sentence of 6 months imprisonment,
(ii) a fine of Level 5 on the Standard scale,
(iii) or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment by—
(i) a sentence of 2 years imprisonment,
(ii) a fine,
(iii) or both.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This issue took up a considerable amount of time in Committee, and we need to consider it further before the Bill returns to another place. As the House will be aware, the Bill came from the Lords with an amendment, made against the Government's wishes, that would have ensured anonymity for those alleged to have committed rape and other offences right up to conviction and throughout the trial process. That was debated in Committee, where the Government argued forcefully that such a blanket prohibition on reporting might interfere with the interests of justice after charge and during the trial process, and that victims might not come forward if, while the police were attempting to identify other potential victims, they did not know that somebody had been charged with an offence. I fully accept the Government's second argument that anonymity went against the general principle that the trial process should take place in public, with the public being made aware of the identity of the person on trial.

New clause 4 does not seek to reopen that wider issue. However, a narrower issue received consideration in Committee—the publicity attached to those being investigated for sex offences prior to their being charged. Examples, some of them very recent, were given of individuals who had been subjected to great media scrutiny, adverse publicity, investigation and inquiry into their background, which was reproduced in the press, but who at the end of the day were not charged with anything at all. There has been a great deal of public disquiet about this issue, and one way of dealing with it would be to impose a prohibition on publicity, broadcasting or publication that identified the person under investigation once an allegation had been made to the police.

3 Nov 2003 : Column 563

As the Under-Secretary of State is aware, the purpose of new clause 4 is to facilitate that debate and impose such a prohibition. I apologise to the House because, as currently drafted, new clause 4 does not meet that objective. I felt that new clause 1, which the Liberal Democrats tabled, was flawed, and did my best to correct it by drafting new clause 4. However, the reference to schedule 3 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is erroneous—it should be to schedule 3 to the Bill. However, I do not think that the Minister was misled, and I believe that he fully understands the thrust and purpose of the new clause.

New clause 4 would prohibit broadcasting or publication identifying a suspect or defendant and would make such activity a criminal offence for the author or broadcaster if it

The provision would also impose penalties on newspapers, their publishers and owners for such publication or broadcasting. Punishment would be a fine or six months' imprisonment or, on conviction on indictment, two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): Many hon. Members may agree with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but how could the new clause be enforced in respect of overseas publications and the internet? In high-profile cases, the word on who is involved gets around rapidly. If the new clause cannot be enforced, why discuss it?

5.15 pm

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a limit on the territoriality of the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. It is therefore always possible to publish abroad material that cannot be published here. If someone published such material on the internet and it came into this country, however, they could be arrested and prosecuted if they subsequently happened to visit this country. I shall return to the issue of the internet in a moment, because it is important.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): My hon. Friend will know that publishing can be defined quite widely and could extend to the vendors of newspapers. Will he confirm that the new clause is not intended to catch small shops that sell newspapers?

Mr. Grieve: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's point. Proposed subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that the intention is not to catch the vendor, since it refers


Let me make the point clear—this is a difficult area of legislation, but that is not to say that we should not consider it. I am conscious that the new clause may contain a number of flaws, some of which I shall return to in a moment. I can already see some other areas that

3 Nov 2003 : Column 564

may need to be examined, but that is not to say that we do not need to consider this area. A serious situation is developing, and it will get worse.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there may be a fundamental difficulty with subsection (1), which states that

they cannot be identified prior to their being charged. It strikes me that in a case in which the authorities were looking for someone who could be in any part of the UK—Scotland, England or wherever—a complete ban on identification could lead to difficulties in catching them before they committed further crimes.

Next Section

IndexHome Page