| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Vera Baird: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is at a loss. The number of women against whom there are allegations of sexual misconduct of the kind that he posits can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand in any given year, and, as he must know, almost all defendants are male. The impact of any measure levelled against defendants in such cases will fall on women defendants: that is 100 per cent. certain. It is therefore not sensible to suggest that there is any parity of concern.
The inspectorates of the constabulary told the police that they were not investigating cases properly because they thought they would fail. The inspectorates of the CPS told the CPS that it was not trying hard enough to make the police investigate, and that it was not pursuing prosecutions vigorously enough because it too expected them to fail. There is even a substantial argument for the case that the judiciary does not put its back into trying to secure proper trials because it shares that expectation. It is all due to the old baggage that we must still carry with us.
The Government have taken steps to improve the position. The police now have a clear policy and clear guidance to ensure that they investigate rapes properly, because the Home Office told them to obtain that guidance. As a direct result of the work of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, who is present, there will be specialist rape prosecutors whose guidance will require them to ensure that the police investigate properly. At long last, the judiciary will have to undertake serious sexual offence training courses to help them to understand the importance of dealing sensitively with rape cases, and of not being cavalier. All those moves convey the message that we take rape complaints seriously from day one until the final outcome. Women are being sent a good message—the message that they will be supported by the powers that be if they come forward, and that they will be given a fair hearing.
1.45 pm
How will that message survive, though, if another message is sent by us today? What if the impression is gained that Parliament considers sexual offences so unlikely to lead to convictions that it is earmarking them for special treatment, granting anonymity only to this sector of defendants? This other message will tell people "We have gone through the motions of telling the police and the CPS to try a bit harder. We have asked the judiciary to put behind them prejudices that they have expressed all too often. But we truly, truly do not mean it, because even we think that sexual offences are highly unlikely to produce convictions."
Of course there is concern about people who are accused before being charged, and about the publicity that follows. As almost everyone has conceded, however, that applies equally to offences across the board. The dangers of earmarking sexual offences are very clear. Women who have suffered perpetual anguish, unable to obtain justice, will be sent a message that the criminal justice system is happy in the belief that it is more important for a few defendants in a specific category not to be put through what would probably be a transient anguish. "Stay in perpetual anguish—we will not support you" is not a message that I want the House to send, and I dare say that the Government will not let it be sent.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I broadly sympathise with the general approach adopted in amendments (a) and (b), but I want to make four points.
First, if we are to grant anonymity it is probably right for it to apply to all offences, not just sexual offences. I agree with the conclusion of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), although I am bound to say that I did not agree with her argument.
My second point is fairly narrow, but it is worth bearing in mind, because the amendments may give rise to legislation. In any definition of the prohibited characteristics of the alleged offender such as appears in subsection (3) of amendment (a), it would be wise to include the relationship of that person with the alleged victim. Although that probably falls within the scope of subsection (2), once we set about identifying particulars, we had best include the relationship with the alleged victim. For example, referring to a close relative of the alleged victim would identify the person involved. That does not fall within the scope of subsection (3), but it probably does fall within that of subsection (2). In any event, I think it worth including as a specific identifying criterion.
My third point is that it is absolutely right to provide a power to apply to the court to disapply the general prohibition. The police officer should be of a rank superior to the rank of chief inspector, which is not sufficiently high for such an important application. The Bill should prescribe the criteria that the officer has to satisfy. In the Bill, we are looking at the interests of justice, but that is a general phrase. However, in most cases, the application will be made to secure the arrest of someone who is seeking to evade arrest. It would be preferable for the criteria to be tightly defined in place of the general language in amendment (a).
My fourth point is a technical one, but it is worth making. In law, the publisher is often deemed to include the vendor. The retailer of newspapers can, for certain purposes, be described as the publisher in libel cases. Everyone who is responsible for making something public becomes the publisher. I would be surprised if anyone intends the vendor of a newspaper, as opposed to the editor or the proprietor, to be caught by the provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has identified that possibility in his amendment, but amendment (a) does not cover the situation accurately. It is important to make it plain that the retailer of newspapers, who is entirely innocent in the matter, is not held liable in law, otherwise, we will interfere with free speech. Only people who are genuinely liable should be caught by the penal provision. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has already covered that in his amendment.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is there not a more general application of the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made about the definition of publisher? Do we not need a new construction of the law because the present construction is rather archaic and unhelpful in defining the difference between someone who publishes a piece of literature and someone who sells it?
Mr. Hogg: That may be right, but one would want to look at the definition with regard to particular statutes. We do not want to revisit the general construction or interpretation of statutes measure that was passed at the end of the 19th century to make a general provisions test of the meaning of publisher. We should deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
Paul Goggins: It was remiss of me not to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on his recent appointment as shadow Attorney-General. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating him now.
As always in our debates on this issue, the nature of the discussion, while we disagree fundamentally about certain aspects, has been constructive, and our progress on the voluntary route has been genuinely welcomed by Opposition Members, for which I am grateful. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield generously acknowledged that the Government's argument has a great deal of force. Indeed, on a previous occasion, he acknowledged that the voluntary route might work. He was sceptical, as he was again today, but he did not rule it out. I urge him even at this stage to reconsider his decision on any forthcoming votes and say that he is persuaded to give the voluntary route a chance to work instead of supporting the amendment. He argued strongly that he has done his best to draw his amendment as tightly as possible, for which I pay tribute to him. Even so, the amendment gives rise to two difficulties. First, it does not rule out speculation before a police investigation has begun.
Mr. Grieve: I entirely accept that. In a free society, that is something that it is difficult—and in some circumstances wrong—to control. If, for instance, the
police refused to take action following serious allegations about a high-profile figure, the free press might have a role to play in risking the libel laws and publishing their material. I would not dream of wanting to interfere with that.
Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made, and he has given an example of such action. The expectation out there is that the amendment would catch such behaviour, but it clearly would not.
Secondly, I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept that the point at which it is decided not to make a charge is not always a precise moment in time, so judging when it had been reached would be tricky. In our discussions of the amendments we have said much about the media, but not about the police. I emphasise that our attempt to move down the self-regulation routes applies equally to the police and the media. I am determined to ensure that any hint or evidence that the police are passing information on to the media is dealt with most severely.
Mr. Heath: It is not at the moment, but it should be.
Paul Goggins: We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to toughen the guidelines and make sure that if money changes hands, and if it can be proved to be a criminal offence, the required action is taken. That is possible under the voluntary arrangements sought by the Government, which are not a soft option.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |