| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Vera Baird (Redcar): I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with great interest. If clause 65 is redrafted, will such a defendant in a retrial be in a worse position than a defendant who has already been convicted but for whom the Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial, assuming that publicity surrounded the case when it was tried for the first time? Simon Hughes: I do not know. I will think about that. It would be interesting to know the statistics for the number of verdicts that the Court of Appeal quashes and the number of retrials that it orders. I suppose that the numbers are very small. I have not read any academic research, although I imagine that papers have been written on the subject. It is the sort of issue that law reviews would have examined. The difference may lie in the likely mindset of jurors who know that a conviction was quashed, which may give rise to the presumption that something was wrong in the previous trial. The quashing of an acquittal may give rise to the presumption of guilt. Vera Baird: I suspect that the public sometimes think that convictions are quashed on technicalities and that judges intervene in trials where jurors, like them, passed a verdict of not guilty. There is therefore an opposing argument. Simon Hughes: That is true. Sometimes when trials are discontinued and the judge orders a verdict of not guilty, the jurors go away bemused because they were sure that the defendant was guilty and because it was clear that only a technical, legal argument prevented the defendant from being found so. Have the Government consulted other Departments or the Law Officers? I include consideration that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport might have given to the issue, as it clearly has an interest. Has there been any deliberation with colleagues in Scotland that might seek to address the media frenzy that now surrounds cases that are seen by the courts as being causes célèbres. There were famous trials a hundred years ago. Indeed, Edgar Lustgarten made a living retelling trials that were extremely famous in their day. The Column Number: 479 difference between then and now is that there was no wall-to-wall coverage. There was no television, and earlier on there was no radio. There were fewer papers and fewer readers. Although there were famous trials in the general sense, there was nothing like the current dissemination of information. I hope that the Government have thought about whether further steps can or need to be taken to ensure that if we go down this road there is even the beginning of a chance of a fair trial for many of the people who come to be retried. This is probably the most serious consideration in getting a fair trial other than the issues relating to previous convictions, which we will come to later. I hope that we can find our way to the best solution, whatever position we start from.The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): My hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman's amendments, but perhaps I could tell him now that the legal secretariat to the Law Officers is collating information about contempt cases that the Attorney-General has issued and warnings that he has given. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman and send copies to members of the Committee. I do not know how far back we will go. Although we can go back beyond 1997, because the Law Officers' Department is the one Department where the shutters do not come down with a change of Government, it may be difficult to retrieve the information. We will go back as far as we can, and I will let him have the information as soon as possible. Simon Hughes: That is extremely helpful. I am grateful. Perhaps the Solicitor-General might be able later to add to the Minister's comments and tell us whether work has been done or is planned to consider whether the current remedy is sufficient. Are there any discussions either across Departments or between England and Wales and Scotland about that? It is no good having a remedy that is only for England and Wales if publication happens in Scotland or Northern Ireland. This is one of those issues that are affected by global communication. That was highlighted by Sunday's little episode and the question whether the papers in Britain could publish stories about German politicians because of the limited controls that can be exercised from one country over the press in another. There are none the less real issues here. I hope that the Committee will accept that this is a matter of serious concern. I also hope that the Minister can help us by answering some of the questions and offer some suggestions on how we can collectively reduce the media abuse. Increasingly often that abuse prevents fair trials first time round and it might increasingly often mar the second-time-round trials envisaged here. Indeed, it might make them entirely impossible unless we get this right. Hilary Benn: This has been a useful discussion. We have touched on some of the issues that we will come to later. It might be helpful if I point out to hon. Members that responses to the criminal justice White Paper relating to access to information are to be found both on the Home Office website and in the Library. I am sure that the website will now receive many more hits. Column Number: 480 On amendment No. 314, in large measure, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield answered his own question, because as he recognised, subsection (2)(a) already provides for a wide range of circumstances, including those that are identified in the amendment, to be taken into account by the Court of Appeal in deciding whether a fair trial is likely to be possible. In that sense, the amendment is unnecessary, but if it is of assistance, I am happy to confirm on record that the considerations in subsections (1) and (2)(a)—the interests of justice and the possibility of a fair trial—would include the impact of any publicity on the likelihood of a fair trial. That is what is intended, whether that publicity relates to the original proceedings, which the amendment is restricted to, or any other matter.
3.30 pmThe hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised several points. We will come on to clauses 69 and 70, which are standard provisions, as their wording replicates existing legislation on reporting restrictions. I understood his point about two-tier justice, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General answered that in noting rightly that the problem is no different from that which may occur when a retrial is ordered. The hon. Gentleman asked about jurors in a retrial who recollect that the case has been subject to trial before. It may not happen in all circumstances, and it is not a relevant consideration that would be automatically drawn to their attention, but even if they happen to know, they will be directed to reach a verdict only on the evidence that is put before them. The hon. Gentleman crystallised the broader point in his final question about consideration by Ministers, and he drew attention to an important issue from which we should not run away. The issue is not unique to the provisions on double jeopardy. Simon Hughes: I was not advancing that argument. Hilary Benn: Indeed, not. The point that I was going to make is that we cannot resolve the problem in relation to the double jeopardy provisions. The current protections—we will come to the detail later—and the consideration that both the Court of Appeal and trial judge have to give to the prospect of a fair trial after any prejudicial coverage remains the same as for any other trial. The Bill does not include any proposals to deal with the broader issue, but the hon. Gentleman put his finger on an important point in this age of 24-hour communication and news coverage. As we have seen with recent cases, to which as a society we will need to return, those developments change the context in which court proceedings take place and create a new challenge to which we have to respond. Simon Hughes: Do the Government have anything in mind to deal with the fact that whether a jury may know that they are involved in a retrial could depend on different jurors' recollections? Given that the judge may never know that someone in the jury room has said that the case has been to trial before, have the Government contemplated whether it would be better to take the bull by the horns and allow the judge to confront the issue at the beginning of the trial? He Column Number: 481 could say that some jurors may know that the matter has been to court before, but that it should not affect their starting presumptions. I ask the question because I assume that it must have come up in deliberations between Ministers and advisers. Has thought been give to that, and what were the conclusions, either provisional or final?Hilary Benn: I undertake to reflect on that point. There are arguments either way, but since we shall be writing to hon. Members with the information that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General indicated that she would find, I will also respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I intend to press the matter to a vote, if only to draw attention to our concern about clause 66, which I believe to be of fundamental importance. It might also provide some encouragement to the Government to consider the matter carefully and to provide us with further reassurance on Report. Question put, That the amendment be made:– The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 13.
Division No. 19]
AYES
NOES
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 21 January 2003 |
