Previous SectionIndexHome Page

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): There are two parts to the group of amendments. The first concerns protecting complainants in domestic violence cases. The second involves photography or television in court proceedings. New clause 3 is about automaticity of special measures in all domestic violence cases and new clause 9 deals specifically with civil proceedings and the use of special measures.

It is worth noting that special measures to protect vulnerable or intimidated witnesses were introduced by the Government in the 1999 Act. We made the improvements to encourage witnesses to come forward and overcome some of the barriers to giving evidence. Those special measures include screens to ensure that witnesses do not see the defendant and vice versa and the use of a live television link to the court room, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. In some circumstances, they involve clearing the court so that evidence can be given in private, allowing the removal of wigs and gowns—which some people find intimidating—and the use of intermediaries to help the witness to communicate with her legal team and the court, especially if there are language difficulties. The measures often include the recording of video evidence—the evidence-in-chief—of a witness. In fact, the main bulk can be pre-recorded and presented to the
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1485
 
court. That range of aids, known collectively as special measures, are relatively new. They are beginning to work well and are proving popular in some courts.

It is true that there are different categories of offences for the application of special measures. Unless the complainant opts out, there is automatic access to them in cases of alleged sexual offences, but given the special and sensitive nature of sexual offence allegations, which merit automatic availability of special measures, the law has been framed to make the distinction between automaticity for those cases and the ability to apply, and often be granted, special measures in other cases. Although we can all understand why that automatic arrangement exists in sexual offences cases, it may well not suit a variety of other cases to have an automatic arrangement, not least if a witness wants to face up to their perpetrator. I accept that that is not common in domestic violence cases, but it can be in other cases.

I am cautious about the new clauses because we are still in the early days of rolling out the special measures. Good work is under way, but some courts are still feeling their way forward. We should not underestimate, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will appreciate, the significant change in culture that is taking place in many courts, but it is right that that should proceed. More work is under way on the "no witness, no justice" initiative, to ensure that there is a comprehensive approach to meeting witness needs.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend spoke about a situation in which a victim might want to confront the perpetrator. Under the 1999 Act, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, that option is automatically available, but if he or she does not want it they can choose to opt out. The point is that it should be guaranteed to people who do want it.

Mr. Leslie: I accept that there are good arguments for the extension of special measures and the streamlining of the process that triggers them. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs suggested, for example, that there are good grounds for extending to civil courts, particularly in antisocial behaviour cases, the availability of special measures. There is a discussion in the legal community and in government about how we can extend certain provisions and make them easier to access. However, we must strike the right balance and recognise that, traditionally, many cases are heard in public. The first priority, of course, is that justice should be done, but the second is that it should be seen to be done. However, we should not throw away lightly the principle of allowing justice to be done, at least partly, in the public arena. It is important to evaluate properly the roll-out of special measures.

Mr. Llwyd: I do not follow the Minister's argument. Special measures for witnesses would not result in the hearing being held in camera. It would be held in public, but the witness, typically a woman, would be protected from the perpetrator of violence. Nobody is arguing
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1486
 
that proceedings should be in camera—they should be held in public—but there should be protection for witnesses.

Mr. Leslie: That is certainly true of many special measures but, as I said, clearing the court and public gallery to hold a hearing in private is one option in the special measures arsenal available to the judge and the court. We should be careful not to adopt a blanket approach to special measures, and must make sure that we have the right combination available for every case. As I said, we should evaluate carefully, but fairly quickly, what works best in which situations. Members on both sides of the House probably agree that we need to find ways of making victims and witnesses come forward and give evidence. Providing assurances at the outset is one method of doing so, but I beg hon. Members' indulgence as we need to look at an array of issues, including the use of video evidence versus recorded evidence. We must shift the balance in favour of victims and witnesses, but we must make sure that we get that right in relation to the legislation.

New clause 9 deals with civil proceedings, especially family cases. In those circumstances, I accept that victims of domestic violence can be fearful and feel intimidated in court. Most cases heard in the civil courts do not involve allegations of domestic violence. Alleged perpetrators are generally not on trial, and a finding against them does not usually lead to punishments such as a fine or imprisonment. The main witness, usually the victim, is already known to them.

Mr. Heath: To clarify an arcane point, under the Bill a criminal court will act as a civil court in making a restraining order following acquittal or conviction. However, will special measures available to witnesses in criminal court proceedings still be available in civil court proceedings?

Mr. Leslie: My understanding of the differences between the civil and criminal court is uneducated, but my answer is yes. The criminal court does not stop being a criminal court when it hears those cases. It will simply hear evidence admissible under civil proceedings.

The proposals in clause 1 to criminalise the breach of non-molestation orders mean that one of the most contentious and confrontational hearings in family courts can now be dealt with in the criminal court, where special measures will be available. Judges in the family court already have wide powers in cases in which they decide a victim is vulnerable or intimidated, for instance children or victims of domestic violence, and can take action to assist them in giving evidence. Such cases are usually heard in private, and wigs and gowns are not worn. Where civil and criminal courts share premises it is much easier for the technology needed for special measures, such as a video link arrangement, to be shared. A small number of courts, however, do not yet have that technology, and we are trying our best, not least through Her Majesty's Court Service, to extend those facilities as best we can. Generally, we are making progress and there are provisions in the civil and family courts to enable supported evidence to be given.

Amendment No. 20 and new clause 8 deal with other matters. New clause 8 would replace the blanket prohibition on photography in court with a prohibition
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1487
 
on the photographing of jurors, witnesses and parties to the case, but there would be discretion to photograph judges and lawyers. That provokes an interesting debate, so I welcome the tabling of the provision. On 29 August, the Secretary of State announced that the Government would shortly publish a consultation document on broadcasting court proceedings. There are no proposals to change existing legislation, but there will be a thorough examination, not least in the light of relatively recent developments such as the televising of Parliament, of the pros and cons of relaxing the blanket restrictions on broadcasting in the courts.

Since 1990, the House of Lords Appellate Committee judgments have been televised because they have taken place in the Chamber of the other place. If, however, through the constitutional reform programme we create a new separate supreme court, we need to think about how its judgments would be broadcast. We know that public confidence is aided when the justice system operates in the public arena and there are arguments in favour of a substantial degree of public access, but as I said, justice must be done and be seen to be done. That is not a sequential process; there is a priority order. Justice being done comes first, and we would not support anything that could deter witnesses or victims from coming forward and giving evidence. As hon. Members suggested, if it was thought that a television camera might be filming sensitive moments, I can easily imagine that might be the case.

That is why the Secretary of State said that he did not consider that appropriate. However, there may be other forums, as has been said—the Appeal Court, for instance—which do not usually have evidence in chief and where it might be appropriate to experiment. We are piloting in private, not to be broadcast, a scheme with the royal courts of justice, which will be strictly limited and controlled, in the circumstances that I set out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

I hope that I have covered the full breadth of the amendments and new clauses and that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw them.


Next Section IndexHome Page