Submission from Ms Sally Keeble MP
Many thanks for your letter, and for the very
close interest you have taken in this issue.
As I mentioned to you in the House, your committee
clerk very kindly phoned up and I have already made arrangements
to come and give evidence to your committee's inquiry.
I did some research into the issue, and considered
very carefully before raising the issue with the Leader of the
House last year. As I probably made clear in my last letter,[1]
the issue is one of balancing the right to ensure that people
get a fair trial with freedom of speech, and the need for MPs
to balance their role as legislators with their role as advocates
for their constituencies.
There will always be a tension. However, it
seems to me that there are a few points which make the application
of the House's present sub judice rule—in particular
as it applies to matters before coroners' court—militate
against fair speech, and MPs' ability to represent their constituents.
It is also out of line with the sub judice rule as it applies
to the media. I would make the following points:
(i) No-one is on trial at a coroner's
court. Although it seeks to establish the facts in relation to
deaths, there is a real limit to the verdicts that the court can
deliver—and they cannot impute blame to an individual.
(ii) The sub judice rule generally
only applies to trials heard by a jury. It is generally assumed
that judges are not influenced by others' views and opinions expressed
via the media and elsewhere. I would have thought that where a
coroner sits on their own without a jury, the same approach should
apply.
(iii) The application of the sub
judice rule is normally very time-limited, either from a warrant
being issued, or charges laid. Arguably whenever there is a suspicious
death, there is likely to be an inquest. This could mean that
the matter would be sub judice from the moment of the death
until the end of the final piece of legal action—which is
a very long time. If you take, for example, the death of the late
Princess of Wales, the inquest in the UK has been many years after
the event.
(iv) The application of the sub judice
rule is normally restricted to the very narrow matter before the
court. It is recognised that wider general issues of public concern
still have to be debated and discussed, and especially by those
of us who are MPs and usually want to see general public policy
issues dealt with by the Government.
The sub judice rule in relation to matters
before coroners' courts has been hard to apply consistently. For
example, the House of Lords has had an oral statement on Rainsbrook.
Rudi Vis MP had a written question answered on matters at the
heart of the issue about use of restraint at youth training centres.
So it is unclear why my inquiries on the subject have been so
comprehensively blocked.
I have trawled through the internet to see what
happens in other legislatures, and enclose some of the findings
(not printed). The Australians seem to have given it the most
thought, and the report on the matter in Queensland is helpful
in identifying the different strands of the argument. It also
includes some comparison with the Canadian approach and our own.
Also enclosed is a copy of the Canadian procedures, an interesting
set of recommendations from the Indian Parliament. And finally,
for more lively reading, an article from Trinidad which makes
similar points in blunter language.
I'm sorry if this arrives late, but it may be
of interest and assistance to the committee to see the way that
parliamentarians elsewhere have wrestled with this issue.
I look forward to meeting with your committee.
February 2005
1 Not printed. Back
|
