Examination of Witness (Questions 160-179)
9 MARCH 2005
MS SALLY
KEEBLE MP
Q160 Mr Illsley: Throughout the submission
you have made and the case that you referred to, the Princess
Diana case, is it a question of delay which is the whole problem
here in achieving an inquest? Are we not in danger of disguising
the problem being that of delay by looking at the sub judice
rule? In other words, if a case in your constituency, for example,
occurred in April 2004, if an inquest had been held and decided
upon by May of that year and a decision had been taken as to whether
any criminal proceedings would follow on from that, the problem
would not have arisen, would it? You would perhaps have been happy
to have allowed that coroner's inquest to proceed and then a decision
to be taken. Most of the problems that you would want to refer
to flowing from that incident might have been addressed. Is it
a question that we could be confusing the real villain of the
piece here?
Ms Keeble: I have thought about
that point because it was raised during the process. I am not
convinced about that. One thing that is clear is that there has
never been any rationale for extending the sub judice rule
to the coroner's court. If you look at the joint committee's report,
it is slipped in, in 3(a), that a coroner's court counts as a
court of law and it is slipped in in Stephen Twigg's speech as
well. There has never been any justification or explanation for
it. It is right that the mischief would not be so bad if there
was not sometimes such a delay about coroners' courts, but there
is still a principle issue there about why and whether it is right
that a coroner's court should be included as a court in terms
of the rule. It is made much worse by the delay but quite often
you do see coroners' courts opening and adjourning and they remain
adjourned for a long time; or you get a sudden death and some
years later you get the inquest. Life has gone on in the meantime
and it does not influence the inquest. Is it really right that
theoretically during that time presumably you should not have
discussed the case? If you really look at it, it is probably not
appropriate to have a sub judice rule apply to coroner's
court.
Q161 Sir Robert Smith: One issue that
was put to us as to why you would want to include coroners' courts
was that their decisions can have an impact on people in terms
of the decisions they make and the outcome of the decisions of
the court can impact on people's lives. Therefore, it is a decision
that still should not be prejudiced.
Ms Keeble: Everything can have
an impact on people. Anything that is said in Parliament can have
an impact on people for a whole variety of reasons. When you are
talking about the sub judice rule, you are not just talking
about the courts; you are talking about the right of the individual
to have a fair trial and to be properly represented by their Member
of Parliament and therefore the right of free speech and how you
balance those two rights. If there is not a right to a fair trial
because it is a coroner's court, it would seem to me that the
sub judice rule is inappropriate because it prevents an
MP doing their job in other ways.
Q162 Chairman: Do you not take the view
that Parliament is the high court of Parliament and, because it
is the high court of Parliament and an exceptional place and people
often take what is said here as gospel, do you think therefore
that Members of Parliament need to be particularly and exceptionally
careful about what they say relating to a matter that is either
before a judicial court or even a coroner's court or, for that
matter, even an employment or other tribunal, where people cannot
necessarily be found guilty? What is said in Parliament might
well have an influence on the ultimate decision of a coroner's
court or a tribunal.
Ms Keeble: Being careful about
something is different from not being able to talk about it at
all. The sub judice rule means you cannot raise it. Because
we have the privilege here of freedom of speech, it is right that
we have to take that seriously about a whole range of different
things. That includes sometimes libelling or slandering people
and the kind of remarks that we make on that level. It seems to
me quite wrong that the sub judice rule which is intended
to protect a person's right to a fair trial should then be extended
not just to cover something which is not a trial but also even
a tangential reference to the underlying issue.
Q163 Huw Irranca-Davies: Specifically
on coroners' courts which you make a particular case for, you
do put a powerful case forward that they should be in some ways
an exception. You have probably seen Lord Goldsmith's evidence
where he says that there is an impact of discussion in the public
domain. A coroner's court may determine, he says, whether an insurance
policy pays out, subsequent criminal proceedings or whether civil
proceedings take place. They can, in his words, be significant
and prejudiced. Also, the Coroners' Society goes on to talk about
the impact that it could have on a jury within a coroner's court.
How would you respond to those concerns?
Ms Keeble: Take a concrete example
which is the Northamptonshire one. Opened on 28 April last year
after a boy died, adjourned since then and when it is heard, because
it was a death in custody, it will be heard by a jury. There is
not even a date for it resuming. There will be a general election
before then so if I am not around afterwards who knows? The whole
affair of the violence towards children in these centres might
simply disappear off the agenda completely, which I think would
be outrageous. There might well be a case for saying once you
have a date for the hearing, where it is an inquest that is going
to be heard by a jury, it should not be raised in Parliament while
the court is sitting, but for the whole year that it is adjourned,
to say that you cannot ask about violence towards children in
residential institutions in Northamptonshire I think is an outrage.
Let us put it the other way. Yes, I would feel dreadful if something
I said interfered with an inquest, even if nobody was being tried.
People are more likely to be influenced by the soaps than by me.
If in the meantime there is another death in one of these places
how do you think I will feel then? I am very clear about which
I would feel worse about. As it happens, there has been another
child apparently who has had some difficulties in one of these
places.
Q164 Huw Irranca-Davies: You raise a
very interesting and fine distinction there, between raising an
issue which is not necessarily specific to an individual constituent
but it could be an issue that could affect many other people.
For example, issues around corporate manslaughter, Crown immunity
from prosecution. I have had cases on my patch where I have raised
the issues that have come out of individual cases whilst proceedings
were underway but not with reference, because of the worries of
sub judice, to the individual constituent per se.
Would you think that is the fine distinction that we need to focus
on?
Ms Keeble: I have been stopped
from asking any questions about the issue. It is not just about
the individual case which is not a constituent in any event. You
have to be absolutely clear if you are going to limit freedom
of speech and more importantly the right of MPs to hold the executive
to account there has to be a very good reason for it. My constituents'
right to a fair trial is a good reason. I am not convinced about
the other reasons. The importance of not influencing a jury that
is making a decision is obviously an important issue but I would
argue that that is limited to the duration of the hearing and
it does not extend even weeks in advance of that. I think it is
quite wrong to say, just because there might be some theoretical
influencing of the people who are looking at the facts of this
particular case, that questions around the issue should not be
asked at all.
Q165 Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you think
it is appropriate within a coroner's court case whilst proceedings
are underway to raise specific, individual instances of a case
as opposed to your very valid point which is possibly protecting
lives that may arise out of similar instances unless they are
tackled? Do you think it is fair to raise individual circumstances?
Ms Keeble: You would have to define
"while the hearings are underway" because if a court
is adjourned it would seem to me to apply a gag for the whole
duration while the coroner's court is adjourned is quite wrong.
To stop an MP standing up and making some statement on a hearing
which is taking place seems to be quite fair but to apply that
for the duration of an adjournment would seem to me to be completely
disproportionate.
Q166 Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you think
there is some case to be made for perhaps at the Speaker's discretion
to say that, if a coroner's court is sitting for an unduly long
period or has not even convened for a year or two years, that
is a case where an MP should be able to go to the Speaker and
say, "I am now frustrated on behalf of my constituent. I
want at your discretion to be able to raise the individual case,
to push it forward both as a general issue and the specifics because
it is not being addressed within the coroner's court"?
Ms Keeble: The rule should be
clearer in the first place. I think it should not apply to a coroner's
court unless it is before a jury and then only when the inquest
is being heard, which is normally only a matter of a couple of
days anyway.
Q167 Chairman: Is it your view that coroners'
courts adjourn a matter for far too long and that an adjournment
of great length is unjustified?
Ms Keeble: I do not know. It is
dependent on the investigations. The other problem with coroners'
courts is that sometimes they are only convened or reconvened
quite long after the event. I am thinking of the Marchioness one
here. It was adjourned for a long time because the police investigations
were very complicated. I know in the case of the Northamptonshire
one that there is some concern about the length of the adjournment
and the length of time it is taking to complete the investigations
and to get a decision out of the Crown Prosecution Service. If
you take the Princess Diana one, that came a very long time after
the event. I would not say whether that is right or wrong. It
highlights the unfairness or injustice that can be caused by having
a sub judice rule applying during adjournments.
Chairman: Can I give you an assurance
that the Procedure Committee hopes to produce its report before
the next general election—ie, before the dissolution of
this current Parliament—and whatever the election result
in Northampton North the evidence given by Sally Keeble will be
there for posterity and your evidence will be fully and properly
taken into account by this Committee in drawing up its report.
I hope that gives you some reassurance.
David Wright: It is nice to know that
we have a year in which to consider this before the date of the
general election.
Chairman: I did not say that!
Q168 David Wright: I wanted to focus
on a point that you made in your evidence about a question that
Rudi Vis was able to put down in relation to this situation, about
the death of this boy in a residential institution. I know we
cannot go into the details of the case but could you talk to us
about the difference that you see in the way that Rudi Vis was
able to structure his question and why you feel that is not effective
enough or does not go far enough or does not allow us to delve
deeply enough into the issues?
Ms Keeble: I am perfectly confident
about the results in Northampton North. Rudi's question—and
I had very similar questions to him—was put down as a general
question about youth training centres. I said, "Listen, I
have a problem" so I alerted them to what was going on before
I put the question down. If I had not been so honest, perhaps
it might not have been picked up. The second thing relates also
to the time because I was putting my question down very soon after
it happened, whereas his were later. It is interesting that the
question was raised on 29 November and 9 February of this year
so with the passage of time presumably memories or awareness of
the officers of the House have lapsed slightly, understandably
so. One of the issues I was particularly concerned about was staffing.
That is problematic. That is partly why some of my questions would
run into more difficulties. If you are looking at some of the
general policy areas around the death, it is an issue you would
want to look at. It is not about the culpability of anybody; it
is about the training systems in place, the staffing and vetting
procedures. I did indeed put down some questions about the vetting
procedures.
Q169 David Wright: Were those answered?
Ms Keeble: Yes.
Q170 David Wright: Would that not suggest
that the current parameters of the rule do allow us to operate?
Ms Keeble: No, I do not think
they do because the amount of information that I need is much
more detailed. I confess I partly did it out of pure mischief
to see if I could do it. MPs should be able to say, "This
is what is going on in the constituency. This is what is going
on in the area. This is what these questions relate to" and
put in questions quite openly and honestly that are around a particular
issue and that do not get ruled out of order. I find it personally
quite offensive that the Home Office can put out a press statement
on something, the press can ask questions about it and get information
and I as an MP with a really serious concern about the child care
services in Northamptonshire cannot get information and ask questions.
I think that is outrageous because it means that the press can
get information about what is happening on my patch which I cannot
get.
Q171 Mr Illsley: In your evidence you
suggest and you have just said that the media are able to comment
more freely on court cases than Parliament. Therefore, our right
to free speech, much less our ability to hold the executive to
account, is very much less than that of the media. If there was
ever a reason to do away with the sub judice rule, as I
see it, that would be it. I do not understand why the media should
get more access to information than should a Member of Parliament.
Has any explanation ever been given to you as to why that is the
case? Unless one recognises that the media are bound by what they
can print and we have freedom of speech and they do not, that
assumes they have not abided by that.
Ms Keeble: Our sub judice
rule is more stringent than theirs. Theirs is tried after the
event; ours is a voluntary gag before the event. That makes a
difference. Also, the rule extends to any discussion here. It
is not just that you cannot put your questions down and you cannot
raise them on the floor. You do not even seem to be able to get
replies in writing from the Home Office because it says it is
sub judice. If it had been a different type of death and
there had been a statement in the House, there might have been
a statement about an investigation being set up but in this case
it was not dealt with that way so there was no statement in the
House and there was not the opportunity to question. The whole
thing instantly became sub judice because it was a death
in custody, the inquest was opened and adjourned. That is it.
Mr Illsley: Would there be a case for
saying to government or the powers that be that if the media can
gain factual information in relation to an issue which to us is
sub judice, there is a case that we should be allowed the
same information? Then it is up to each individual Member of Parliament,
as it would be with the members of the press, as to what they
do with that information and how they use it. It is up to each
individual MP as to how he looks upon the sub judice rule,
whether he stands by it and abides by it or whether he or she
breaches it and stands the consequences of that.
Q172 Chairman: I think what Mr Illsley
is asking is does the press have an advantage over Members of
Parliament.
Ms Keeble: Yes, they do. People
can say to us, "If you want information go and look on the
Home Office website and look at the press release." Of course
we can do that but our function as MPs is to hold the executive
to account on the floor of the House and through questions. That
is supposed to be where we do our questioning and our holding
to account, not by looking at press releases on the Home Office
website.
Q173 Sir Robert Smith: Are we meant to
reserve questions for finding out information we cannot obtain
from other sources? Is the theoretical guidance to Members that
we should check in the Library and use other sources? This is
not how most Members practise it but the idea is the questions
are there to get that information which is not available through
any other process.
Ms Keeble: Yes, but when we ask
questions because we have the information, we are simply directed
back to the press release which the journalists are able to ask
questions about but which we cannot. They can ask questions and
print articles based on the press release but we, having seen
the press release, cannot table questions.
Q174 Mr Illsley: To me, this is perhaps
one of the most important parts of this evidence. We are disadvantaged
vis-a"-vis the media in terms of a case before a coroner's
court. In your last bit of evidence, you made reference to Rudi
Vis asking a wider question but then you make the point that Lord
Elton specifically named a case, Lord Listowel named the individual
involved, Baroness Vivienne Stern named the individual involved
and a couple of weeks ago Paul Goggins, the Prisons Minister,
specifically named the individual during a debate in Westminster
Hall. Do you look upon that as a breach of the sub judice
rule in all those instances or is this simply another extension
of what you were saying, in that the media perhaps have more advantages
and these namings have followed on from that; or were these people
simply in breach of the rule?
Ms Keeble: Perhaps the Committee
is in a better position to decide on breaches of the rule. There
has been a certain amount of discussion taking place outside the
House about this death and what is going to come out of the investigation
that the Home Office has, which I have not been able to get that
much information about. There is some scepticism about how much
will come out. It is obviously something which in certain circles
is being talked about. I suspect that these people putting things
down is because it has slipped through the net.
Q175 Mr Illsley: It is still a breach.
Ms Keeble: The Home Office Minister
was talking about youth training centres generally and made these
comments as part of a much wider debate. Probably, it was not
picked up at the time and it is probably a cock up rather than
a conspiracy. Also if, like me, you make a point about being concerned
about this case and are told you cannot put questions down, you
are honour bound gagged until you are ungagged, whereas other
people who have not flagged up their concerns in the same way
are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. I am very aware
that I cannot ask questions about this and I am not supposed to
talk about it and raise it.
Q176 Chairman: You are raising this matter
before a Committee of this House which is being broadcast. I think
we were absolutely right to give you the opportunity, because
of your commitment, knowledge and involvement in the particular
case, to come before us to give evidence. Do you not think that
that is a real opportunity?
Ms Keeble: I certainly appreciate
that and I appreciate the fact that it has been possible to look
into it. What I very much want is the opportunity to ask questions
about the substantive issue which is a whole array of factors
around this particular case. Depending on what comes out of that,
I will perhaps ask the Home Office to go further on it or ask
Northamptonshire County Council to go further on it. I have some
information on it through discussing things with colleagues in
Northamptonshire but there are some missing links here.
Q177 Sir Robert Smith: Given that the
Minister has gone so far as to raise it on the floor of the House,
have you tried again through correspondence, as there is no vetting
on letters you send, to pin them down again and say, "In
the light of the fact that you have taken this case forward .
. ."?
Ms Keeble: That is a fair point.
I will try to do that. Having watched quite carefully what was
said and asked about this case, it was only in preparation for
this that I went back and looked through the search engine. This
one on 9 February came up, which I was quite surprised to see.
Q178 Mr Illsley: It is either a breach
of the sub judice rule by the four individuals and the
Minister or it suggests that the sub judice rule is not
working because it is too difficult to police it. The very issue
you are talking about, delay between an incident and an inquest,
means that perhaps the table office police forget the name of
the individual or whatever and it slips into a question.
Ms Keeble: There seem to be slight
differences between what happens in the Lords and what happens
in the Commons. The length of time it can take to get an inquest
heard is an absolutely major issue. It demonstrates why a sub
judice rule applied to coroners' courts does not make sense
in its present form because you have to keep people quiet about
things for a very long time and it is difficult to do.
Q179 Chairman: You are giving an answer
to the question I put earlier: do you think that in coroners'
courts, in adjourning a case, the length of time they can adjourn
for is abnormal and unfair to those involved. You have now indicated
that it is.
Ms Keeble: If an inquest does
not have a jury, it comes under a different category completely.
| 
