|
Mr. Oaten: I do not intend to delay the Committee for long and I am at one with the approach of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, who has set out the history and the reasons why we had concerns about the Criminal Justice Act in the first place. We were pleased that some of those concerns were listened to, but I fear that today we are seeing the Government creeping back from some commitments and promises that they made when the Act went through.
I share many of the public's concerns about what are known as cases of miscarriage of justice. We all feel angry when we read press reports or hear anecdotes in our constituencies about people who appear to have got away with something scot-free when everybody, including the police, knows that they did it. A form of miscarriage of justice has taken place. However, there are also miscarriages of justice involving individuals who are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. It works both ways.
Column Number: 11
The Government appear to be trying to redress the balance, but it is important that we speak up in the Committee for those who need to be seen to have a fair trial and who do not want to be wrongly convicted of something because a jury has been, to be put it bluntly, lazy and has based a decision on previous bad character, rather than working hard to consider the evidence in front of it so that it properly convicts on the crime it is meant to be considering. It should do that rather than making a decision based on an individual's bad character and therefore deciding that they must have done it.
That is important because if we have a culture in which juries take decisions based on previous convictions, it will lead to more miscarriages of justice. Perhaps more importantly, it will mean that the individuals who committed the crime will not get caught. At the same time as there is a miscarriage of justice, somebody who committed the crime will not be convicted of it.
Another danger with the measures is that the police and others might decide that they stand a greater chance of getting a conviction if one of the individuals being put up for trial is a usual suspect. That will clearly prey on people's minds when they are considering whether to pursue a charge. If they are slightly nervous about the evidence, they will have a look at the track record of the individual and say, ''Hang on a minute, once the jury hears about this lot, it's sure to go for it.'' That could make for sloppy decisions about whether there is enough evidence to take a case forward.
In relation to sexual offences in particular, there is also a concern that if members of a jury hear about a previous conviction, they will feel such moral disgust—quite rightly—at what an individual may have done before that they will almost take a certain view of them and say, ''We do not like what they did before, so frankly it is irrelevant whether they did it this time. They are a nasty person and it wouldn't be a bad thing if they went down for this anyway.'' People might say that because they are simply so disgusted by what they have heard of a previous conviction, particularly in relation to sexual offences. There are genuine concerns about the impact that such information could have on the jury when it makes those decisions.
I want briefly to consider the letter from Baroness Scotland, although there has been little time to examine it. I am slightly mystified by the arguments made about the reoffending rate—the so-called 58.4 per cent. That still suggests that roughly 40 per cent. have not reoffended. That is high, and it is only the two-year figure. I suspect that if we looked at the figures over a four, five or six-year period, we would see that the reoffending rate was a lot lower. I am concerned that those figures are being used as a justification for suggesting that many people are likely to reoffend when, even going by the two-year figure, we
Column Number: 12
are talking about only 58.4 per cent., and if we were to look at a longer period, the figures would be a lot lower.
Are we really condemning all individuals who have previously committed a crime to the assumption that they are likely to do so again? The figures suggest that a majority reoffend, but it is only a slim majority and over a period of years this becomes a minority. That is a powerful argument for not assuming that that issue should always be taken into account.
Mr. Grieve: I have not had much time to read the letter, but I note with interest that in the category of sexual offences against young persons, Mr. Grubin in the 1998 police research paper was unable to put the recidivism rate at higher than 20 per cent.
Mr. Oaten: That demonstrates the difficulty and the problem with some of the figures involved; I was about to come on to that. We have not had much chance to read the letter, but, taking the statistics away, I am minded, in view of some of the evidence, to say that when it comes to sexual offences there is a pattern and a sense in which individuals have a sickness, an illness or a disease—whatever we want to call it.
There is a sense in which these patterns can be proven and there is medical evidence to suggest that there is an issue here. That is why the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is so important: our attitudes on how sexual offences should be treated are very different from those in relation to theft, which is why it is disingenuous of the Government to put the two together. In relation to sexual offences, I am more taken by the pattern that emerges through an individual's life and by the importance of a jury knowing about that pattern than by any pattern in relation to theft.
On theft, we come back to the point that has been raised before: the figures are meaningless and they tell us nothing, because the issue is essentially whether somebody has been dishonest before and dishonesty can represent itself in a range of crimes, irrespective of whether the crime is theft.
I have a couple of questions and concerns that have not yet been discussed. Obviously, the Government have sought to bring the matter forward on a faster track than was initially planned, but the issues are complex ones that will require magistrates and judges to have training and support. In the winding-up speech, will the Minister comment on the time scales involved and on what consultation there has been with the judiciary as to the period it needs to be able to make the issues run live in court? Is he satisfied that adequate training will be in place to take some of the measures forward?
My final question for the Minister relates to perhaps my biggest concern. Today we are talking about theft and sexual offences in cases where the individual is below the age of 16. What is next in the Government's mind? Surely they could make a strong argument that the same things are true of sexual offences at any age. I am slightly concerned that we will be back here in six months with a couple more categories to consider and, later, a couple more. I want reassurance from the
Column Number: 13
Minister that this provision will not become the norm, but remains the exception based on those two categories.
Mr. Grieve: I have had a chance to glance at the letter and, if I understand Mr. Grubin's statistics, as far as sex cases are concerned, a greater number of adults than children reoffend. That comes as a surprise. I tend to share the hon. Gentleman's view that common sense dictates that there would be propensity in such cases.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman has had the advantage of getting further in the letter than I have. That will probably be the type of argument that is made to us in a couple of months, which is why the Minister needs to give us reassurances about where the Government plan to go next on the issue.
I entirely recognise the fairness factor and that the Government desire to try to do the right thing—to overcome some of the tabloid headlines in respect of which we all have a sense of injustice. However, I ask them to bear it in mind that, in trying to overcome that injustice, there is a grave danger that some of these measures will create an equally important injustice elsewhere.
3.12 pm
Paul Goggins: I apologise once again to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and to the Committee for the late arrival of the copy of the letter from my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, but the Home Office was not in control of the timing of the delivery of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—that was entirely a matter for the Joint Committee—and my right hon. Friend could respond to that report only once she had seen it. The Committee has only just received the report, but it is not long since my right hon. Friend received it and we have done everything possible to respond as quickly as possible.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister is quite right—I accept that he has no control over the publication of the report. However, if this country is to have good government and if Parliament is to do its job properly, surely when it became apparent that an important report questioning whether the order is human rights-compatible was to be published at 11 am, the sensible course of action would have been to postpone the Committee for a week to allow members of the Committee to read that report.
Paul Goggins: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not had as much time as he would have liked to read the report. There will, of course, be further deliberations in the near future in the House of Lords, whose Members will have had a little longer to read both the report and my right hon. Friend's response to it.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he well knows, the procedure introduced by the order is not a free-for-all. It is a considered step forward whereby, provided that the evidence is more probative than prejudicial, there is a presumption in favour of inclusion rather than exclusion. As I explained in my
Column Number: 14
opening remarks, the order is about rebalancing the system in favour of victims. The prosecution may argue that some piece of evidence of bad character is admissible; it will be for the defence to challenge that argument and it will ultimately be for the judge to decide. It is, of course, important that the trial continues to be fair.
What we sought to do in the order was introduce two areas in which we know from the evidence there is a propensity to commit further crimes when there is a record of that kind of offence. We have proposed the categories of theft and sexual crimes against children. There is nothing devious in the fact that we have presented the two categories at the same time. I know that Committee members like nothing more than to come to this Room of an afternoon and discuss the merits of particular measures, but it was important to bring the two categories together. They are of a piece with the legislation. This is the first time that the order-making power has been used and it was important that we had a proper debate about it.
| 
