Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13th July 2006.
3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mr. Cawsey.]
Queens recommendation having been signified
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Company Law Reform Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by a Government department for defraying expenses incurred under or in consequence of the Act, and
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment. [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Company Law Reform Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) fees or charges,
(2) a levy for meeting expenses of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers,
(3) the amendment of section 17 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and
Community Enterprise) Act 2004, and
(4) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): My petition was organised by Mr. Michael Green and Mr. Nigel Williams of Kislingbury, and is signed by residents of Kislingbury, Rothersthorpe, Harpole and other parts of Northamptonshire. It declares
that the Environment Agency has no authority to base flood risk advice for the CVLR
and development on the Easter 1998 floodplain, given it is a lower assessment than the 1947 floodplain consideration and subsequent assessments in 1978 and 1999. The Petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons call upon the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee to investigate why the Environment Agency has changed its advice without the authority to do so.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): I am delighted to have secured this debate on anonymity for defendants and the case of Mike McCartney. Mike McCartney is a well-known and respected member of the Merseyside community, and far beyond. He is the cultural ambassador for Wirral and a successful photographer, and in the 1960s was a member of the group Scaffold.
As its title suggests, I wanted to secure this debate both because of the individual circumstances and because of an important principle that I believe needs to be examined. I shall deal first with the specifics of Mr. McCartneys case, and secondly with the more general issue of anonymity under the law.
In September 2004, the allegation was made against Mr. McCartney that he had sexually assaulted a young girl at a family party near his home in Wirral. The actual charge was sexual touching. Since then, until the case was thrown out of court in February this year, Mr. McCartneys life has been what he has described as a living hell. Because he is the brother of Sir Paul, the media coverage was blanket and hysterical. The News of the World, for example, ran a story headed Maccas Brother Sex Rap. The Daily Mail headline was Im famous...dont you know who I am?, and a comment piece associated his name with other alleged celebrity tantrums. The rest of the national and regional press then devoted extensive column inches to the story, and included all the salacious details of the allegations.
Needless to say, that had a devastating impact on Mr McCartneys family. He received hate mail, he did not dare to go to the shops and his children were taunted. But the trial, when it was eventually brought after a delay of nearly 18 months, was a waste of time and money. The judge said as much. He also said:
This case was a misunderstanding from the word go, and should never have been prosecuted.
a man of exemplary character, has had the matter hanging over his head,
He said that the case had been passed on because no one wanted to come to grips with it and wanted to put it off, and added:
It is quite inexcusable and makes a mockery of legal proceedings and...is a waste of valuable court time.
The trial is guestimated to have cost more than £200,000 of public money, the full amountunusually, I understandbeing charged to the Crown Prosecution Service. That means that it was charged to the taxpayerto you and me. There are clearly questions about why the case was thought to be a runner. As the judge made clear, it failed not because of a technicality or discrepancies in the evidence, but because there was no case to answer. Given that the CPS has, in my view, made mistakes, might not its handling of the case be investigated?
The judge said that the delay of almost 18 months occurred because the case was known to be weak and no one desired to take it on. Therefore, it was passed between Cheshire, Merseyside and Manchester. Rightly, the judge dismissed that as lame. As he pointed out, with such charges hanging over the defendant, the delays were simply unacceptable. To add insult to injuryand, it appears, possibly to extricate themselves from the tricky situation they found themselves inthe prosecuting counsel informed the judge on the morning of the trial that they would be willing to drop the case were an apology from Mr. McCartney to be forthcoming. However, as the judge admonished,
this is an offence that carries a maximum 10 years imprisonment. It is not a matter to be treated lightly, it is not a matter to be negotiated away.
I now turn, after those details of the particular circumstances, to the generality of the anonymity principle, to which the Government and Parliament as the law makers could and should make a fundamental difference. As I hope I have amply demonstrated, Mr. McCartney's name has been dragged through the mud, and the problem with mud is that it has a tendency to stick. The acquittal received far less attention than the charges, despite the judge's hopes to the contrary. Not surprisingly perhaps, the impression made by much of the coverage is, and was, that there was no smoke without fire. People quite naturally would often rather be on the safe side than associate themselves with someone who had been accused of sexual offences. It is the residual doubt and the taint that matter. We are not, unfortunately, left with a blank canvas, but with a damaged individual and family.
This is not, of course, a new issue, nor is it a simple one. I should say at the outset that it is right that complainants should enjoy anonymity. What Mr. McCartney is asking forin my view with a substantial degree of justificationis some equality. We may be in a slightly better position now than a few years ago. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for her tireless efforts on behalf of teachers and carers falsely accused of sexual abuse. Indeed, a number of organisations are campaigning for the interests of the falsely accusedFalsely Accused Carers and Teachers, or FACT, Supporting All Falsely Accused with Reference Information, or SAFARI, and the False Allegations Support Organisation, to name but three. They campaign across a diverse range of issues within that broad area, including anonymity, although some of their aims in that respect differ.
The Association of Chief Police Officers guidance now states that details of an allegation should not be released by the media until a defendant is charged. By and large, the guidance has been followed, although I cannot see why it should not be strengthened. However, because it applies only until charge, it was as good as useless in the case of Mr. McCartney. Indeed, once the charge was made, it was open season as far as the media were concerned. That is perhaps understandable, if not excusable.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |