Armed Forces Bill |
|
Mr. Touhig: I shall seek to do so in a moment. First, however, I shall dwell a little further on the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
The proposed amendments will not be retrospective. Consideration was given to whether the commission should have jurisdiction to deal with cases that pre-date the new system. The dates considered were 1951 and 1997, as they were the respective dates when appeals against conviction and sentence at court martial were introduced. It was decided that the commission should not have retrospective jurisdiction for the following reasons. First, where a person has been convicted by court martial, the Secretary of State may currently refer the conviction to the court martial appeal court under section 34 of the 1968 Act. The grounds on which he may make such a reference are wide. He need only consider that there are matters that were not brought to the court’s notice that should be considered by the appeal court. The Judge Advocate General also has the power to refer a case on conviction to the court martial appeal court, but only if it raises an important point of law. Additionally, if he considers it desirable for any reason, the Secretary of State may refer the sentence passed at a court martial to the Appeal Court. We therefore consider that there is no need to give the commission retrospective powers, as there are already procedures by which suspected miscarriages of justice can be brought to the attention of the Appeal Court and, if necessary, corrected. Secondly, the courts over which it is proposed that the commission should be given jurisdiction are new courts, created under the Bill—the standing court martial mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, and the service civilian court. The Bill sets up a new disciplinary system, and it is considered that its introduction is an appropriate place to draw the line. Finally, the decision to limit the commission’s jurisdiction to cases dealt with under the Bill has the agreement of the commission itself. Any retrospection inevitably would involve resourcing issues for the commission. Vera Baird: Does the Secretary of State for Defence have a support department? In the Home Office, there used to be an internal department that did the CCRC’s job; it was pretty discredited, which is why the CCRC was introduced. However, at least that department had the power to use the police force to investigate cases. Does the MOD have anything similar? I ask that just so we can be reassured that there really is no need for any retrospection. Mr. Touhig: I need to consider that point so that I ensure that I give my hon. and learned Friend an adequate answer. If she will permit me to do so, I will write to her and to other Committee members in response to that question. The hon. Member for Aldershot asked about who can make an application to the CCRC. Anybody can write to the CCRC to start an appeal. That is not left up to the convicted person; anyone can do that. Column Number: 103 Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that information, but my second point was about the nature of the work load to which the CCRC is currently subject and whether there might be any provision for a separate channel for the military, or a fast track—or will that just go into the general pot of CCRC cases? Mr. Touhig: Earlier, I touched on the fact that one of the reasons for not making these things retrospective is that that would have resource implications for the CCRC. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; I will pursue that matter and get some clarification on it, because we clearly do not want appeals to be delayed in any way. If he will give me a little time to consider how we will handle this, I will write to him and other Committee members—therefore, there will be another letter from me, I am afraid. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 58, in schedule 8, page 217, line 40, leave out from beginning to “subsection” and insert—
No. 59, in schedule 8, page 217, line 41, at end insert—
No. 60, in schedule 8, page 218, line 22, at end insert—
No. 61, in schedule 8, page 218, line 34, leave out paragraph (e).—[Mr. Touhig.] Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 272 to 274 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 275 Compensation for miscarriages of justice Amendments made: No. 41, in clause 275, page 137, line 15, leave out “or”. No. 42, in clause 275, page 137, line 17, at end insert
Clause 275, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 9 Assessors of compensation for miscarriages of justice Question proposed, That this schedule be the Ninth schedule to the Bill. Column Number: 104 Vera Baird: I want to raise a question on this schedule, which is pursuant to a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to award compensation for miscarriages of justice. If he intends to do that, he will refer the quantifying of it to an assessor or a panel of assessors. This schedule sets out who may be an assessor for that purpose. It is surprising that no service people are involved as assessors; they appear to be just people who are qualified as lawyers in one of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. As it has been heavily emphasised throughout our deliberations that, to understand the gravity of a crime, one has to understand the military context, and that to understand the need for a grave sentence, one has to understand the context of what happened, why is it not the case that, in compensating when sentences have been wrongly given to people, there is not an equal need for the military context to be understood? This omission surprises me, and I would like the Minister to comment on it. 6.15 pmMr. Touhig: The schedule is introduced by clause 275, which allows the Secretary of State to make compensation payments where a person convicted by a court martial subsequently has his conviction reversed or is pardoned. When the Secretary of State decides that a convicted person has the right to a compensation payment, an assessor is appointed to determine the amount. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the schedule sets out who is qualified to be appointed as an assessor for the purpose of clause 275. The provisions mirror civilian provisions. The assessor needs to have experience of a civilian system. I should add that we have not used this since it was introduced in 1991. Mr. Burrowes: I support the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. The Minister says that these provisions are equivalent to the civilian system, but the point being made is about the uniqueness of the system that we are dealing with here in terms of the military context, and about the logic of extending the provisions of the schedule to cover service people. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that possible addition. Mr. Touhig: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar for raising this point. In view of comments made on both sides of the Committee, I will reflect on this matter and, if necessary, I will come back with further information or further proposals. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 9 agreed to. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.] Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Six o’clock ’til Wednesday 29 March at fifteen minutes to Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 29 March 2006 |