| Paragraph No. and text
| Progress report 2004
| Progress report 2005
|
| Paragraph 40: We fully support the proposal to impose a 'treatment' condition on the bail of drug misusers. It is essential that sufficient resources are made available for the provision of treatment. We look forward to hearing from the Minister as to his proposals for making appropriate treatment more widely available for purposes of Clause 16.
| Section 19 was commenced on 5 April 2004 and is being piloted in areas where treatment is available so that effectiveness and resources implications of the measures can be fully assessed.
| Accepted. Section 19 was commenced on 5 April 2004 and after initial implementation from May 2004 in three areas, is now operating in local justice areas within 47 Drug Action Team areas. The Home Secretary announced on 30 November 2005 that it will be rolled out further to cover all Local Justice Areas in England from 31 March 2006. The Home Office has worked closely with the National Treatment Agency to ensure that there is sufficient and effective treatment available to the 47 DAT areas where this is currently activated, and for the further roll out.
|
| Paragraph 71: We recommend that the Bill be amended so that, where the prosecution wish to interview a defence witness in advance of trial, they should be required to notify the defence and offer to interview the witness in the presence of the defence. We further suggest that any interview be tape-recorded.
| Appears in Act. Code of Practice must include these factors and a draft Code of practice is currently out for consultation.
| Accepted. Responses to public consultation on draft Code of Practice currently being considered.
|
| Paragraph 89: We accept that there may be cogent reasons for dispensing—in some cases—with a jury in a complex financial case. In particular, the length of these cases can place a significant burden on the jury system which, in turn, may reduce dramatically the pool of available jurors. This (arguably) undermines the principle of random selection on which our jury system is based. However, such cases should not be used to undermine generally the jury system which has served well justice in this country.
| Government has not yet determined how it will proceed in this area. If we wish to commence the provisions in the Act we will need to have another vote in both Houses.
| Accepted. Appears in the Act as section 43; an affirmative resolution of both Houses is required to commence it. An order was laid on 27 October 2005 but has been withdrawn to enable discussions to take place with the Opposition parties to see whether it is possible to find an acceptable alternative to trial by judge alone.
|
| Paragraph 101: We invite the Government to consider the merits of repealing section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, in order to permit meaningful research into how the jury system operates.
| Considering how more meaningful research can be conducted.
| Accepted in part. Department for Constitutional Affairs launched consultation paper "Jury research and impropriety" in January 2005.
|
| Paragraph 107: We welcome the provisions of Part 10, which are broadly in line with our predecessors' recommendations for reforming the double jeopardy rule.
| Form part of the Act. Aim to commence early next year.
| Accepted. Commenced 4 April 2005.
|
| Paragraph 127: In our view, oral testimony given in court is the generally the best form of evidence. We therefore welcome the Government's proposal to preserve the general exclusionary rule against hearsay evidence, with the modified exceptions provided under chapter 2 of Part 11.
| Appears in Act. Likely to be commenced in April 2005.
| Accepted. Commenced in April 2005.
|
