Examination of Witnesses (Questions 448
- 459)
MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2005
MS JAN
BERRY, MR
GEOFF DOBSON
AND MS
SALLY IRELAND
Q448 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed to the second group of witnesses for coming in this evening.
Perhaps you could introduce yourselves briefly.
Ms Berry: My name is Jan Berry
and I am the chairman of the Police Federation.
Mr Dobson: Geoff Dobson, deputy
director of the Prison Reform Trust.
Q449 Chairman: The second time in
four working days before the Home Affairs Committee.
Ms Ireland: I am Sally Ireland.
I am the senior legal officer for criminal justice at JUSTICE.
Q450 Chairman: The government have
said that in due course the legislation should apply to the police
force. Is it your view that they need to make sure that it does
in this Bill as it goes through rather than having some later
amendment?
Ms Berry: I think that is our
view. It took considerable time for the police to come under the
health and safety legislation and this Corporate Manslaughter
Bill has taken a fair amount of time from the Law Commission report
to now. Our fear is if we miss this opportunity we are not quite
clear when the next opportunity will arise so we would like to
see it go through with the Bill itself.
Q451 Chairman: Some of the problems
seem to be technical, legal problems rather than ones of principle
because of the particular legal status of the police. Does the
Federation have any views legally on what the government ought
to do to the Bill to include police forces?
Ms Berry: I do not think that
is within our line of expertise but it would appear that, in the
same way as the government have chosen to add a schedule and a
whole list of government departments to that schedule, I am not
sure why it is not possible to add police forces to that list.
Q452 Mr Rooney: Are there any special
considerations that you think Parliament should take into account
if they were to bring the police force wholly within the Bill?
Ms Berry: No. I take a different
view to the view taken by ACPO. If the Police Service is brought
within it, which it is agreed in principle it should be, all aspects
of policing should have the capability.
Q453 Mr Rooney: Including operations?
Ms Berry: Yes.
Q454 Mr Rooney: Justice is concerned—some
might say surprisingly—that public confidence in the police
could be severely undermined if there is a successful prosecution
for corporate manslaughter. Is this a reason not to extend the
cover to police activities?
Ms Ireland: No. It is one concern
that we have. It does not just extend to the police. It extends
to all public authorities. Unlike private companies, the public
generally do not have a choice about whether to continue using
the services of public authorities. It is a slightly anomalous
position for a public authority to subsist with a very serious
criminal conviction against it. That applies all the more where
it is a law enforcement or prosecution agency or a police force
but to an extent, although it is a concern, we accept that it
is perhaps more theoretical than practical and we would not use
it as an argument to avoid extending the Bill to police forces
because I think there are more important considerations in favour
of its extension.
Q455 Mr Rooney: Do you not think
there has been in certain cases, which we will not go into individually,
great opprobrium on the police because nobody was prosecuting?
Does that not undermine it even more if the police seem to be
exempt from the criminal justice system?
Ms Ireland: Yes. It is important
to maintain public confidence that you have accountability. The
question is how is that accountability generated. On balance,
extending this offence to the police will help, particularly in
areas such as deaths in custody, where other mechanisms of accountability
have not been seen to be effective.
Ms Berry: Operational matters
should come within the Act when it comes in.
Q456 Mr Rooney: JUSTICE has recommended
that there should be no general exemption for exclusively public
functions. Can you provide any specific example of an exclusively
public function where government would be justified in exempting?
Ms Ireland: No. The obvious one
that springs to mind in considering potential public functions
that could be exempted is the emergency situation which I know
you had evidence on in the previous session. For example, a natural
disaster, the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Bearing in mind
that the test that is required is gross negligence causing death,
which is not an easy threshold to reach, I think it is appropriate
that even in an emergency situation workers and members of the
public should be protected in principle. If there was a genuine
case because in a certain area the extension of liability could
lead to defensive action or a lack of action, say, on the part
of the public authority, that could be scrutinised but we should
be slow to exempt any public function from the offence and should
really carefully scrutinise any representations that anyone should
be exempted.
Q457 Mr Rooney: You do not think
there should be any exemption for exclusively public functions
but you have said that you think the police should be exempt?
Ms Ireland: I have not said that.
Perhaps I have not expressed myself properly. We do not think
that the police should be exempt. We think it is a concern that
the machinery of justice is brought into disrepute by a serious
criminal conviction but on balance we favour the extension of
the offence to the police.
Q458 Mr Rooney: You favour no public
exemptions; you are in favour of the police being included and
you are in favour of the police prosecuting, but you have concerns
about the effect of a successful prosecution in terms of police
standing and status in the community?
Ms Ireland: Yes. It is possible
to be in favour of something on balance but obviously recognise
that there are other arguments and that is our position.
Q459 Mr Rooney: Mr Dobson, can you
explain your concerns about the way the exclusively public function
exemption might apply in this context?
Mr Dobson: Yes. The Prison Reform
Trust function is limited. Our interest is limited to prisons.
Our belief is that no institution exercises greater power than
a prison does over its inmates. We were surprised and disappointed
to see that the guidance to the draft Bill argued for those custodial
powers to be exempted. We are obviously arguing that they should
be included. We produced a couple of years ago a guide to the
Human Rights Act jointly with the Prison Service. I will read
a couple of sentences from that. "Public authorities including
the Prison Service must not intentionally cause anyone's death.
They also have an obligation to protect the right to life of people
in their care", a very clear acceptance of that duty of care
for prisoners. We also have a concern at what is an increasingly
vulnerable population in our prisons. To give you an example,
20% of male prisoners and 37% of female prisoners report having
previously attempted suicide prior to their reception into prison.
We think there is a very strong onus on those running our prisons
to exercise their duty of care to the highest standards.
| 
