Examination of Witness (Questions 37-39)
MS SALLY
KEEBLE MP
29 NOVEMBER 2005
Q37 Chairman: Thank you for coming.
As you know, the Committee has looked at the operation of the
sub judice rule before but because of ongoing concerns
we have decided to revisit this, particularly as it is applied
in respect of coroners' courts. We are grateful to you for coming
along today to give evidence. We are in public session but, if
there is any aspect of your evidence where you wish to refer to
a particular sub judice case to make a point which you
feel it is essential we should hear, we are prepared to go into
private session but I would like to leave that to the end. If
you feel when we come to the end of questioning that you wish
to emphasise a point by referring to a particular case we are
happy to go into private session. Would you like to make an opening
statement to the Committee?
Ms Keeble: Yes, thank you. I am
extremely glad that you have decided to look at this issue again
because it is one that has concerned me greatly. I put in a short
note updated from my previous note, which I assume people have.
It moves things on a bit from the evidence I gave last time because
last time we went through issues about the wider sub judice
rule and dealt with coroners' courts in particular. The Committee
then took a view, amongst other things, that it would be appropriate
to look at the discretion which the Speaker has and see if that
provided a remedy. I went down that road and it did not because
of a variety of procedural issues about getting to put the point
to the Speaker. There is also an issue that, if the case that
you are concerned about, as mine was, was fair and square, right
in the middle of the sub judice rule as it applies to coroners'
courts, there is not much room for discretion. It turned out that
what might have provided a remedy did not and I think that is
quite important because it means that not only are Members unable
to raise questions about matters that they are particularly concerned
about but there is no way you can appeal against that. There is
no room for manoeuvre. The other issue which has concerned me
greatly which was not covered last time was the fact that there
has been considerable discussion in particular in the Lords on
a case that I was particularly concerned about. It seems to me
that, particularly given that one of the issues that weighed very
strongly with the Committee last time was that of comity between
the different institutions, that has to apply between the Commons
and the Lords. What was particularly galling was, given that the
evidence that was provided to the Committee from the relevant
minister was from a Lords minister, for a Lords minister to come
and effectively silence the Commons and meanwhile for the Lords
to be able to discuss the case in question, it seemed to me that
that was completely unacceptable. The rule either has to apply
equally across the board or, as I think very strongly, it should
be relaxed. It should not apply to coroners' courts. The case
I was concerned about last time is still sub judice. There
has still been no decision from the Crown Prosecution Service.
The incident was very serious and I would appreciate perhaps commenting
on it right at the end. It occurred in April last year and there
is still no prospect of being able to hold ministers to account
for what happened. I think that is terrible. It cuts against the
whole reason that we are elected and come to this place. I will
leave it there because I have put this in writing and you have
had the previous evidence. That covers the detail of my view.
The statement serves perhaps to give some feeling to the prosaic
words.
Q38 Sir Robert Smith: After reading the
report, do you still believe that coroners' courts do not need
the protection of the sub judice rule at all?
Ms Keeble: That is right. There
are a few issues. I have thought about this quite a bit and I
have talked with friends about it as well, obviously, and the
media. There has been quite a bit of media coverage on it. It
does seem that some of the thinking that informs the sub judice
rule as it applies to the media is different from what informs
ours in terms of who can be influenced, because that was part
of the thinking, that we might through debate here influence somebody's
right to a fair trial. We dealt last time with when proceedings
are active and influencing a jury, but I understand that there
are also issues about whether you can influence a single judge
or judicial figure sitting alone. We do get back to: can you influence
a coroner. It seems also that there is a major issue—the
Committee in a sense conceded this last time—about when
proceedings are active. Personally, I do not think the sub
judice rule should apply to coroners' courts but I certainly
think there has to be an issue about when proceedings are active.
It is a nonsense that, just because a coroner's court meets and
says, "We have opened and adjourned" it then stays adjourned
for 18 months with no prospect in sight for when it is going to
resume when it is an issue of major concern affecting young people.
I really think there has to be some clearer thinking about what
we are doing.
Q39 Sir Robert Smith: In our report we
looked at that point and a closer trigger to the case that could
be prejudiced rather than 18 months out, not being able to talk
about something. Do you accept at all the argument though that
decisions of a coroner's court can have an impact on future proceedings
or on insurance policies?
Ms Keeble: No. If we could not
talk about things that affect insurance policies, there would
be all kinds of things we could not talk about, as you know.
|
