The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:†
Brown,
Lyn (West Ham) (Lab) †
Butler,
Ms Dawn (Brent, South)
(Lab) Curry,
Mr. David (Skipton and Ripon)
(Con) Davies,
Philip (Shipley)
(Con) †
Devine,
Mr. Jim (Livingston)
(Lab) †
Foster,
Mr. Michael (Worcester)
(Lab) †
Holloway,
Mr. Adam (Gravesham)
(Con) †
Khabra,
Mr. Piara S. (Ealing, Southall)
(Lab) †
McCrea,
Dr. William (South Antrim)
(DUP) †
Milburn,
Mr. Alan (Darlington)
(Lab) †
Öpik,
Lembit (Montgomeryshire)
(LD) †
Robertson,
John (Glasgow, North-West)
(Lab) †
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence (Tewkesbury)
(Con) Rosindell,
Andrew (Romford)
(Con) †
Thornberry,
Emily (Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab) †
Waltho,
Lynda (Stourbridge)
(Lab) †
Woodward,
Mr. Shaun (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport)Tom Healey,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee First
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationMonday 8
May
2006[Mr.
Roger Gale in the
Chair]Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers) (Northern Ireland) Order 20064.30
pm The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(Mr. Shaun Woodward): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Gale, and with your permission I should like to open the debate in my
former capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland. I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of
Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers)
(Northern Ireland) Order
2006. The draft order
was laid before the House on 15 March. The order is due to be
made according to the affirmative resolution procedure by my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following debate in
both Houses. It brings into force the revised code of practice made
under section 99 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is part of the
counter-terrorism provision specific to Northern Ireland.
The revised code of practice
makes video identification the primary method of identifying a suspect,
although other methods of identification will remain available. The
revised code replaces the previous code, under which traditional, live
identity parades were the primary choice of identification method.
Similar changes are being made to the code of practice governing the
identification of non-terrorist suspects made under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The video identification
technology to be used in Northern Ireland is known as VIPER, which
stands for video identification parade electronic recording. Video
identification involves the capture of a suspect’s image on
film, which is edited into a 15-second head-and-shoulder moving shot
and compiled with eight or more images of similar-looking people into a
video identification parade. The video ID parade is burned on to a DVD,
which can be viewed by the victim or witness in the presence of the
suspect’s solicitor. If that solicitor cannot attend, the
viewing process will be videoed.
It may help hon. Members if I
briefly explain the improvements that video identification methods will
offer over traditional, live identity parades. Those advantages have
already been realised by other police forces in the UK. Mr. Gale, you
will agree that the cumbersome and unwieldy procedures necessary to
arrange a live identity parade are unfit for modern policing methods.
Video identification commands
significantly more flexibility. However, in Northern Ireland there is
just one identification suite, which is located in Belfast; volunteers,
the suspect and the witness have to travel there in person to carry out
live identity parades. Terrorist suspects have to be
transported from the serious crime suite in Antrim to Belfast to take
part. The nature of their charges means that they have to be escorted
personally by police officers; that takes up time that should be spent
on other front-line policing duties and presents a risk to the
public—little wonder that live identity parades suffer from a
disproportionately high cancellation rate. Video identification
techniques will allow the suspect’s image to be captured in half
a dozen sites across Northern Ireland and the technology to ensure that
the suspect’s image can be captured at any time once they are
detained will be made available.
The video ID parade DVD will be
viewed on a laptop so that identification can take place anywhere the
laptop is taken. The technology supporting the video identification
process is entirely mobile and anonymous and the identification can
take place in a range of locations, such as in a hospital or a
witness’s home, according to the witness’s need. Making
identification more convenient and less stressful for victims makes
that by far the most attractive means of identifying
suspects. Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): To save time and the
need for me to make a speech, will the Minister respond to two simple
questions on the order, which the Liberal Democrats support? First,
will he assure us that arranging such video methods will involve no
resource implications that could cause a net drain from police funds?
Secondly, will he assure us that if a suspect is subsequently found
innocent, there will be no risk that the captured photographic
identification material will be
abused? Mr.
Woodward: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
support and I shall deal with his concerns during my remarks.
The witnesses and victims
carrying out the identification of suspects will also benefit from the
introduction of video identification procedures, as they will no longer
have the daunting prospect of coming face to face with an alleged
offender during a police identity parade. VIPER has been found to bring
particular benefits to vulnerable witnesses and victims, who would
otherwise have difficulty facing a live parade.
Video identification procedures
have even been found to be significantly more reliable than
traditional, live identity parades. The mistaken identification of
suspects by eye-witnesses is a common source of miscarriages of
justice. Analysis of known cases of wrongful imprisonment has
repeatedly suggested that mistaken identification by eye-witnesses is a
major factor. The improved conditions surrounding the video
identification process will contribute to solving the
problem. Research also
indicates that the use of video identification increases the percentage
of positive identifications. When video ID parades are introduced,
the use of ID parades increases considerably as the video procedures
make them so much easier to organise. Video identifications can also
take place much closer in time to the event, which aids the recall of
victims and witnesses, who tend to have more confidence in an
identification. Therefore, we hope to identify more offenders
successfully, which will potentially reduce the level of crime in
Northern Ireland; I am pleased to say that during the trial stage of
video identification procedures in West Yorkshire, the local police
found that to be the case, because there was a 26 per cent. fall in the
number of snatch thefts and
robberies. Video
identification also brings a range of further benefits to the criminal
justice system. The exact video identification parade used to identify
the suspect can be viewed by the court, which even has an opportunity
to view the witness in the process of carrying out the
identification—by use of video surveillance. That brings more
transparency to the investigation and to the case as it progresses
through court. Video
identification will bring a range of significant operational benefits
to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The complications of
assembling volunteers in Belfast to carry out ID parades in person,
with the suspect and the witness, tend to lead to high cancellation
rates. Following the introduction of VIPER, the proportion of abandoned
parades in West Yorkshire fell from 51 per cent. to under 10 per cent.
That goes some way to answering the question put by the hon.
Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit
Öpik). Video
identification also represents a considerable cost saving. The cost of
running it is about one third that of carrying out live ID parades. I
would simply add one caveat for the hon. Gentleman: its use might
increase, which might mean there are more effective video parades than
there were live ID parades, for perfectly good reasons. There will be
overall manpower savings, but they might not be entirely proportionate
in respect of the introduction in the next few
years. As there are
more video ID parade sites, officers will spend less time travelling,
and there will be fewer travel and subsistence costs for police,
victims and witnesses. According to the Home Office, a traditional live
parade costs between £800 and £1,200, over a period of 2
months, to set up and run. In contrast, it can take just two hours to
set up a video parade, which costs between £150 and £300.
That represents significant savings, which again answers the hon.
Gentleman’s questions.
We believe that officers
employed in the Belfast ID suite will be redeployed to front-line
policing duties, and civilian workers may replace officers to staff the
video identification process, thus freeing up more officers for other
police work. During the first year that the Devon and Cornwall
constabulary introduced video identification, it was estimated that
nearly 3,000 days of police time previously spent on organising live
parades was saved. In that constabulary, that was the equivalent of
putting 13 officers back on other
duties. Finally, the
benefits of video identification will even be felt by the suspect; the
solicitor will enjoy far greater involvement in the identification
process, as they can be present both at the image-capture
stage and during the screening of the parade to the witness. The
hon. Gentleman raised the question of the protection
of witnesses, individuals and the defendant. The measures go some way
in answering that question, because the involvement of the solicitor
will be far greater in a video process than in a live ID parade. The
solicitor and the suspect will be able to choose from a database of
14,000 images to use in the parade. Clearly, the quality of justice
should be enhanced by the greater even-handedness involved in that
approach. The benefits
of video identification parades have been recognised by the former
Independent Commissioner for Detained Terrorist Suspects. In
his concluding report, covering January to September 2005,
Bill Norris commented that the video system was user-friendly and could
be operated in a more relaxed environment. He also found that the wider
use of video identification procedures in Northern Ireland was to be
welcomed and commended.
I hope that hon. Members will
agree that there is every reason to implement these video
identification techniques sooner rather than later. The revised code of
practice will make them the default in Northern Ireland, and I
therefore commend it to the Committee.
4.39
pm Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr. Gale. I thank the Minister for his full explanation
of the order and the need for it. He has answered the questions that I
was about to ask, so I see no point in prolonging our proceedings. I
have no objections to the
order. 4.40
pm Dr.
William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I welcome the order and offer
my party’s full support. While I must confess that I have not
read every line of the code, I am convinced that the measure is a
common-sense step that will help all involved in the process and the
wider criminal justice system. Although the measure deals only with
those offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, I look forward to it being
extended to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order
1989. From several
perspectives, the order is a substantial advance on what has gone
before and demonstrates how technology can have a positive impact on
dealing with such matters. Clearly, it is important that the new system
does not open up the potential for abuse of the suspect’s rights
or, as is often more common, allegations of abuse. However, I am
satisfied that the necessary arrangements are in place so that it does
not prove to be a problem either by the presence of the
suspect’s solicitor or the videoing of the identity card
process. Indeed, given
the transparency of the process, I believe that it will help to
eliminate any present worries about how line-ups are arranged. The
speed at which the process can be set up is also undoubtedly likely to
contribute to more accurate results, and the longer time is left
between the incident and the identification, the greater the potential
exists for someone’s memory to fade or to be confused. The
ability of the suspect and his solicitor to be in a position to help
choose from a database of images will also help to ensure that the
selection is as fair as possible, with the dangers that exist under the
present system
eliminated. The new
system is also more transparent than anything that has gone before with
the whole process being available for the court to view. It will
therefore end the drama of the traditional line-up. However, that drama
does not contribute to the more accurate ability to identify the
correct offender. Undoubtedly, stress impacts negatively on the ability
of a person to recall and the process will help to avoid or at least
limit the stress. It
must be the case that such a system will ease the pressure on people
carrying out the identification and allow them better to identify or
indeed not identify the suspect as the person involved. While cost
cannot be an overriding consideration in such matters, clearly there is
considerable potential to reduce cost that can more profitably be spent
elsewhere. It is also to be welcomed that the need to travel to Belfast
to carry out the line-ups as happens at present will be eliminated,
thus enabling witnesses to be accommodated at a more
convenient venue. It may be said that we have waited longer than
necessary for such an improvement, none the less I hope that we all
agree that it is better late than
never. Mr.
Woodward: I wish to put on the record my thanks for the
support of the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for
Montgomeryshire and for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). The hon. Member for
South Antrim rightly recognised the transparency that has been
incorporated into the order, the efficiency savings that undoubtedly
will be made and the improvements to the criminal justice system not
only for victims—of course, we put victims first—but in
ensuring a fairer process for the
defendant. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code
of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers)
(Northern Ireland) Order
2006. Committee rose
at sixteen minutes to Five
o’clock.
| 
