Clause
128
Commencement
Amendments
made: No. 221, in clause 128, page 85,
line 17, at end
insert—
‘(h) paragraphs 6(3)
and 12 to 15 of Schedule (Hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation)
and the repeals in Part 4 of Schedule 23 relating to Part 3A of the
Public Order Act 1986
(c. 64).’.
No.
370, in
clause 128, page 85, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(i) paragraphs
8A to 8E of Schedule
21.’.
No.
222, in
clause 128, page 85, line 22, at
end insert—
‘(d) paragraphs
2 to 7 of Schedule (Sexual offences: grooming and
adoption).’.
No. 223, in
clause 128, page 85, line 22, at
end insert—
‘(2A) Where any
particular provision or provisions of a Schedule come into force in
accordance with subsection (1) or (2), the section introducing the
Schedule also comes into force in accordance with that subsection so
far as relating to the particular provision or
provisions.’.
No.
371, in
clause 128, page 85, line 28, leave
out paragraph (d) and insert—
‘(d) sections 76, 77, (Requests to other
member States: Northern Ireland), (Procedure on receipt of certificate
by Lord Chancellor: Northern Ireland), 78, 79, (Modification of
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), (Requests from other member
States: Northern Ireland), (Procedure on receipt of certificate by
clerk of petty sessions), (Modification of Magistrates’ Courts
(Northern Ireland) Order 1981), (Transfer of certificates to central
authority for Scotland), 80 and 81 and Schedules (Penalties suitable
for enforcement in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) and
16.’.—[Maria
Eagle.]
Clause
128, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
129
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
28
Power
of Court of Appeal to disregard developments in the
law
‘(1) The Criminal Appeal
Act 1968 (c. 19) is amended as
follows.
(2) In section 2
(appeals against conviction), after subsection (1B) (as inserted by
section 26(2))
insert—
“(1C) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether the
conviction is unsafe the Court may, if they think it appropriate in all
the circumstances of the case, disregard any development in the law
since the date of the
conviction.”
(3) In
section 13 (disposal of appeals against verdict of not guilty by reason
of insanity), after subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 26(2A))
insert—
“(1C) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether the verdict
is unsafe the Court may, if they think it appropriate in all the
circumstances of the case, disregard any development in the law since
the date of the
verdict.”’.
(4)
In section 16 (disposal of appeals against finding of disability),
after subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 26(2B))
insert—
“(1C)
In determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a finding
is unsafe the Court may, if they think it appropriate in all the
circumstances of the case, disregard any development in the law since
the date of the finding.” ’.—[Mr.
Coaker.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
29
Meaning
of unsafe: Northern
Ireland
‘(1) The Criminal
Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) is amended as
follows.
(2) In section 2
(grounds for allowing an appeal against conviction) after subsection
(1) insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a),
the conviction is not unsafe if the Court thinks that there is no
reasonable doubt about the appellant’s
guilt.
(1B) Subsection (1A)
does not require the Court to dismiss the appeal if it thinks that it
would seriously undermine the proper administration of justice to allow
the conviction to stand.”
(3) In section 12 (appeal against finding of not
guilty on ground of insanity), after subsection (2)
insert—
“(2A) For
the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the finding shall not be regarded as
unsafe for a reason unrelated to the correctness of the finding of
insanity if the Court thinks that there is no reasonable doubt that the
accused did the act or made the omission
charged.
(2B) Subsection (2A)
does not require the Court to dismiss the appeal if it thinks that it
would seriously undermine the proper administration of justice to allow
the finding to
stand.”
(4) In section
13A (appeal against finding of unfitness to be tried), after subsection
(3) insert—
“(3A)
For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), a finding shall not be regarded
as unsafe for a reason unrelated to the correctness of the finding that
the accused is unfit to be tried if the Court thinks that there is no
reasonable doubt that the accused did the act or made the omission
charged.
(3B) Subsection (3A)
does not require the Court to dismiss the appeal if it thinks that it
would seriously undermine the proper administration of justice to allow
the finding to
stand.”’.
(5) In
section 25
(evidence)—
(a) in
subsection (2)(b) after “allowing” insert “or
dismissing”, and
(b) in
subsection (2)(c) for “which is the subject of the
appeal” substitute “which is relevant to the
determination of the
appeal”.
(6) After
section 29
insert—
“Supplementary
29A
Evidence given after close of prosecution
case
In determining an appeal
under this Part, the Court of Appeal shall not disregard any evidence
solely on the ground that it was given after the judge at the
appellant’s trial wrongly permitted the trial to continue after
the close of the evidence for the
prosecution.”’.—[Mr.
Coaker.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
30
Power
of Court of Appeal to disregard developments in the law: Northern
Ireland
‘(1) The Criminal
Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) is amended as
follows.
(2) In section 2
(appeals against conviction), after subsection (1B) (as inserted by
section (Meaning of unsafe: Northern Ireland)(2))
insert—
“(1C) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether the
conviction is unsafe the Court may, if it thinks it appropriate in all
the circumstances of the case, disregard any development in the law
since the date of the
conviction.”
(3) In
section 12 (appeal against finding of not guilty on ground of
insanity), after subsection (2B) (as inserted by section (Meaning of
unsafe: Northern Ireland)(3))
insert—
“(2C) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) whether the finding
is unsafe the Court may, if it thinks it appropriate in all the
circumstances of the case, disregard any development in the law since
the date of the finding.”.
(4) In section 13A (appeal against finding of
unfitness to be tried), after subsection (3B) (as inserted by section
(Meaning of unsafe: Northern Ireland)(4))
insert—
“(3C)
In determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) whether a finding
is unsafe the Court may, if it thinks it appropriate in all the
circumstances of the case, disregard any development
in the law since the date of the finding. ”
’.—[Mr.
Coaker.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That the Clause be read a
Second time.
Mr.
Garnier:
I have spoken on the clauses before. I just want
to clarify, in case anyone thought that we were just letting them
through on the nod, that the powers of the Court of Appeal issues were
discussed and debated fully some time ago. I hope that no one reading
this afternoon’s Hansard would think that we had not
dealt with it. We have dealt with it, but last week or the week
before.
The
Chairman:
The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his
point, which will be on the record. I trust that when people look at
Hansard they read the whole lot and not just towards the end of
a Bill.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time,
and added to the Bill.
New Clause
31
Determination
of prosecution appeals: Northern
Ireland
‘In Article 20 of the
Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1500)
(determination of prosecution appeals by Court of Appeal) for paragraph
(5)
substitute—
“(5)
But the Court of Appeal may not make an order under paragraph (4)(c) in
respect of an offence unless it considers that the defendant could not
receive a fair trial if an order were made under paragraph (4)(a) or
(b).”’.—[Maria
Eagle.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Maria
Eagle:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
We have not
discussed the new clause previously, but we have discussed something
remarkably similar to it. It is the Northern Ireland equivalent to
clause 27, which applies to England and Wales. The clause will alter
the test which the Court of Appeal applies in deciding whether a trial
should be resumed or a retrial take place following the successful
prosecution appeal against a ruling discontinuing a trial. This is
merely the equivalent provision for Northern
Ireland.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time,
and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
32
SFO’s
pre-investigation powers in relation to bribery and corruption: foreign
officers etc
‘(1) The
Criminal Justice Act 1987 (c. 38) is amended as
follows.
(2) After section 2
insert—
“2A
Director’s pre-investigation powers in relation to bribery and
corruption: foreign officers
etc
(1) The powers of the
Director under section 2 are also exercisable for the purpose of
enabling him to determine whether to start an investigation under
section 1 in a case where it appears to him that conduct to which this
section applies may have taken place.
(2)
But—
(a) the power under
subsection (2) of section 2 is so exercisable only if it appears to the
Director that for the purpose of enabling him to make that
determination it is expedient to require any person appearing to him to
have relevant information to do as mentioned in that subsection,
and
(b) the power under subsection (3) of that section
is so exercisable only if it appears to the Director that for that
purpose it is expedient to require any person to do as mentioned in
that subsection.
(3)
Accordingly, where the powers of the Director under section 2 are
exercisable in accordance with subsections (1) and (2)
above—
(a) the reference
in subsection (2) of that section to the person under investigation or
any other person whom the Director has reason to believe has relevant
information is to be read as a reference to any such person as is
mentioned in subsection (2)(a)
above,
(b) the reference in
subsection (3) of that section to the person under investigation or any
other person is to be read as a reference to any such person as is
mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above,
and
(c) any reference in
subsection (2), (3) or (4) of that section to the investigation is to
be read as a reference to the making of any such determination as is
mentioned in subsection (1)
above.
(4) Any reference in
section 2(16) to the carrying out of an investigation by the Serious
Fraud Office into serious or complex fraud includes a reference to the
making of any such determination as is mentioned in subsection (1)
above.
(5) This section applies
to any conduct which, as a result of section 108 of the Anti-terrorism,
Crime and Security Act 2001 (bribery and corruption: foreign officers
etc), constitutes a corruption offence (wherever
committed).
(6) The following
are corruption offences for the purposes of this
section—
(a) any common
law offence of bribery;
(b) the
offences under section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act
1889 (corruption in office);
and
(c) the offences under
section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (corrupt
transactions with
agents).”
(3) In section
17(3) (provisions of Act extending to Northern Ireland) after
“sections 2” insert “,
2A”.
(4) This section
extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland
only.’.—[Mr.
Hanson.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Hanson:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Serious Fraud Office has compulsory powers under section 2 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1987 to compel the disclosure of evidence that may
be relevant to a current investigation into serious or complex fraud.
The new clause would introduce a new section 2A into the 1987 Act,
which would allow the director of the Serious Fraud Office to approve
the use of section 2 powers at the vetting stage in cases where it
appears that there may have been a corruption offence involving a
foreign official. In practice, the provision will be useful in allowing
the Serious Fraud Office to compel British companies involved to
provide evidence about possible corruption abroad, as long as the
material is in the United Kingdom.
I hope that
the Committee recognises that the Government are committed to tackling
the corruption of foreign officials involving British companies.
Corruption abroad is particularly hard to investigate. In domestic
cases, the Serious Fraud Office often receives information on serious
corruption or bribery from the police or from a domestic regulator.
Documentary evidence and witnesses are often available in the United
Kingdom.
The information therefore allows the Serious Fraud Office to go through
a vetting process to decide whether the case justifies setting up what
will often be a multi-million pound investigation. Once an
investigation is set up, the Serious Fraud Office has powers to demand
relevant material such as documentary evidence and to interview
witnesses under section 2 of the 1987 Act. Unfortunately, in cases of
foreign corruption, it is much more difficult to gather information.
Witnesses may be thousands of miles away and reluctant to come forward.
Corrupt companies rarely co-operate, and the foreign jurisdiction is
often unable or unwilling to provide information. The effect is that
cases cannot go beyond the vetting stage because the Serious Fraud
Office does not have enough information to decide whether a serious or
complex fraud justifies the formal investigation to which it would have
to be committed. I do not think—and I am sure that the Committee
would share my view—that that is
acceptable.
5.15
pm
We must deal
with foreign corruption as well as corruption at
home. Organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development have expressed concern about the UK’s record on
investigating and prosecuting cases involving foreign officials. The
new clause would extend the SFO’s compulsory powers to demand
relevant material at the vetting stage. Those powers will allow the SFO
to demand from companies financial information relating to suspect
financial transactions, as long as that information is in the UK, and
to free professional witnesses from confidentiality obligations. The
proposals will help the Serious Fraud Office to tackle corruption
abroad, and I commend them to the
Committee.
Mr.
Heath:
An awful lot could be said about the new
clause, but the Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend
to say much. It should not be possible for investigations to be stopped
by anyone so minor as a company official or even an officer of the
state. That there is every capacity for princes of a realm or kings to
intervene to stop appropriate bribery and corruption investigations in
their tracks is only too evident to those who have seen the recent
history of this country. It is shameful that we are not better equipped
to deal with bribery and corruption in relation to British companies
operating abroad.
I
say to the Minister that this is a positive move and I support it.
However, he knows that his hon. Friend the Member for City of York
(Hugh Bayley) introduced a Corruption Bill two years ago. He may know
that I, too, proposed a Corruption Bill, which passed through all its
stages in the House of Lords but was not given a hearing of any kind in
this House in the last Session of Parliament. Both of those Bills would
have introduced the changes necessary for us to comply with our
international obligations and to correct the deficiencies, which he
correctly stated have been pointed out by the
OECD.
The Secretary of
State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in his
former capacity as Secretary of State for International Development and
anti-corruption tsar, as I believe he then was, stated categorically
that it was necessary for Britain to adopt such measures and to get our
law into
shape. However, such measures are still not being introduced. No Bill is
anticipated in this Session of Parliament. Is it not time that we did
something about our deplorable international record on dealing with
bribery and corruption involving British
companies?
Mr.
Garnier:
I think that this
Government have had more tsars than the Romanovs. I sat on the Joint
Committee that scrutinised the draft Corruption Bill, chaired by a
retired Law Lord whose name escapes me. That Bill, which was advanced
by the Law Commission and adopted by the Home Office and by the
Government as a whole, did not go anywhere. In the light of new clause
32, can the Minister tell us where it has
gone?
Mr.
Hanson:
The hon. Member for Somerton and
Frome and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are correct. In
March this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts
(John Reid), then Home Secretary, announced the next steps arising from
the Government’s consultation on the reform of law on bribery
and corruption. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Law
Commission was asked to undertake a thorough review of the legislation
with a view to a fundamental reform. The commission is expected to
produce a consultation paper later in the year and a draft Bill for
autumn 2008. We intend to introduce proposals for legislation to reform
the law as soon as possible—once the Law Commission has
reported.
I realise
that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough may view that as slightly longer grass than they
would wish, but I point out that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend
the Member for City of York failed because of an absence of consensus
on what might constitute new specific offences. The subject is complex,
but we are confident that the Law Commission is taking on board the
views of a wide cross-section of interested parties to produce what I
hope will be a simpler and much more workable Bill.
In the interim, we propose to
introduce a specific measure upon which we have previously consulted,
namely extending the SFO’s investigatory powers to the vetting
stage in any cases involving allegations of bribery or corruption of
overseas officials, officers or their agents. I hope that hon. Members
accept it as a positive step and understand that there will be a need
for wider discussion of the draft Bill following the
commission’s report in the new year. I commend the new clause to
the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause read
a Second time, and added to the Bill.
| 
