Mr.
Garnier: We can return to business as usual and deal with
some criminal law, which may or may not attract greater public
interest. The
amendments can be described briefly, because they all seek to achieve
the same purpose, which is to widen the ambit of the qualifying
offences set out in clause 59(2). We are talking about investigations
of criminal offences in which it is thought appropriate that those
helping with the investigation should be provided with some form of
anonymity during the course of the qualifying criminal investigation.
That relates to clause 61, which we will deal with shortly.
Applications can be made to the court to secure an investigation
anonymity
order. The
intentions behind clause 59 were explained to us, I think, on Second
Reading and perhaps also during the evidence session featuring
Government Ministers. The Government are concerned that gang crime is
going undetected or is not being prosecuted because people are scared
to come forward and identify themselves as potential witnesses; that
is, as people who have seen, heard or have other relevant evidence to
give in relation to offences and to identifying the people who have
committed
them. At
the moment, under clause 59(2) the Government restrict themselves to
outlining the offences of murder and manslaughter. It seems to me that
if it is right to have investigation anonymity orders, it is right to
extend their ambit beyond offences of murder and manslaughter. Gangs do
not just kill people; they also hurt them and inflict non-fatal
injuries.
That is why
in amendments 404, 74, 406, 75, 405, 76 and 77 we are attempting to
increase the types of offence that are covered within this chapter of
the Bill. Amendment 406 is probably the widest example, but the others
follow the same pattern. Of course, some of the amendments are
consequential and adjust the language of the clause to fit the
amendment. Let
me go through amendment 406 to explain broadly the principles behind
our thinking. What we intend to do through this amendment is to add, at
the bottom of clause 59(2)(b), the following subsections. Beyond murder
and manslaughter—amendment 404 already seeks to insert
“attempted murder”—we
suggest: “(c) under section 18 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding or inflicting
grievous bodily harm with
intent); (d) an offence under
section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding or
inflicting grievous bodily
harm); (e) an offence under
section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of firearm with intent
to endanger life); (f) an
offence under section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of
firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of
violence); (g) an offence under
section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968 (carrying firearm or imitation
firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence or to resist
arrest); (h) an offence under
section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 (carrying firearm in public
place).’.
All those offences are
the sorts of things that, in addition to murder and manslaughter,
disobliging members of gangs occasionally do, so it would be sensible
to add to subsection (2) if not in those exact terms, then in something
similar to them.
Amendment 77
deals with the same clause, of which subsection (3) states:
“The
condition in this subsection is that the death was caused by one or
both of the following”.
Our amendments would
change the provision so that it reads that
“the death or
injury was caused by one or both the
following— (a)
being shot with a
firearm; (b)
being injured with a knife;”—
and thirdly, by
including amendment
77— “(c)
any other weapon or means of causing injury including but not limited
to hands and
feet.” I
have had the misfortune to try any number of cases where people have
been severely beaten up by people kicking and punching them, and,
beyond guns and knives, there are other forms of weapons, too, such as
blunt instruments and domestic appliances—saucepans, frying
pans, you name it, Mr. Gale, these unattractive people will
lay their hands on anything that they can get hold of to wreak terror.
It strikes me that if the clause is to do what it is supposed to do,
which is make it easier to prosecute and to bring adducible and
relevant evidence to court, it would be sensible not to limit it to
murder, manslaughter, firearms and knives, but to extend it as I have
suggested.
Mr.
George Howarth: I have listened to what the hon. and
learned Gentleman has to say, and I have a great deal of sympathy with
it. From personal experience in my part of the world, I must say that,
often, the most lethal weapon is a baseball
bat.
Mr.
Garnier: Yes, and at the moment, one cannot get an
investigation anonymity order when the terror on the estate or in the
locality has been caused by gangs riding around on motorbikes swinging
baseball bats. I entirely take on board the right hon.
Gentleman’s point, and I hope that, if the Government resist my
amendment, he will be able to twist their arm—possibly with a
baseball bat.
David
Howarth: My main concern about the provisions is whether
they will work—whether they will change behaviour. But, if the
Committee will forgive me, I shall reserve my remarks about that until
we reach amendment 463 later in the process.
At this
point, I want to express my concern about the way in which the clause,
in particular, but this whole chapter in general, seem to work. The
Bill, as drafted, means that the investigation anonymity order applies
in only a very narrow set of cases—only to the most serious
crime, only with regard to a very specific group of offenders and only
to so-called gang offenders, although the definition of gang is not
entirely satisfactory, so we will deal with that later on. It seems
that the narrowness is somewhat arbitrary, which is the main thrust of
the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
Why does the Bill provide only for those specific offences and not for
the offences that he
proposes? And why does it provide only for those
particular groups of potential offenders? Further on in the clause, we
see that apparently arbitrary narrowness is combined with enormous
powers to expand the scope of the legislation later. We will
discuss that specifically when we discuss the next group of amendments,
but I want to say something about the conjunction of the immense
arbitrary narrowness and the power to introduce much broader powers.
That is not a good way to legislate, unless there is some sort of pilot
to test it out and see whether it works. However, nowhere along the
line have the Government said that that is how the measure will
operate. I am interested in the Minister’s view on how the
legislation will develop in the next few years, and why the Government
have chosen such a method.
The
amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough have
several origins, including the suggestions put forward by Justice.
However, Justice’s suggestions did not stop at the measures that
he has proposed. They also included proposals to narrow the power to
expand the scope of the legislation, which we will propose in the next
group of amendments. I am addressing the same problem that Justice is
addressing. Why is there a combination of arbitrary narrowness and a
great power to
expand?
Maria
Eagle: Clause 59 creates, along with other clauses in the
chapter, a new tool in the battle against witness intimidation. The
clauses underline our determination to get to grips with gang and gun
crime. The purpose of the new investigation anonymity order is to
encourage witnesses who are in fear of reprisals to come forward at an
early stage of an investigation, safe in the knowledge that their
identity will be kept
hidden. Some
members of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for
Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and I, have come across such problems
and will have gang-related crime issues in their constituencies. Of a
number of characteristics, gang-related crime tends to be localised to
estates or is otherwise geographically limited. Some of us are
concerned that if the authorities, especially the police, do not get a
grip of it, it will be possible for entire geographical areas to be
effectively outwith their control within a few
years. I
know of a number of cases. One case from the other side of Liverpool
from my constituency—the killing of Rhys Jones—hit the
national headlines. It illustrated well that the climate of fear that
can be created in a place by the rise of gang-based intimidation and
killing can have a real impact on the capacity of the police to bring
to justice those engaged in such behaviour.
The hon. and
learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Cambridge both
asked why the proposed new investigation anonymity order is limited in
the Bill. The reason is that we do not want to see them extended to the
entire criminal justice system. During the passage of the emergency
legislation on witness anonymity last year, which, as promised, we are
re-enacting in this Bill, a big concern expressed in the House and in
Committee was that introducing anonymity as a matter of course into
criminal proceedings was not desirable from the viewpoint of doing
justice to the defendant, or from the viewpoint of the fine old common
law principles that have been in existence for a very long time
to ensure that defendants can confront their accusers. We always
have to get the balance right, but we are talking about a stage before
a case gets to a court or is anywhere near being tried. As this tool is
novel, we want to ensure that we introduce it carefully and that it has
a useful purpose to fulfil. We hope that it will work, and we think
that it will contribute. Obviously, we have not yet tried it in
practice. If it does not work, we will not suggest that its use should
be extended. We want to ensure that we do not introduce provisions that
might leave potential defendants without proper
safeguards. 9.45
pm There
are already a number of constraints on the authorities’ ability
to disclose sensitive information about witnesses, such as data
protection legislation and common law confidentiality duties. However,
they are not strong enough to address the severe consequences faced by
potential witnesses when they are in an area in which a violent gang
has committed a crime. We need to ensure that we can extend proper
safeguards to witnesses coming forward to give
evidence. What
sets the new order apart from the existing arrangements is a new common
law offence of breaching the order. The offence is intended to reassure
witnesses that they can safely offer their evidence at the beginning of
an investigation when it really matters and when witness intimidation
is often an issue. It will provide a persuasive reminder that at no
time must information that might reveal the witnesses’ identity
be disclosed outside the small circle of people who need to know about
it. It is that prohibition backed up by criminal sanctions that will
give witnesses the confidence to come forward at an early stage to
ensure that the police can do their best to bring the perpetrators to
justice. I
am glad to say that gang-related homicides remain proportionately rare
and tend to be a localised problem in the country as a whole. None the
less, for the communities and families affected they create a real
problem. The target of the new order will be the area in which the
greatest problems lie, including homicide cases that involve guns and
gangs. That is why we have applied the order to those offences. The
Bill targets the most obvious mischief. The offences may make available
investigations into other offences in the future. If they work, it may
be something that is considered. That is why the order-making power is
there. I am perfectly happy to discuss with the hon. Member for
Cambridge the ambit of the order-making power and whether it is
appropriate.
The amendment
before us greatly broadens the qualifying offences for the new
investigation anonymity order. As explained by the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough, we do not want, at present, a wider range of
cases to be caught by the measures. During the passage of the emergency
legislation last year, there was concern about the impact of anonymity
becoming too widespread in the criminal justice system, and that is a
concern that we all have to have. We want to focus the provisions on
these particular offences at present and see whether it works. That is
the explanation. We are not seeking to deny that gangs may commit other
serious offences in other ways. That is clearly true and the hon. and
learned Gentleman knows that from his experience; we all know that. The
provisions are new, and are designed to target
a specific problem. We want to see whether they work before we consider
extending
them. Mr.
George Howarth: It may be that the Minister is coming on
to this point. If she is, she will forgive me for raising it.
The hon. and
learned Gentleman’s amendment, which I indicated that I was
quite attracted to when he discussed it, seeks to insert paragraph (c)
into subsection (3). It is oddly worded and
says, “any
other weapon or means of causing injury including but not limited to
hands and
feet.” I
agree with the principle behind it; there are other forms of weapon
that could be used. Will the Minister commit herself to giving some
thought to whether that provision could be widened to take into account
other weapons? I am not necessarily talking about today, but could she
give it some more thought before we consider the Bill on
Report?
Maria
Eagle: I am happy to give some thought to that, but I am
conscious of not wishing to extend the ambit of the orders too far
before knowing how effective they might prove to
be. Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I understand why the
Minister does not want to extend that too broadly, but could she
comment on one possible anomaly? She will be aware, as those of us who
have practised in the criminal courts are aware, of cases that begin as
assaults but end as murder or manslaughter, because the victims have
been in hospital and, sadly, died as a result of injuries caused. As I
read the clause, during the investigation stage the police would not be
able to apply for an investigation anonymity order in such a
circumstance. Is there a policy reason why a distinction should be made
between cases in which a serious assault later results in death
and cases in which a serious assault results immediately in
death?
Maria
Eagle: Not really; it is about a line—when one has
to draw a line, one has to decide where to draw it. The hon. Gentleman
might draw it in a slightly different place to where we have chosen to
draw it in the Bill as drafted. I am happy to consider the matter
further, but I am not making any undertakings to change our current
view. I
expected that I might get attacked for introducing anonymity into the
criminal justice system in an unjustified way and for too wide a range
of offences. Now I am being told that the range of offences is not wide
enough. C’est la vie, I suppose. Perhaps we shall come to such
criticism at a later stage in our consideration of this part of the
Bill. I understand the points made by the amendments. Obviously it is
possible to draw a line in a different place, and I am happy to
consider the matter further, but I am not promising to change my mind
by
Report. I
hope that, on the basis of those explanations, the hon. and learned
Gentleman might consider withdrawing his
amendment.
| 
