 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Crime and Security Bill |
Crime and Security Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 2 February 2010(Afternoon)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Crime and Security BillClause 2Powers
to take material in relation to
offences Amendment
moved (this day): 2, in clause 2, page 2,
line 31, at end insert
‘provided that the power under this
subsection may not be exercised later than six months from the date of
arrest or if earlier the date that it was decided that no further
action would be taken in connection with the events or circumstances
which led to the arrest.’.—(James
Brokenshire.) 4
pm
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 4, in
clause 2, page 3, line 35, at
end insert ‘provided that the
power under this subsection may not be exercised later than six months
from the date of arrest or if earlier the date that it was decided that
no further action would be taken in connection with the events or
circumstances which led to the
arrest.’. Amendment
12, in
clause 8, page 15, line 37, at
end insert ‘provided that the
power under this paragraph may not be exercised later than six months
from the date of arrest or if earlier the date that it was decided that
no further action would be taken in connection with the events or
circumstances which led to the
arrest.’. Amendment
14, in
clause 8, page 16, line 39, at
end insert ‘provided that the
power under this paragraph may not be exercised later than six months
from the date of arrest or if earlier the date that it was decided that
no further action would be taken in connection with the events or
circumstances which led to the
arrest.’. James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): When we broke for lunch,
we had started our debate on amendment 2. In some respects,
there is an overlap with the previous debate and the ability to take
samples from someone who has been arrested. The amendment seeks to add
a new provision, so that the power under section 2(1) in relation to
fingerprinting should be exercised no later than
“six months from
the date of arrest or if earlier the date that it was decided that no
further action would be taken in connection with the events or
circumstances which led to the arrest.”
It follows on
from the previous debate, in that we need to understand the ability of
police officers to take samples from someone who has simply been
arrested. The language of clause 2 seems to be open ended. The Minister
gave only a brief response on the previous group of amendments, which
covered a similar point, so it is important for us to understand how
the process works. Similarly, clause 2(4) on non-intimate samples seems
to be without time limit.
I alighted on
a period of six months in the amendment because I understand that,
because of internal requirements, the Crown Prosecution Service
normally takes up to six months to decide whether to charge
someone who has been arrested in relation to particular facts
or
circumstances. I question whether that is an appropriate time limit for
allowing DNA samples to be taken following arrest. In other words, it
should not be some sort of open-ended period. We should alight on
something reasonable and appropriate, hence my reason for using the
amendment—to probe the Government on some of the detail and to
find out whether six months might be an appropriate
limit. It
would seem perverse to have an unlimited power to take the fingerprints
of those arrested for, but never charged with or convicted of, an
offence, beyond any agreed retention period in relation to DNA samples
if taken at the outset. In the previous debate, I sought to make the
argument that there is a distinction between persons who have been
convicted, persons who have been charged and persons who have been
arrested.
I appreciate
that there was some response, albeit rather swift, prior to lunch. It
would help if the Minister said why the Bill seems not to include a
specific time limit, similar to that in relation to other provisions,
on the specific point of persons who have been arrested and the ability
of the police to take samples from them.
Mr.
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): This is
only a drafting point. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the
Member for Hornchurch has said, but there is another category of
situation in which time could be relevant, and that is when a trial has
not taken place but there has been no decision to discontinue. In other
words, the prosecution authorities have made the arrest, but have not
taken the matter to trial or, in fact, have decided not to have a
trial; they are still pondering whether there should be a trial and/or
gathering evidence or whatever. That is an additional category to the
one mentioned by my hon. Friend, and perhaps it should be reflected in
the approach that he takes to the imposition of time
limits.
The
Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr.
David Hanson): Amendments 2, 4, 12 and 14, which have been
tabled by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, would place limitations on
new and existing powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to
take DNA samples and fingerprints from people who have been arrested or
charged with an
offence. As
the Committee knows, clause 2 will allow the police to take
fingerprints and non-intimate DNA samples from people who have been
arrested for a recordable offence and subsequently released—this
is the crucial point—either while they are still on bail and
their fingerprints or sample have not already been taken, or if the
initial fingerprints or samples taken have proved inadequate for
analysis. The amendments would prevent the police in England and
Wales—there are corresponding amendments to clause 8 for
Northern Ireland—from taking fingerprints or samples in such
circumstances any later than six months after the date of the arrest or
earlier. I
hope that this is a straightforward point. I happen to believe that if
there is an ongoing investigation, as is the case if a person is on
bail or if the police wish to have a further analysis of the samples,
the police should be able to take fingerprints or samples from a person
after they have been released from custody, even more than six months
after the initial arrest. I am of the view,
and it is debatable, that new evidence might come to light and that
there might be a need for further investigation. Fingerprints or
samples might be required from the person in order to prove or disprove
their involvement in a particular offence. Therefore, there are
reasonable grounds for the power to be
enacted. Clause
6 already limits the power of the police to require a person to attend
a police station for the purpose of having their fingerprints or sample
taken. I therefore believe that the changes in the Bill are adequate. I
cannot offer any further explanation, so I hope that that is
satisfactory for right hon. and hon.
Members.
James
Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister of State for
that clarification. He highlighted the two limbs and said that,
obviously, one of the factors was whether the samples taken had been
inadequate. This is something that will come up for other provisions in
the Bill. I do not know whether he is able to do so immediately, but
can he give the Committee any insight on the frequency with which
repeat samples are taken—for example, when a sample has been
taken but it is not possible to create a profile from it? It would be
helpful to understand whether that is a common issue or the exception
to the rule, if I may characterise it like
that.
Mr.
Hanson: I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot
give him the figures or the frequency at the moment, but I will
certainly look at the issue and write to him, and, if you feel that it
is necessary, Mr. Cook, I will copy in other members of the
Committee. If the matter is still of concern, it can be returned to in
another place or at a different stage of the
legislation.
I
am grateful to the Minister of State for his clarification of those
points. However, it would aid our better understanding of the clause
and the amendments if we understood whether samples were required more
than once and with what frequency. None the less, in the light of his
comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
The
Chairman: Perhaps I can offer some clarification. It is
important that all members of the Committee who seek to take the Floor
should stand up, so that I know when they want to speak; otherwise, you
will fail to catch my eye. You stand first and you are called second.
We understand that, don’t we?
‘provided that the
power under this subsection may not be exercised if the person has been
acquitted of the offence or the relevant charges have been
withdrawn.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4,
line 7, at end insert
‘provided that the power under this
subsection may not be exercised if the person has been acquitted of the
offence or the relevant charges have been
withdrawn.’.
Amendment 13,
in
clause 8, page 16, line 2, at
end insert ‘provided that the
power under this paragraph may not be exercised if the person has been
acquitted of the offence or the relevant charges have been
withdrawn.’. Amendment
15, in
clause 8, page 17, line 13, at
end insert ‘provided that the
power under this paragraph may not be exercised if the person has been
acquitted of the offence or the relevant charges have been
withdrawn.’.
James
Brokenshire: We come to what could be described as a
further, parallel amendment. The amendment provides that
“the power under
this subsection may not be exercised if the person has been acquitted
of the offence or the relevant charges have been
withdrawn.” We
have debated the use of the power in relation to those who have been
convicted of an offence and, under the last group of amendments, those
who have been arrested. The present amendments deal with the right to
go back and take samples when someone has been charged with an
offence.
The amendment
is intended to test Government thinking about the extent to which there
should be the right to go back if someone has been acquitted of an
offence or the charges against them have been dropped. At that stage,
it would be open to someone to ask why the police should come back when
no charges are extant against them. The authorities had a clear
opportunity to take DNA examples and fingerprints, so what is the
justification, now that the person has been acquitted or had the
charges against them dropped, for saying that the police can require
them to submit fingerprints or a sample? The purpose of the amendment
is to test the thinking and logic behind the belief that it is
appropriate to cover such an eventuality.
The amendment
is also intended to look at the cumulative impact of the three cases
that I mentioned—conviction, arrest and charge—and to
make it clear that when one falls away, the others will also fall away;
in other words, we should not continually be coming back to a person.
That comes back to the point that we made in the previous debate about
someone who has been arrested and charged, but who is then acquitted or
who has the charges against them dropped. Again, why should a sample be
submitted at that point?
It is
important to understand why the provisions are necessary in the context
of the clause. The relevant supervising officer can require their
utilisation
when “taking
the fingerprints is necessary to assist in the prevention or detection
of
crime.” That
is quite wide ranging and open and seems to permit what might be
described as simple recall exercise. The police might want to recall
someone who was previously charged because they did not take a sample
at the time and they want to take one now, even though the person is
innocent of any charges at that stage and would, in all other
circumstances, be regarded as a free person.
I want to
probe the Minister on the safeguards that may be required. Is there any
potential to push the envelope? As we debated previously, the case can
be made much more clearly and effectively in relation to persons who
have been convicted. However, I would
appreciate hearing from the Minister why it is felt necessary to cover
the eventuality of people who have been acquitted or whose charges have
been
dropped. 4.15
pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 3 February 2010 |