The Committee's consideration of
the Bill
3. In January 2003 we reported on the human rights
implications of the Bill as originally introduced to the House
of Commons.[1] We came
to the conclusion that various provisions raised no human rights
issue requiring to be drawn to the attention of either House.
These included: proposals in Part 7 of the Bill to limit trial
by jury;[2] proposals in
Part 11, Chapter 2 to extend the circumstances in which hearsay
evidence would be admissible;[3]
power for police constables to grant bail to people whom they
have arrested, without taking them to a police station;[4]
the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy in certain cases[5]
(although more will be said about this below); and provisions
for sharing information about certain offenders.[6]
4. On the other hand, we identified a number
of matters as being of concern on human rights grounds. These
included:
a) the adequacy of safeguards for the property
of people detained by the police if the requirement under section
54(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (hereafter
'PACE') for the police to record all property in the possession
of the detainee is repealed by clause 6 of the Bill;[7]
b) the implications for the right to a fair hearing
and the right to respect for private life, under ECHR Articles
6 and 8 respectively, of provisions in Part 11, Chapter 1 of the
Bill to extend the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's
or witness's bad character;[8]
provisions relating to sentencing and punishment;[9]
c) the effect on the right to a fair hearing
under ECHR Article 6 of provisions now in clauses 152 and 153
of the Bill restricting disclosure of pre-sentence reports and
certain other reports by local probation boards and youth offending
teams to defendants who are aged under 17 and are not represented
by counsel or solicitor.[10]
5. Subsequently, we considered amendments made
to the Bill in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons.
We had a number of concerns about both matters raised in our Second
Report and amendments introduced subsequently, and several of
these were raised with the Minister of State for Criminal Justice,
Sentencing and Law Reform, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when he
gave oral evidence to us on 22 May 2003. After that, the Home
Office provided further written evidence about some of the issues
discussed during that session. We are grateful to the Minister,
and to his officials, for their helpful co-operation.
6. In the light of all this, we now report our
views on the human rights implications of the Bill as introduced
to the House of Lords. We reiterate our concern about:
a) the protection for property rights of people
detained in police custody in the light of clause 6 of the Bill;
b) the provisions in Part 11, Chapter 1 regarding
the admissibility of evidence of bad character;
and we draw attention to the effect of amendments
to the double jeopardy provision, now in clauses 72(2) and 73
of the Bill, which would allow a new trial to be ordered following
an acquittal if evidence is now available which was not adduced
by the prosecution at the first trial, even if it was available
at the time.
7. We also consider the following new provisions
with human rights implications:
a) the new provisions, now in clauses 7 and 8
of the Bill, which would allow the more or less routine taking
and storage of fingerprints, non-intimate samples and data derived
from them, from anyone arrested for a recordable offence;
b) a new provision, now in clause 298 of, and
Schedule 29 to, the Bill, which would allow the Home Secretary
to delegate to a private body, including potentially one situated
outside the United Kingdom, his functions in relation to the issue
of criminal record certificates by the Criminal Records Bureau;
c) a new presumption against granting bail to
any defendant who has failed to surrender to bail before in the
proceedings, now contained in clause 15 of the Bill;
d) new provisions, now in clause 271 of the Bill,
for a minimum sentence for certain firearms offences;
e) new provisions, now in clauses 254 to 262
of, and Schedule 17 to, the Bill, for setting 'tariff' periods
of imprisonment to be served by a person convicted of murder before
he or she would be come eligible for release on licence;
f) amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow
people detained on suspicion of terrorism to be held without charge
for up to 14 days, instead of the current maximum period of seven
days.
1 
