|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
(a) obligations of the body to its members;
(b) where the body is authorised under section 116B, obligations of the body to owners of copyright in works subject to the authorisation who are not members;
(c) accounting arrangements in relation to royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence;
(d) obligations of the body to licensees;
(e) control by the body of administration and marketing carried out by it or on its behalf;
(f) the handling of complaints against the body, including the appointment of a person to represent the interests of complainants;
(g) provision of information by the body, and other matters relating to transparency in relation to activities of the body;
(h) the making of reports by the body to the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under paragraph 1 must provide for a code to include, in relation to works to which an authorisation under section 116A or 116B applies that are registered as orphan works, provision relating to these matters-
(a) accounting arrangements in relation to royalties or other sums paid in respect of a licence;
(b) calculation of payments to copyright owners;
(c) arrangements for holding sums for copyright owners;
(d) provision of information by the authorised person."
"(ba) any of subsections (4) to (6) of section 116CB,"
(a) has carried out in accordance with regulations a diligent search to find or, if necessary, to identify and find, the owner of, or of an interest in, a performer's property rights, and
(b) has published the notice required by this paragraph,
but has not found the owner.
(a) make such use as is reasonable of sources of information, including sources within sub-paragraph (4), relating to the apparent country of origin of the recording concerned, and
(b) have regard to any presumptions under section 105 that would apply in relation to the recording in any proceedings.
(a) licensing bodies;
(b) associations of publishers or authors;
(c) systems for identifying works of the type concerned;
(d) published library catalogues and indexes;
(e) public databases, including public records that may indicate successors in title.
(a) the country of the recording's first publication, or
(b) if the recording has not been published, the country with which its making is most closely connected.
(6) The notice required by sub-paragraph (1)(b) is notice of the proposal to enter the interest concerned in a register kept in accordance with paragraph 1CB(1), published in a way designed to bring the proposal to the attention of the copyright owner.
1CB (1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State must provide for an authorisation under paragraph 1A or 1B to have effect in respect of an interest of a missing rights owner only if the interest is entered in a register kept by the authorised person (an "orphan rights register").
(a) specify the form of an orphan rights register and how it is to be kept, and
(b) provide for an orphan rights register to be made available to the public.
(a) has taken the steps referred to in paragraph 1CA(1)(a) and (b) and has not found the owner of the interest, or
(b) has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has taken those steps and that the owner of the interest has not been found.
(a) is aware that any of the steps referred to in paragraph 1CA(1)(a) and (b) was not taken, or
(b) is aware of information that makes it no longer reasonable to rely on the steps taken,
the authorised person must as soon as possible take those steps or remove the entry.
(7) Where an interest is entered in an orphan rights register, regulations under paragraph 1A or 1B may provide for an authorisation under that paragraph to have effect in respect of that interest despite a failure to take steps referred to in paragraph 1CA(1)(a) or (b) or to comply with any of sub-paragraphs (4) to (6).
(8) But a failure by an authorised person to comply with any of sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty owed to the owner of the interest concerned (and see paragraph 3 of Schedule A1 as it applies by virtue of paragraph 1D).
(9) Any guidance issued by the Secretary of State must be taken into account in deciding whether a person has taken the steps referred to in paragraph 1CA(1)(a) and (b) or has complied with sub-paragraph (6).
(b) as if the reference in paragraph 3(1)(ba) to section 116CB(4) to (6) were a reference to paragraph 1CB(4) to (6);"
"( ) Before making provision as to requirements for a person's becoming or remaining authorised under paragraph 1A or 1B, the Secretary of State must consult the persons the Secretary of State thinks likely to be affected (or persons who represent such persons) and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat an Answer given by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to an Urgent Question asked in another place earlier today.
"Mr Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain to the House the situation relating to Jon Venables. The background is this. James Bulger, then aged two and a half, was in 1993 the victim of a most horrific murder. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both then aged 10, were convicted of James's murder at a trial at Preston Crown Court, in November 1993. They were given the mandatory sentence for murder by juveniles-namely, detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.
The minimum tariff was originally set by the trial judge at eight years. This was increased to 10 by the then Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Taylor, and then to 15 by the Home Secretary of the day, the right honourable and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in December 1999, the final decision on tariff setting was transferred to the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who set a tariff of seven years and eight months.
Venables and Thompson were granted new identities, which were and remain protected by an injunction. They were released by the Parole Board on a life
8 Mar 2010 : Column 67
During the week beginning 22 February this year, officials in my department learnt of a compromise of Venables's new identity. Subsequently, information came to light that he may have committed a serious breach of his licence conditions. He was recalled to custody that day and has since remained in prison. A Parole Board hearing will be held as soon as practicable.
Once we had established as much information as we could, we informed the bereaved parents of James Bulger of the recall, under the statutory victim contact scheme. My department later issued a brief statement to the press regarding Venables's recall to custody.
As the House is aware, we have not provided full details about this case beyond confirming that Venables faces extremely serious allegations. This is because the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have advised that a premature disclosure of information could undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the continuing investigation and the potential for a prosecution in the future.
I fully understand the concern of James Bulger's parents and the wider public about this case and, indeed, the frustration voiced by James's mother, Mrs Fergus, that insufficient information has been provided to her. As I indicated earlier today, I have been giving further active consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to provide more information, but I have concluded that this would not presently be in the interests of justice.
It is critical that, if charges do follow, it is possible to hold a fair trial-fair for the defence and fair for the prosecution. As I said on Saturday morning, our motivation is solely to ensure that extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No one in this country would want anything other.
Let me just say this. If any offender on a life licence is charged with a serious further offence, a thorough review of the supervision must be carried out. In any event, I will give the House further information as soon as I can".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in another place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. This is a sorry saga. I am sure that most of us would agree that it would have been better if it had not been necessary for the Lord Chancellor to have been called to make such a statement, but we are where we are. Jon Venables has been recalled and there has been considerable speculation in the media about why.
I am sorry to say that Ministers have made conflicting comments, with the Home Secretary saying last Wednesday, I think, that the public had the right to know and the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State saying-more correctly, dare I say?-the opposite. Therefore, it is right that the Minister and the Secretary
8 Mar 2010 : Column 68
I have several questions to put to the Minister. First, can he explain what licence conditions were placed on Jon Venables? Will he expand on the commitment that he made as to a further report to the House as soon as possible? Will that include a commitment to comment on the action that the probation service has taken in response to every reported breach of licence by Jon Venables since his release, so that the public can be given the assurance that there was proper supervision? As the Minister is aware, there has been considerable public disquiet on this matter. Can he give an assurance that the grounds for not saying any more at this stage constitute the very practical need to avoid identifying Jon Venables-we all think that that is the right approach, given the new identity that has been established over the years and the possible requirement of a trial process-rather than any broader, creeping advance of privacy rights for criminals at the expense of public transparency? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points in due course.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches wholly support the stance that the Government have taken on this matter. The murder in Liverpool 17 years ago was an horrific event, which affected everybody in this country and led to a change of people's attitude towards the criminal justice system. However, we are in a very different situation and it is right that the Government should not give further information that might reveal the current identity of Jon Venables.
"The risk that members of a jury may be affected by prejudice is one that cannot wholly be eliminated. Any member may bring personal prejudices to the jury room and equally there will be a risk that a jury may disregard the directions of the judge when they consider that they are contrary to what justice requires. Our legal principles are designed to reduce such risks to the minimum, but they cannot obviate them altogether ... Prejudicial publicity renders more difficult the task of the court, that is of the judge and jury together, in trying the case fairly. Our laws of contempt of court are designed to prevent the media from interfering with the due process of justice by making it more difficult to conduct a fair trial".
It was with great surprise that I saw the front-page headlines of a national newspaper today. It would surely amount to a contempt of court under Section 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 if Jon Venables has been arrested or even if a warrant for his arrest has been issued. Strict liability contempt applies to newspapers and to legal proceedings that are active, as they would be in the circumstances that I have outlined, at the time of the publication. This may render the publication in contempt, regardless of any intent to interfere with
8 Mar 2010 : Column 69
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what they have said and I will do my best briefly to answer the questions. I do not believe that there is any conflict between what the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have said. Both are in the same place, as the Justice Secretary said in another place today. In time, of course, it is to be hoped that more details can be disclosed. Both right honourable gentlemen have an interest in there being a fair investigation and a fair trial, if that is what it comes to.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked about licence conditions. There were standard licence conditions on both Thompson and Venables, plus some specific conditions particular to this case. Two examples of the specific conditions that applied in both of the cases are no contact of each with the other and exclusion from Merseyside without permission. As I said, where an offender under probation supervision is charged with a serious further offence, a mandatory review of supervision is triggered, but I have to remind the House that to date no charges have been brought.
I was asked whether our reluctance to say more is to do with some extension of the privacy rights of the accused. No, that is not the position at all. What we are doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has so eloquently said, is protecting our criminal justice system, both at the investigation stage and particularly at any possible trial stage later. I am particularly grateful to him for his wholehearted support for the Government's stance up to now. I am also grateful to him, as the House will be, for reminding us what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, so wisely said in the Hamza case.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I must declare a not directly relevant interest, as having been one of the Law Lords who took part in the decision of the House of Lords in R v Home Secretary ex parte Venables in January 1997, in which it was held that the decision of the Home Secretary to increase the tariff from 10 to 15 years should be quashed as a decision that he had no power to take. That is not of any direct relevance in this case, but I thought that I should mention it.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|