|
Mr. Heath: There is a real problem of process in dealing with Scots law in a Committee in which there are no Scottish Ministers and there is no one else who can give an authoritative view in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. That is not a criticism of the Minister; it is just the way that it is. However, it is important not only that matters are transmitted to the Scotland Office for comment, but that Committee members have definitive replies in good time for our discussions on Report so that we have the opportunity to raise any matters that need attention and make further progress when other Ministers and Members with expertise are available.
Mr. Ainsworth: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall try to get information to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland as quickly as possible so that he can use it on Report if he is not satisfied.
On the point of fleeing abroad, the provisions relate to getting witnesses to appear in court in this country for serious crimes. Those issues are not covered in this clause or by the measures that we are discussing today, but we would seek extradition for an individual who had committed a crime in this country. I shall return to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland as soon as I can to address how we interpret the Scottish legal process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 050
Clause 7
Requests for assistance in obtaining
evidence abroad
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 7, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
'2(A) A request for assistance under this section shall include information on the procedures regarding the gathering and admissibility of evidence that apply in the part of the United Kingdom where it is proposed that the evidence shall be used, and in particular shall include details of the procedures under which evidence may lawfully be obtained for use in proceedings in that part.'.
I welcome you, Mr. Hurst, to the chairmanship of the Committee. You and I are veterans of the late night last night—I admired your patience in waiting to listen to the very last speech from the Labour Back Benches on Second Reading of the Courts Bill.
I shall deal with this clause briefly, not least because my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns canvassed some of the issues in another place. On reading the debate of 13 Janauary 2003 in another place in Hansard, columns 35 to 38, I felt that the response to my noble Friend from the Attorney-General, for whom professionally I have enormous respect—I served on an inner cabinet, which is the general management committee of the Bar Council, when the present Attorney-General was chairman of the Bar—was not satisfactory.
Amendment No. 17 would insert new subsection 2(A), which requires there to be the inclusion of
''information on procedures regarding the gathering and admissibility of evidence''.
It is important to include that in the Bill because, as Baroness Anelay pointed out, different countries have different procedures and rules on admissibility. She made the further and particularly relevant point that our rules are about to change.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I are very much aware of the work of our hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), who lead for the Opposition on the Criminal Justice Bill. Over several weeks, they discussed the contents of that Bill in Committee, and one of the major changes that the Government want to introduce is a change to the way in which our rules of admissibility of evidence operate. The Government are changing many of the things that those of us who qualified as lawyers were taught in leading works, such as Professor Sir Rupert Cross's work on the law of evidence and other principles that have been regarded as the centrepiece of our law for 100 years since the Victorian reforms. In light of that, it is important that the Bill states a clear position, so that authorities of other countries are routinely informed by the UK of what rules will apply to the evidence gathered in those countries once it is in the UK and ready to be used in our investigative and judicial process.
3.15 pm
The Attorney-General said that there was no international obligation for us to provide that information, and that there was no particular reason
Column Number: 051
to believe in any given case that the court that receives the request from abroad would need that information. He suggested that it would not be sufficiently familiar with existing procedures, and that it might be unable to obtain information about them if it was in doubt. However, admissibility of evidence and the way in which these matters will be dealt with are not minor technical points.
Mr. Ainsworth indicated assent.
Mr. Paice: I am glad to see that the Minister acknowledges that that is the case. He always addresses these matters seriously, and I am sure that on this occasion he will do so again.
It would be tremendously helpful and important for the Bill to state a clear obligation. I am sure that the Attorney-General is right that we are not obliged to do that by any international agreements: I do not suggest that what he said in another place about that is inaccurate. However, the fact that something is not required by an international obligation does not mean that it would not be helpful. In this House, we have a duty to ensure that where there are changes to our arrangements, such as those that this law introduces, they take account of the best possible procedures that we could have.
The Bill should include something that clarifies the position, even if that is not required by any international obligations. I do not think that that will be an unnecessarily burdensome hurdle. This is an important matter, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but I hope that he will understand the serious spirit in which I am putting this forward.
Mr. Ainsworth indicated assent.
Mr. Paice: The Minister indicates his assent to that, for which I am grateful to him.
Mr. Ainsworth: Amendment No. 17 would place an additional requirement on requesting authorities in the UK to provide information on procedures regarding the gathering and admissibility of evidence in the relevant part of the UK. The consequence of the amendment would be that requests could be rejected for not including such information. As the Attorney-General said in the other place, there is no international obligation on us to provide that information, and there is no particular reason to believe that in every case the authority receiving the request would need the information. Requesting authorities already provide that information where they consider it appropriate or where they need particular procedures to be used to make admissible what is received.
In the other place, the Attorney-General was not saying, ''Let us not do it because we have no obligation to do so.'' What he was trying to say—and what I am saying to the Committee now—is that we have no legal obligation but if we were to include that in the Bill we would provide another hurdle for prosecuting authorities to jump in order to get evidence from abroad. Where they think that that is appropriate, it is in their own interests to seek to say in what form it needs to be gathered for the purposes of
Column Number: 052
UK law, but we need the flexibility for things to continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Gentleman's amendment takes that away and makes it an obligation in every case, irrespective of whether it is necessary.
Mr. Hawkins: I am unsure whether I was correct in thinking that the Minister was coming to the end of his remarks, but I wanted to intervene on him to give him a chance to address this point. The Attorney-General said, on requesting authorities providing this information where they consider it to be appropriate:
''in many cases, good practice may indicate that they would do so.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC37.]
If even the Attorney-General, after having stated his main objection that we have no international obligation, went on to say that about good practice, would it not be a good idea to have that good practice—which even the Attorney-General thinks is good practice—in the Bill?
Mr. Ainsworth: I agree, of course, that good practice should be followed, and that prosecutors will seek to follow good practice in the issuing of the requests. However, we have no international obligation to do so, first, because that is a fact and, secondly, because if we put such matters in the Bill, a warrant may be received stating that the request is turned down if those circumstances are not met. In each request, it will not be necessary to give detailed explanations of the admissibility of evidence and the way in which it is considered allowable under English law. There will be cases when it is. Good practice should be followed, but flexibility should be allowed. We do not want requests to be turned down without good reason.
Mr. Hawkins: The Committee will realise that I am not entirely persuaded either by what the Attorney-General said in another place or by what the Minister said this afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to consider matters in light of the Attorney-General's concession to my noble Friend, the Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, in another place that good practice may dictate that such practice should usually happen. I hope that the Minister and his officials will reflect that such a provision could be included in the Bill. I know that he is reasonable and will consider matters further on Report and, who knows, we may yet win the battle if the Government tabled an amendment later in our proceedings. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| 
