| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough): Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his intention? Can he think of a situation in which the presence of a person would be necessary but not essential? Mr. Grieve: Yes, I can. I believe that the word ''necessary'' is different in its nature and quality from the word ''essential'', and that the word ''necessary'' gives the police greater of flexibility than the word ''essential''. It should be remembered that this is not an abstract concept, because many things will flow from it, including the admissibility of evidence about what emerges or what someone may say prior to being taken to the police station. It is not a question merely of how quickly an officer can take someone to the police station but of the protection of that person's rights under PACE. I believe that the definition of the two words is slightly different, and as we are revisiting PACE, I will be interested to hear the Minister's response. Mr. Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman said that he could think of many circumstances in which the presence of someone would be necessary but not essential. Would he care to give me an example? [Interruption.] Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) says that it is the difference between the two-line and the three-line Whip, which may be a wise definition. A policeman may often think that detaining a suspect is necessary to his investigation. For instance, he may think that he can recover property if he keeps the individual with him. The policeman may think that that will be to his advantage, even if it is not to the individual's advantage. Mr. Heath: Does not ''necessary'' imply a subjective assessment, whereas ''essential'' is an objective assessment? I believe that that differentiation is borne out by the etymology. Mr. Grieve: That is a good contrast. Most people, hearing those two words juxtaposed, would have no difficulty in saying that ''essential'' is a more pressing requirement than ''necessary''. It is necessary for me to attend this Committee, because it is one of my duties as an MP; it is essential for me to do so because the Whip will be stroppy about it if I do not. That is a valid contrast in terms of prioritisation. Amendment No. 79 relates to new section 30B, which sets out what a constable must do when granting a person bail under new section 30A. Subsections (1) and (2) require, among other things, that he must give that person a notice. I am delighted to see the power to bail a person without taking him to a police station in the Bill. It is a good idea, but it is vital that it should not be abused. The element of potential abuse is that it enables the police, if they were so minded, to keep an individual in a form of suspended animation without putting him through the beginnings of a legal process of investigation. That Column Number: 10 could simply be for their convenience or even, at worst, a form of harassment. We cannot completely get away from that. There is the potential for that to happen.As the Minister knows, a person who is arrested and taken to a police station may eventually be released without charge, but at least a process of palpable investigation will have taken place. Reviews will have been carried out and there will have been some input into whether there are grounds for a charge to lie against him. While it may be convenient for both the person arrested and the police to grant immediate bail to return on a further date, it should not be a completely open-ended matter. We will otherwise impose conditions on people who have not been charged with any offence, who have not even had the matter properly investigated or had an opportunity to have their say. That could continue for an indefinite period. The purpose of amendment No. 79 is twofold. It is separate from our other amendments. They just happen to have been grouped together. The amendment would ensure first that the person bailed is not put to inconvenience by being bailed to a police station that is not near the place where he lives, and secondly that there is a cut-off. A four-week cut-off strikes me as reasonable. If in that time the police have not got their act together to investigate the matter further, I can think of no reason why bail conditions should continue and that person should consider himself to be under arrest. If there is any flaw or potential flaw in what is otherwise a good idea, it is that this could be used as a form of police control of individuals by arresting and then releasing them. That could be done quite frequently, especially when it is one of the usual suspects. The police may suspect that he is up to no good and may wish to give the impression that they are keeping him under close supervision. I ask the Minister to take amendment No. 79 seriously. I ask him to take our other amendments seriously as well. They are there in the spirit of inquiry. However, amendment No. 79 goes to the heart of the potential problems in the working of what is otherwise a good clause. Lady Hermon (North Down): I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Cran. I am delighted to see you here. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Everything has been predicated on the fact that the person has been arrested. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (5), which refers to
It does not include the words ''who has been arrested''. As the new subsection (5) replaces existing subsections (10) and (11) of PACE, which use that phrase, it is crucial that be included in the Bill. Mr. Grieve: It is clear in section 30 that the individual has been arrested, although like so much drafting where another Act is being amended, it needs to be read carefully. Subsection (7) reads:
Column Number: 11
I took it from those words that the person had been arrested, although the use of the words ''or taken into custody'' may require some further clarification from the Minister. However, I took arrest as the absolute premise on which we started. If we are wrong about that, I shall be grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I am sure that the Minister will deal with it. The hon. Lady will note that section 30B(2) says:
I assume from those words that the remaining subsections of section 30B, to which I seek to add new subsections (8) and (9), cover a person who has been arrested and is to be bailed elsewhere than at a police station, but has not yet been taken to that place. I look forward to the Minister's response. Mr. Malins: I want to say a word about amendment No. 79. In the London courts, the main court—normally court No. 1—would take the remand list every day. At any one of 15 courts across London there might be 70, 80 or 100 remands. Anecdotally, I should say that a reasonable proportion of the defendants come from places far away from London. They find themselves drawn to London for one reason or another, and commit an offence while there. They are kept in custody overnight and appear the next morning. It is often the case that a person has enough money to get to London and blow it, and then does not have much left. That person might tell a court that is about to bail them for a month that they live in Cornwall. They might say, ''I'll be off down there, and I'll come back to court in a month.'' In a court, there is judicial intervention, and there is almost certainly a duty solicitor advising a person as to his or her rights. That is a court granting bail. Although in general I support the principle of police giving bail, there is a big difference between bail given by a police offer, and bail given in a judicial surrounding. In a police station there is no person present to protect the interests of the defendant, to speak up for him or her, or to make representations about the nature of the bail granted. The Bill permits the police to grant bail requiring the defendant to surrender at the police station, but the Bill does not say where that police station must be. Amendment No. 79 would require that it shall be a police station
New subsection (9) in amendment No. 79 would give a maximum time for which bail can be granted of four weeks. I am slightly troubled at the prospect of a defendant from Bristol or Manchester who is not terribly well-off finding himself or herself at the whim of an officer, who, as I understand the Bill, can say, Column Number: 12 ''You are bailed to appear at Brixton police station in 28 days.'' Funnily enough, 28 days is probably much more convenient for the defendant than two days, because the defendant may go home.The courts will consider those issues in some detail and reach a reasoned judgment as to whether it is appropriate for the defendant to surrender at a different police station, or to go back to his or her home. Then, it can deal with matters such as bail enlarged—a court can enlarge bail in the absence of a defendant. Once a defendant is within the jurisdiction of the court, a raft of assistance and other measures are available. One would want to ensure, if possible, that there is some practical mechanism to give a defendant bailed by a policeman similar protections or an ability to ask for a review of the bail conditions. As far as I can see, the defendant who is told by a police officer on a Friday afternoon, ''I'll bail you, but you must appear at Brixton police station on Monday,'' is stuck with it. If that is the case and the defendant has no recourse to asking anyone else whether they really have to do that, they may, if they live in Manchester or Bristol, have a serious problem.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 17 December 2002 |
