| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Hilary Benn: It was an honest answer. Simon Hughes: I understand that. I hope that the Government will implement the proposals in the report. There is good evidence that there is a strong case that the law needs to be reformed in terms of the Column Number: 556 rehabilitation of offenders. If that is done, and the law is changed as a result of this legislation in a way that affects which otherwise spent convictions can or cannot be included, the two will be interrelated. People with an interest in the matter will need to consider both the proposals in the pipeline and this legislation.Hilary Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of a review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but I am not sure that the point that he is making directly relates to whether spent convictions should be considered in these circumstances. As I said in my response to the hon. Member for Woking, it would depend on the circumstances. I gave some examples of cases in which spent convictions may be included. They would apply regardless of how the definition of ''spent'' was changed by subsequent proposals. Simon Hughes: I understand and agree. My point was that if one changes the rules governing spent convictions, by definition the impact of what is admitted changes. Mr. Grieve: I have been pre-empted. We know from the Widgery guidelines of 1974 and the practice direction on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act that if a conviction is spent it may still be used in evidence—the very point that the Minister has made. However, the presumption against that happening is raised. It has always been my view—that is why I am looking forward to the legislation so much—that the current Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, particularly in respect of offences committed by juveniles, bears little relation to reality and is very harsh in its application. I think that—through review of the Act and new rules—we shall get an extension that enables many convictions to become spent sooner. The generality of the Government's paper on the subject tends in that direction. That will undoubtedly provide a powerful protection against spent convictions being bandied about in court under these provisions. The Minister has reassured us that there is no reason why the basic Widgery guidelines will be changed by the legislation. Simon Hughes: Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought—I do not know the answer—to whether the Government have it in mind to deal with the cases in which what was an offence is no longer an offence, so what could have been a conviction would no longer be a conviction? I remember the issue being raised in the House in relation to the age of consent and other things that were formerly offences. It is a secondary issue in this context. Mr. Grieve: That raises an interesting point. If somebody says, ''I am a law-abiding citizen,'' but has previously broken the law, that might be held to his detriment even if he would not now break the law by carrying out the conduct that was alleged against him at the time. It is not completely clear-cut. Hilary Benn: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman said. I take this opportunity to go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down about Northern Ireland prisoners. The convictions of those prisoners released under the Column Number: 557 Good Friday agreement would have the same status as all other convictions: they are potentially admissible in subsequent cases, subject to the safeguards that we have been discussing.Mr. Grieve: I have seen this in court on many occasions, which is why I am so keen to preserve that flexibility. I hope that it will be preserved. Judges raise their eyes to the ceiling when prosecutors attempt to bring in ancient offences—or indeed offences that are nowadays no longer regarded as serious. They simply exclude them. That is the safeguard of the judiciary being able to exercise its discretion. It is important, in bringing about the code, that we do not fetter that discretion by giving a nudge to the judiciary in a direction that is inimical to the interests of justice. Mr. Malins: We have had a useful debate. It was a probing amendment, and I shall not press it to a Division. However, although Committee members acknowledge that spent convictions can have relevance in the criminal courts from time to time, the attitude is different in the outside world. Although the criminal law is exempt, the reality is that section 4 of the 1974 Act—I had forgotten that it is nearly 30 years old—has the effect that a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of the Act in respect of a conviction, known as a spent conviction, should be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed, been charged with, prosecuted for, convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences that were the subject of that conviction. It was the purpose of the Act to send the message that it was possible not only to live down one's crimes and make amends to society but for society to recognise that fact by saying that the conviction was spent. I remember vividly in my early days of appearing in court that good people who were defendants were always anxious to find out at what stage they could again call themselves people of good character. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred again to giving the judges a nudge—the tenor of clause 81 means, I am afraid, that we shall be giving judges something of a nudge away from the principles that we spoke of a little earlier. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter of spent convictions, so that if the law on spent convictions needs reform, or tightening up or amending, they will still mean what people always thought they did. This has been a useful short debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Column Number: 558 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 8.
Division No. 24]
AYES
NOES
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| Prepared 23 January 2003 | |
