House of Commons

Session 2008 - 09
Publications on the internet
Public Bill Committee Debates
Coroners and Justice Bill

Coroners and Justice Bill

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Frank Cook, Mr. Roger Gale

† Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)

† Boswell, Mr. Tim (Daventry) (Con)

† Brown, Mr. Russell (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)

† Eagle, Maria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

† Garnier, Mr. Edward (Harborough) (Con)

† Gray, Mr. James (North Wiltshire) (Con)

† Hesford, Stephen (Wirral, West) (Lab)

† Howarth, David (Cambridge) (LD)

† Howarth, Mr. George (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab)

† Iddon, Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East) (Lab)

† Kidney, Mr. David (Stafford) (Lab)

† Lucas, Ian (Wrexham) (Lab)

† Michael, Alun (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)

† Prentice, Bridget (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

Robertson, Angus (Moray) (SNP)

† Willott, Jenny (Cardiff, Central) (LD)

† Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)

Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column number: 227

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 24 February 2009

(Morning)

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

Coroners and Justice Bill

Written evidence to be reported to the House

CJ 13 Peter Lodder

CJ 14 Department of Health

CJ 15 Victims’ Voice

CJ 16 Ministry of Justice

CJ 17 Director of Public Prosecutions

CJ 18 Ministry of Justice (supplementary)

CJ 19 Dignity in Dying

CJ 20 Justice for Women (supplementary)

CJ 21 Samaritans

CJ 22 Ministry of Justice (supplementary)

CJ 23 Sir Mark Walport

Clause 11

Certified investigations: investigation by judge, inquest without jury

Amendment proposed (10 February): 40, in clause 11, page 6, line 4, after ‘if’, insert

‘the matter has been referred to the Lord Chief Justice and he or she is’.—(Mr. Bellingham.)

10.30 am

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: amendment 42, in clause 11, page 6, line 6, leave out ‘any of the reasons’ and insert ‘the reason’.

Amendment 43, in clause 11, page 6, line 9, leave out ‘reasons are’ and insert ‘reason is’.

Amendment 41, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 12 to 16.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 63, in clause 12, page 7, line 3, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert

‘High Court on application by the Secretary of State or by any interested person.

(1A) The court may discontinue a certificate if it is satisfied that the certificate is no longer necessary to prevent material or information being disclosed whose disclosure would be seriously detrimental to national security.’.

Amendment 64, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, leave out ‘11(3)(a)’ and insert ‘[Certified investigations](4)(b)’.

Amendment 65, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, leave out ‘11(3)’ and insert ‘[Certified investigations](4)(b)’.

Column number: 228

Amendment 66, in clause 12, page 7, line 15, leave out from ‘must’ to end of line 17 and insert

‘continue with the inquest with the jury already summoned.’.

Amendment 67, in clause 13, page 7, leave out lines 22 to 31 and insert—

“(d) disclosure for the purposes of an inquest for which a certificate exists under section 11 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; or’.

Amendment 68, in clause 13, page 7, line 41, after ‘Court’, insert ‘or Coroner’.

Amendment 69, in clause 13, page 7, line 42, after ‘judge’, insert ‘or coroner’.

Amendment 125, in clause 34, page 19, leave out lines 10 to 12.

Amendment 110, in clause 38, page 23, line 28, leave out from ‘5’ to end of line 29.

Amendment 109, in schedule 9, page 139, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 140.

New clause 10—Certified investigations—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may apply to the High Court for a certificate ordering that an inquest be held in camera.

(2) The Secretary of State may only apply for a certificate if he is satisfied that it would be necessary to prevent material or information being disclosed whose disclosure would be seriously detrimental to national security.

(3) The court may only grant the certificate if it is satisfied—

(a) that granting the certificate is necessary to prevent material or information being disclosed whose disclosure would be seriously detrimental to national security; and

(b) that other measures short of granting a certificate would not be adequate to prevent such disclosure.

(4) Where the court grants a certificate, the following provisions apply—

(a) Chapter 2 of Part 3 of this Act (witness anonymity orders) shall apply as if a coroner’s court were a court for the purposes of that Chapter, as if the proceedings at an inquest were criminal proceedings for the purpose of that Chapter, and as if references to the prosecutor in that Chapter included a reference to the Secretary of State;

(b) the Lord Chief Justice may appoint a judge of the High Court to act as coroner for the case, and a judge so appointed shall have the same functions and powers in relation to the body and the investigation as would be the case if he or she were the senior coroner in whose area the body was situated;

(5) If a just has already been summoned when a certificate is issued, that jury must be discharged and a new jury summoned.

(6) The certificate may require that part of the inquest be held in camera and part in public, and the court must only issue a certificate requiring the whole of an inquest to be held in camera if that is necessary to prevent material or information being disclosed whose disclosure would be seriously detrimental to national security.

(7) Where a certificate has been issued under this section, the coroner or judge may at any time, taking into account whether any witness anonymity orders have been made, admit to the proceedings any interested person he may specify, provided that he is satisfied that doing so will not lead to material or information being disclosed whose disclosure would be seriously detrimental to national security.

(8) Where a decision made by a judge conducting an investigation by virtue of this section gives rise to an appeal under section 30, that section has effect as if references in it to the Chief Coroner were references to a judge of the Court of Appeal nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

Column number: 229

(9) A reference in this section or section 12 to conducting an investigation, in the case of an investigation that has already begun, is to be read as a reference to continuing to conduct it.’.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): At the end of our previous sitting, we discussing the amendments and the hon. Member for Cambridge had just said:

“As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, there is some common ground between his amendments and ours. We are both looking for some degree of judicial control, and to restrict the conditions under which certificates relate to national security and nothing else. The combination of those two points is that the judiciary has some role in checking whether national security really is at stake. If we do not have that, national security becomes the Executive branch’s flexible friend, to be invoked whenever it feels that it does not want anyone to inquire into what it is doing.”

He went on to say:

“So there is some common ground between us, but where we differ, crucially and unfortunately—I believe that this is the point that the Minister was trying to make to the hon. Gentleman—is that the Conservative amendments still exclude the jury, whereas ours do not. In the end, it comes down simply to this: does one accept that ordinary members of the public have a role in this kind of case? Are they ever to be trusted? Our starting point is that often they are more to be trusted than Ministers and judges, but the Government’s starting point seems to be the opposite.”——[Official Report, Coroners and Justice Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 224.]

The hon. Gentleman had also said that the central point of his arguments against clause 11 was the removal of the jury because that disconnected any form of democratic input into that judicial process. I agree that the use of a jury in such an inquiry, as in criminal cases, is hugely important. I also agree that the Government’s attitude is one to be deprecated and needs to be scrutinised with extreme vigour by Parliament as well as those outside Parliament. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the extent of the difference between his party and mine about what we need to do about the matter.

Having been a member of Public Bill Committees before, the hon. Gentleman will know that Opposition Members must use devices to put arguments before the Committee and to get the Government to answer them. The reason that he alighted on a difference is that we have used a different device to put the issue before the Committee. I hope that he accepts that what he said and what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk said at the outset of his remarks are but parallel arguments aimed at the same target. For my part, I do not mind whether we vote on the hon. Gentleman’s new clause or the amendments tabled by the Conservative party during our proceedings, but I want the Government to answer the case that has been—and I hope will be—put to them. That case began with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and concluded on 10 February with the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge.

David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say what he has just said. As for votes, the most important vote is that on clause stand part. Only if we get rid of clause 11 will it become possible to insert a new clause such as the provision that we have tabled.

Mr. Garnier: Now we have open agreement as well as implicit agreement. However, the main thing is that the public should know that the Opposition are deeply

Column number: 230

opposed to the clause. Whether we achieve that through a vote on clause stand part, or through votes on new clauses or amendments, makes no difference—it is a procedural device. I hope that those who are listening to this debate in Committee and who may read of it later will understand our purpose.

The hon. Member for Cambridge is right that clause 11 is an anti-jury clause, but it is just as much an anti-open justice clause.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that clause 11(1) makes clear the motives: that the matter should not be made public, and that other measures would, allegedly, be inadequate to prevent the matter being made public? It does not refer to juries.

Mr. Garnier: No, clause 11 is designed to keep juries out. It is designed to keep the public out and to make the inquest process a secret one. I believe in open justice, and in the public having access to the issues in controversy in an inquest, as I do in relation to criminal trials. If there is no open justice, one cannot have confidence in the judicial and courts system. Although individual Ministers and Secretaries of State may be well motivated, once this sort of clause becomes available to be used by the authorities, they will use it. One has only to look at the hoo-hah at the weekend over the coming into force of certain parts of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to see what happens.

Under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act, entitled “Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc”, it is now an offence, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, to elicit or attempt to elicit

“information about an individual who is or has been...a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or”

if he

“publishes or communicates any such information.”

That has been discussed over the weekend as giving the police the power to confiscate, or to delete, photographs taken of them.

An example was given in The Guardian correspondence column this morning, by a magistrate, of an offence that had taken place on the street that was not only photographed by CCTV but had been photographed on the mobile telephone of a passer-by. The police confiscated that mobile telephone and deleted the photographic evidence on the basis, presumably, that section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act applied and allowed them to do so. It was a silly and unnecessary thing for them to have done, but it is it the sort of thing that happens when authorities are given powers that may not be intended to be used in that particular way but which inevitably do get used in that way.