Alun
Michael: What is not clear from what my hon. Friend has
just said, and which was extremely helpful, is whether the
commissioner’s report will be laid—or is she saying that
it will only be assimilated within the panel’s
report?
Maria
Eagle: It seems sensible to have one report instead of
two, given that the commissioner will be chairing the victims advisory
panel. The victims advisory panel’s report will be subsumed
within the one that the commissioner will be producing. It is sensible
to have one report, not two. That is my central point.
Although
I have been a Minister for many years, I do not quite have the
confidence of my right hon. Friend and others that dealing with
complaints from any victim in the country would not be
resource-intensive. Even a one-stop shop can have a lot of bits of
paper coming in and out of it. My right hon. Friend said that such a
system would not be very costly, resource-intensive or
people-intensive, but I am not convinced that that would end up being
accurate. While it is absolutely true that there is a much increased
level of victim satisfaction, partly as a result of the work in respect
of the developments in support of witnesses, that is not to say that a
new portal for complaints will not be inundated with complaints from
various people who think that it is another way to get their point
across. Many of us in Committee will realise from our constituency work
that we are often seen ourselves as appeals against court cases that
went wrong. Whether or not there is anything that we can do about such
matters, we end up hearing from constituents who wish us to agree that
something ought to be
done.
Mr.
Boswell: I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to
know that I describe myself as either a one-stop shop or even, possibly
in dramatic terms, as a bit of joined-up government. We have an
integrating function. Will she at least concede in respect of the
comments by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that,
while there may be some abuse, there is nevertheless the need for some
facility—either at local or national level—so that people
who are distressed about their handling and are confused by the
circumstances such as someone who has been falsely accused, which has
happened to one of my constituents recently, know and have reassurance
that they will receive proper advice and get the thing dealt
with?
Maria
Eagle: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
There are complaints procedures in all public authorities, and I accept
the argument by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth that there are many different agencies in the criminal justice
system, but we have done a lot more locally and nationally to join up
the agencies and make them talk to each
other.
6.45
pm
We have a
nationwide victim support body that is funded generously by central
Government to give advice. There are citizens advice bureaux and, I
hesitate to say, local Members, although we do end up being one place
where people seek advice. At the end of the day, however, the criminal
justice agencies have to, and ought to, deal with complaints properly.
There is a series of ombudsmen thereafter. Of course, one cannot take
judicial decisions to them, but criminal justice agencies do certain
things that one might. We do not want to impose or create some other
portal that may or may not help, however.
Mr.
Boswell: Will the Minister at least consider encouraging
the various agencies to pick up and run with the so-called “no
wrong door” concept that the Government developed a few years
ago, although we have not heard about it recently, so that, if somebody
makes an application to the wrong people, they—that
agency—will refer them to the right
people?
Maria
Eagle: It sounds so simple, but administratively these
things often end up being much more complicated than such simple,
sensible-sounding ideas that we all can and do come up with, and which
my right hon. Friend has come up with in his new clause. Although I
understand his points, I am not convinced that we would envisage such a
role for the commissioner. There is no doubt that the commissioner will
be in receipt of complaints, but I am not convinced that they should
become a clearing house for them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will
not press his new clause, because we do not envisage conferring on the
commissioner’s role a statutory complaints function. However,
the criminal justice agencies need to improve their performance, and we
would seek to make them do so, as would the other victim support
infrastructure, which did not exist in 2004 when the original
legislation was passed.
I hope that I
have been able to deal with my right hon. Friend’s amendment. He
may not be quite so happy with what I have said about his new clause,
but I hope that he will withdraw his amendment and not press to a
Division his new clause.
Alun
Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response,
as far as it goes. On the report to Parliament, she has gone some way
to providing reassurance, and if, in effect, the commissioner’s
report will incorporate the panel’s report, that is
satisfactory. However, I urge my hon. Friend to consider whether that
point ought to be clarified in some formal embodiment of what she has
told us today, because it is reassuring.
I am less
happy about what my hon. Friend said on complaints, because she missed
the point that I underlined: at the beginning of the Committee, we took
evidence on the existence of 10 different ways of dealing with
complaints from the 10 different agencies that operate in the criminal
justice system. Indeed, the 10 agencies may be the tip of the iceberg,
because when we sub-divide things, the issue may be more complex. I
accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is complicated for
Ministers to find a way through the undergrowth of improving the
performance of different parts of the criminal justice system to make
it more receptive to the interests of the individuals. However, we
should think what it is like, therefore, for a victim who has to decide
which door to knock at. We should think also about the complexity of
making complaints to the ombudsmen, some of which have to be made
directly to the people who will have administered the problem, even if
the complainant can work out which agency is responsible.
I urge my hon.
Friend to consider the matter further, and whether there should be a
capacity not to undertake the investigation of complaints but, where
necessary, to knock heads together. The success of the commissioner
will be judged on their saying, “I no longer have to do this,
because it is clear where people should go with their complaints and
that the ‘no wrong door’ principle”—to
which the hon. Member for Daventry referred and I know Ministers
aspire—“happens in practice.” That is my hope, and
I ask my hon. Friend as gently as I can to reconsider her rejection of
the new clause. I appreciate that it is not a totally worked through
suggestion, but it could be. I urge her to give it further thought and
I hope that we will see Government amendments coming forward, or
perhaps it would be appropriate to make further
suggestions on Report. I do not wish to detain the Committee any further
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
15Treatment
of convictions in other member States
etc
Maria
Eagle: I beg to move amendment 300, in
schedule 15, page 160, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(9) For the
purposes of subsection (10) “foreign service offence”
means an offence
which— (a) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a country outside the
United Kingdom, and (b) would
constitute an offence under the law of England and Wales or a service
offence (“the corresponding domestic offence”) if it were
done in England and Wales by a member of Her Majesty’s forces at
the time of the trial for the offence with which the defendant is now
charged (“the current
offence”). (10) Where a
defendant has been found guilty of a foreign service offence
(“the previous service offence”), for the purposes of
subsection (2)— (a) the
previous service offence is an offence of the same
description as the current offence if the
corresponding domestic offence is of that same description, as set out
in subsection (4)(a); (b) the
previous service offence is an offence of the same category as the
current offence if the current offence and the corresponding domestic
offence belong to the same category of offences prescribed as mentioned
in subsection (4)(b). (11) In
this
section— “Her
Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed
Forces Act
2006; “service
law”, in relation to a country outside the United Kingdom, means
the law governing all or any of the naval, military or air forces of
that
country.”’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310,
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 and
354.
Maria
Eagle: All the amendments are minor and technical.
Amendments 301 to 304, 313 and 314 are minor and technical in that they
change the tenses used but not the meaning or application of the
provisions. Amendment 315 is a minor amendment that clarifies that an
offence is relevant if it was an offence under UK
law “at
the time of the
conviction”. The
previous formulation of
“at the time of
the
trial” may
not have covered those circumstances where the offender pleaded
guilty. Amendment
318 is a minor amendment that corrects the statutory reference to
section 110 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing)
Act 2000.
Amendment 310 is a minor, technical
amendment that does not change the meaning or application of the
provision. Amendments
300, 305 to 309, 311 to 312, 316 to 317, and 319 to 320 add service
offences committed under the law of other member states to the previous
convictions covered by these provisions. In respect of section 103 of
the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which deals with bad character evidence,
the amendments include all foreign service offences. This is in line
with both the current position in case law and the changes being
introduced in the Bill. All these amendments are consistent with how
previous UK service offences are used in domestic criminal
proceedings.
Mr.
Garnier: I do not quarrel with the Government amendments.
I just want to be sure that when a defendant has been convicted of an
offence under the law of any country outside England and Wales, a
provision will enable the English courts to inquire into the process by
which the overseas conviction was arrived at. Obviously, within the
European Union and other countries in which we are confident about
their criminal justice system, we can be reasonably sure that a
conviction has been arrived at fairly. There may be other jurisdictions
where we are not so sure, and I want us to be clear that the Government
have taken that into account before the amendments become part of the
Bill.
Maria
Eagle: I hope to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman
that we have taken that into account. The schedule implements the
Council framework decision of 24 July 2008 on taking account of
convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal
proceedings. It will require the courts to give the same weight to
previous convictions whether the offence occurred in the UK or
elsewhere in the EU and will strengthen public protection.
Such
convictions would only be taken into account by the courts subject to
the same safeguards as apply to taking into account domestic
convictions. This would include the need for the courts to be satisfied
that such convictions are proved. In addition, such convictions could
only be taken into account if they concern offences having equivalent
domestic
offences. In
response to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, it is
ultimately a matter for the courts to decide whether they are satisfied
that any criteria for admissibility are met. We will consider what
measures might be necessary to assist courts in that task before we
implement the provisions. However, to a degree, member states already
share information on a regular basis, and previous convictions from
other member states are already adduced in evidence. On that basis, I
hope that he is convinced that there will be appropriate
safeguards.
Mr.
Garnier: Is the Minister telling me that the schedule
applies only to convention countries, or does it apply across the
world?
Maria
Eagle: It is implementing an EU
directive—
Mr.
Garnier: I do not want to confuse the Minister now. Will
she write to me about it? If there is any doubt, which I do not suppose
there will be, it can be cleared up in
correspondence.
Maria
Eagle: Indeed it can be.
Amendment
300 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 301, in schedule 15, page 163, line 6, leave out
‘have constituted’ and insert
‘constitute’. Amendment
302, in
schedule 15, page 163, line 7, leave
out ‘had been’ and insert
‘were’. Amendment
303, in
schedule 15, page 163, line 18, leave
out ‘have constituted’ and insert
‘constitute’. Amendment
304, in
schedule 15, page 163, line 19, leave
out ‘had been’ and insert
‘were’. Amendment
305, in
schedule 15, page 163, line 26, leave
out
‘or’. Amendment
306, in
schedule 15, page 163, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(b) after
paragraph (b) insert
“or (c) a finding of
guilt in respect of a member State service
offence.”’. Amendment
307, in schedule 15, page 163, leave out
lines 36 to 39 and
insert— ‘(6) For the
purposes of this
section— (a) an offence
is “relevant” if the offence would constitute an offence
under the law of any part of the United Kingdom if it were done in that
part at the time of the conviction of the defendant for the current
offence, (b) “member
State service offence” means an offence
which— (i) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a member State other
than the United Kingdom,
and (ii) would constitute an
offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or a service
offence (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006), if it were
done in any part of the United Kingdom, by a member of Her
Majesty’s forces, at the time of the conviction of the defendant
for the current offence, (c)
“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in
the Armed Forces Act 2006,
and (d) “service
law”, in relation to a member State other than the United
Kingdom, means the law governing all or any of the naval, military or
air forces of that
State.”’. Amendment
308, in
schedule 15, page 164, line 1, leave
out ‘“,
or’. Amendment
309, in
schedule 15, page 164, line 4, at
end insert ‘, or (d) a finding of
guilt in respect of a member State service
offence.”’. Amendment
310, in
schedule 15, page 164, line 7, leave
out ‘Isles or’ and insert ‘Islands
and’. Amendment
311, in
schedule 15, page 164, line 11, at
end insert ‘or a member State service
offence’. Amendment
312, in schedule 15, page 164, leave out
lines 14 to 17 and
insert— ‘(5) For the
purposes of this
section— (a) an offence
is “relevant” if the offence would constitute an offence
under the law of any part of the United Kingdom if it were done in that
part at the time of the conviction in respect of the current
offence, (b) “member
State service offence” means an offence
which— (i) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a member State other
than the United Kingdom, and
(ii) would constitute an offence under the law of
any part of the United Kingdom, or a service offence, if it were done
in any part of the United Kingdom, by a member of Her Majesty’s
forces, at the time of the conviction of the defendant for the current
offence, and (c)
“service law”, in relation to a member State other than
the United Kingdom, means the law governing all or any of the naval,
military or air forces of that
State.”’. Amendment
313, in
schedule 15, page 165, line 3, leave
out ‘have constituted’ and insert
‘constitute’. Amendment
314, in
schedule 15, page 165, line 4, leave
out ‘had been’ and insert
‘were’. Amendment
315, in
schedule 15, page 165, line 5, leave
out ‘trial’ and insert
‘conviction’. Amendment
316, in
schedule 15, page 165, line 5, at
end insert— ‘() In
subsection (8) (as inserted by Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006
(c. 52))— (a) in
paragraph (a) for the words “within the meaning of the Armed
Forces Act 2006; and”, substitute “or a member State
service offence;”, (b)
in paragraph (b) for “service disciplinary proceedings”
substitute “proceedings in respect of a service offence”,
and (c) after that paragraph
insert— “(c)
“member State service offence” means an offence
which— (i) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a member State other
than the United Kingdom, (ii)
would constitute an offence under the law of any part of the United
Kingdom, or a service offence, if it were done in any part of the
United Kingdom, by a member of Her Majesty’s forces, at the time
of the conviction of the defendant for the current
offence; (d) “Her
Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed
Forces Act 2006; (e)
“service law”, in relation to a member State other than
the United Kingdom, means the law governing all or any of the naval,
military or air forces of that
State; (f) “service
offence” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act
2006.”’. Amendment
317, in
schedule 15, page 165, line 5, at
end insert— ‘8A (1) Section
270B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) (community punishment
for offender previously fined) is amended as
follows. (2) In subsection (6)
omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and
insert— “(aa) a
conviction by a court in any member State other than the United Kingdom
of a relevant offence;
or”. (3) In subsection
(10)— (a) in paragraph
(a) after “offence” insert “or a member State
service offence”; (b) in
paragraph (b) for “such proceedings” substitute
“proceedings in respect of a service
offence”; (c) after that
paragraph
insert— “(c)
“relevant offence” means an offence that would constitute
an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom if
it were done in that part at the time of the conviction of the
defendant for the current
offence; (d) “member
State service offence” means an offence
which—
(i) was the subject of
proceedings under the service law of a member State other than the
United Kingdom, and (ii) would
constitute an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom,
or a service offence, if it were done in any part of the United
Kingdom, by a member of Her Majesty’s forces, at the time of the
conviction of the defendant for the current
offence; (e) “the
service law of a member State other than the United Kingdom”
means the law governing all or any of the naval, military or air forces
of that
State.”’. Amendment
318, in schedule 15, page 167, leave out
lines 12 and 13 and
insert— ‘“corresponding
drug trafficking offence” means an offence within section
110(2A)(a)(ii);”. Amendment
319, in
schedule 15, page 167, line 15, at
end insert— ‘() In section
114 (offences under service law) (as substituted by Schedule 16 to the
Armed Forces Act 2006
(c. 52))— (a)
after subsection (1)
insert— “(1A)
Where— (a) a person has
at any time been found guilty of a member State service offence,
and (b) the corresponding UK
offence was a class A drug trafficking offence or a domestic
burglary, the relevant section
of this Chapter and subsection (1) above shall have effect as if the
person had at that time been convicted in England and Wales of that
corresponding UK offence. (1B)
For the purposes of subsection
(1A)— (a) “member
State service offence” means an offence
which— (i) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a member State other
than the United Kingdom, (ii)
at the time it was done would have constituted an offence under the law
of any part of the United Kingdom, or an offence under section 42 of
the Armed Forces Act 2006, if it had been done in any part of the
United Kingdom by a member of Her Majesty’s forces (“the
corresponding UK
offence”); (b)
“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in
the Armed Forces Act 2006; (c)
“service law”, in relation to a member State other than
the United Kingdom, means the law governing all or any of the naval,
military or air forces of that State.”,
and (b) after subsection (3)
insert— “(4)
Where— (a) the
corresponding UK offence is an offence under section 42 of the Armed
Forces Act 2006 by reason of section 43, 45, 46 or 47 of that Act
(attempting, conspiring to commit, inciting, aiding, abetting,
counselling or procuring criminal conduct);
and (b) the act to which it
relates (“the contemplated act”) is not an act that is
(or that if done would have been) punishable by the law of England and
Wales; for the purposes of
subsections (1A) and (1B) it must be assumed that the contemplated act
amounted to the offence under the law of England and Wales that it
would have amounted to if it had been the equivalent act in England or
Wales.”’. Amendment
320, in schedule 15, page 167, leave out
lines 17 to 20 and
insert— ‘10 In
section 263 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) (restriction on
imposing custodial sentence or service detention on unrepresented
offender)— (a)
at the end of subsection (2)(b) insert “, or sentenced to
detention by a court in any other member State or for a member State
service offence”, and
(b) at the end of subsection
(6)(b)
insert— “(c)
“member State service offence” means an offence
which— (i) was the
subject of proceedings under the service law of a member State other
than the United Kingdom,
and (ii) at the time it was
done, would have constituted an offence in any part of the United
Kingdom, or a service offence, if it had been done in any part of the
United Kingdom by a member of Her Majesty’s
forces; (d) “service
law”, in relation to a member State other than the United
Kingdom, means the law governing all or any of the naval, military or
air forces of that State.”’.—(Maria
Eagle.) Schedule
15, as amended, agreed
to. Clauses
125 to 127 ordered stand part of the
Bill.
| 
