Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that I in any way withdrew my support of the position pre-charge. I believe that there should be anonymity pre-charge.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. I was merely alluding to the fact that the noble Lord was referring to the difficulty that comes after charge in managing. He was quite right to raise concern about the practicality of how one would seek to manage that. That does not mean in any way a failure to appreciate the concerns so ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Corbett, who mentioned the work that he and my noble friend Lady Hayman did when they were in the other place, in relation to the 1976 legislation.

I want to make it clear that the sentiments mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu have been very much at the forefront of the Government's thinking. We have come to the decision that the balance is properly struck by strengthening the code as I have just indicated. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, at the outset of the debate on Report, I drew attention to the gap between 1976 and 1988, 12 years during which the defendant enjoyed anonymity. I said in terms that there had been no evidence of that giving rise to injustice or causing any problem at all. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for whose speech I am much indebted. Where is the problem? We have had a situation where the defendant enjoyed anonymity. What is the anxiety about putting that back? I will tell noble Lords what the anxiety is. It is the fear of criticism by the press.

In a speech which I and all other High Court judges had to make once a year at the University of Birmingham, I said in terms that the greatest problem facing any democracy is how to achieve a responsible

13 Nov 2003 : Column 1621

press. Your Lordships may agree that recent events concerning the Prince of Wales make that position even clearer today.

This Government, like any other, refuse to face up to the need for legislation on privacy and they have left it entirely to self-regulation. One of my critics was the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. She said that one would lose the willingness of people to come forward, but she also said this about the press:


    "The editor of one of our tabloid newspapers recently gave evidence before the Home Office Select Committee and said that her newspaper had paid money to police officers for information. It is well known that there are leaks from the police, particularly when the people involved have a public profile or an eminent position, whatever it might be. There are frequently leaks because it makes for good tabloid coverage".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; cols. 1092-3.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made a strong point on the subject. She said:


    "The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said that others may come forward. If someone has a complaint, he or she should make it. It is rare for people to come forward when there is publicity. It is much more important that both the defendant and the complainant are treated equally in these exceptional circumstances".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1086.]

That is why she supported the amendment.

Returning to other matters that have been raised, perhaps I may deal first with the law on rape as it is now. An obligation on the judge to give the jury a warning about the absence of corroboration has been removed. I suppose that that was because pressure groups said that it was rude to suggest that women make up false allegations.

I have had the pleasure of listening, in Privy Council in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, but I have never had the pleasure of leading him. I am grateful to him for being an efficient junior by pointing out the fact that there are frequently cases that are made up. Your Lordships may recall that they are made up not only maliciously, but also by an illusion. That was firmly demonstrated in that fine drama, A Passage To India. A wretched Indian was put into prison, but while he was being tried, the situation suddenly became clear to the complainant. The penalty deficiency can easily be put right as has been properly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, during the course of his observations.

That completes the points I want to raise because it deals with the various criticisms which have been made. I do not believe that the timid reliance on self-regulation, in order to ensure that you do not fall out with the press, is any argument at all. It is the Government's function primarily to stand up to the press. Until they do so, we shall continually have an irresponsible press.

13 Nov 2003 : Column 1622

Having listened to what has been said, I believe that this is an appropriate case in which to test the opinion of the House.

6.36 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A as an amendment to Amendment No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.
Ashcroft, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Eden of Winton, L.
Erroll, E. [Teller]
Feldman, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hayman, B.
Hereford, Bp.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hylton, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Monson, L. [Teller]
Palmer, L.
Renton, L.
Sandwich, E.
Slynn of Hadley, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Tebbit, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhatia, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Gale, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hollick, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Parekh, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

13 Nov 2003 : Column 1623

6.46 p.m.

[Amendment No. 1B not moved.]


    Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—


1CInsert the following new Clause— "Anonymity of suspects and defendants in certain cases (No. 2)


    (1) Subject to subsection (3), where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence listed in Schedule 3, no matter relating to that person shall be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person who is alleged to have committed the offence, until and unless that person is charged.


    (2) If any matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of subsection (1), the following persons, namely—


(a) in the case of a publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;
(b) in the case of any other publication, the person who publishes it; and
(c) in the case of a matter included in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper; shall be guilty of an offence.


    (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply—


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page