Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


LORDS AMENDMENT

Clause 45, Leave out Clause 45

19 Nov 2003 : Column 1973

The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—


36APage 31, line 5, leave out "(or partly because)"
36BPage 31, line 12, after "jury" insert "if he is satisfied that jury tampering has taken place"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)


36CLord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34C.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

Clause 46, Leave out Clause 46


    The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—


37APage 32, line 7, at end insert— "(8) The Secretary of State may make an order containing provision, in relation to proceedings before the Court of Appeal under this section, which corresponds to any provision, in relation to appeals or other proceedings before that court, which is contained in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) (subject to any specified modifications)."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37A to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

19 Nov 2003 : Column 1974

LORDS AMENDMENT

Leave out Clause 47


    The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—


38AClause 47, page 32, line 30, at end insert— "(6) Nothing in this Part affects—


(a) the requirement under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) that a question of fitness to be tried be determined by a jury, or
(b) the requirement under section 4A of that Act that any question, finding or verdict mentioned in that section be determined, made or returned by a jury."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38A to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

39Clause 48, Leave out Clause 48 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—


39ABecause it is necessary to make provision in relation to rules of court.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

40Clause 49, Leave out Clause 49
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—


40AClause 49, page 34, line 14, at end insert— "(9A) In section 46(8) for "Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)" substitute "Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)"."


40BClause 49, page 34, line 21, at end insert— "(11A) In section 47(6)—


(a) for "section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)" substitute "Article 49 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986",

19 Nov 2003 : Column 1975


(b) for "section 4A of that Act" substitute "Article 49A of that Order", and
(c) for "that section" substitute "that Article"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B, to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to the amendments under Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B, to the words so restored to the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

100Clause 78, page 52, line 22, leave out "and" The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—


100ABecause the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient
101Page 52, line 23, at end insert ", and
(c) he has sought leave from a judge of the Crown Court on an ex-parte application." The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—


101ABecause the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.

One of the important safeguards provided by the Bill in respect of retrials for serious offences is that the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be needed to authorise certain steps being taken by the police to reinvestigate a person previously acquitted of a qualifying offence. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be able to give his consent to reopen an investigation unless he considered that, firstly, there was new evidence, or would be new evidence, as a result of a reinvestigation; and, secondly, that a reinvestigation would be in the public interest.

The amendment would seek to add a further requirement that the DPP should seek the leave of a Crown Court judge before consenting to a reinvestigation. We consider the amendment to be unnecessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions is senior and experienced enough to take a decision on whether to allow the police, in reopening an investigation into an acquitted person, to take the steps set out in subsection (3). He is sufficiently independent of the police to review their request for a reinvestigation. The Government consider that having him take this decision

19 Nov 2003 : Column 1976

provides the necessary safeguard to ensure that the acquitted person is not being harassed by the police. At the stage of reinvestigation, it is quite proper for the decision to reinvestigate to be taken by the prosecuting authorities rather than the courts.

Involving a Crown Court judge in proceedings at this stage would also make the process more cumbersome. There are many layers of safeguard already built in to the exercise of the powers listed in subsection (3). I do not believe that requiring the DPP to secure the leave of a Crown Court judge is necessary before a reinvestigation can get to the point of the exercise of these powers. The safeguards on reinvestigation need also to be seen in context. Before there can be an application for a retrial, the DPP's consent is required again. He must be satisfied at that stage that there is new and compelling evidence and that it is in the public interest for the application to be made. That application is then determined by the Court of Appeal. We believe that it is at that stage that a judicial decision in required. As such, I invite noble Lords not to insist on this amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page