Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page



34D Page 29, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert "both of the following two conditions are fulfilled"
34E Page 29, line 26, after second "is" insert "evidence of a"

20 Nov 2003 : Column 2064

34F Page 29, line 28, leave out subsection (5)
34G Page 29, line 33, leave out "third" and insert "second"
34H Page 29, line 37, at end insert— "(7) The following are examples of cases where there may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place—


(a) a case where the trial is a retrial and the jury in the previous trial was discharged because jury tampering had taken place,
(b) a case where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving the defendant or any of the defendants,
(c) a case where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial."

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

The provisions are well known to your Lordships—I have previously fully explained the issues that are between us. They relate to the jury tampering provisions. We believe that that is a mischief that needs to be rectified. I beg to move.

Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)


34ILord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill, at end insert "and do propose the following further amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
34JClause 43, page 29, line 35, leave out "sufficiently high" and insert "so substantial as"

The noble Lord said: We are all agreed that jury tampering is an evil that must be dealt with effectively. It was therefore with considerable pleasure that I looked at the amendments that the Minister put before us this morning, with which we agreed. I have now tabled the Minister's amendments. If she is unable to accept them, I would love to hear why she has changed her mind.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H to the words so restored to the Bill, at end insert "and do propose Amendment No. 34J to the words so restored to the Bill".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)

20 Nov 2003 : Column 2065

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I were delighted that the noble Lords opposite had accepted that we had done everything proper in these amendments to meet their concerns. However, we had hoped and desired that they would have done the same with all our suggestions.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, the original Question was that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34D to 34H, since when the present Amendment No. 34I has been moved, at end insert "and do propose Amendment No. 34J to the words so restored to the Bill". As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.

Division called.

The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I shall repeat the Question: as many as are of that opinion shall say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Content.

The Deputy Speaker: The Contents have it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

36Clause 45, Leave out Clause 45 The Commons insist on their disagreement to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—


36DClause 45, page 31, line 5, leave out "(or partly because)"
36EClause 45, page 31, line 12, leave out "must" and insert "may"
36FClause 45, page 31, line 12, after second "jury" insert "if, but only if, he is satisfied—
(a) that jury tampering has taken place, and
(b) that to continue the trial without a jury would be fair to the defendant or defendants"
36GClause 45, page 31, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert "both of the conditions set out in section 43 are likely to be fulfilled"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36D to 36G. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I wish to make it plain that I find the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will move, which were originally mine, as delightful as I did when they were drafted.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36D to 36G.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish to respond by moving the amendments that are consequential on those that the Government have just conceded. With

20 Nov 2003 : Column 2066

great pleasure, we welcome these amendments; they were originally tabled by the Government, and are now in the name of my honourable friend.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

114Before Clause 90, insert the following new Clause— "Evidence of bad character


    (1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) ("the 1984 Act") is amended as follows.


    (2) After Section 82 of the 1984 Act (Part VIII—interpretation) insert—


    "PART VIII A


    EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER


    82A Bad character


References in this Part to evidence of a person's bad character are references to evidence which shows that—
(a) he has committed an offence, or
(b) he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person. 82B Requirement of leave


    (1) In criminal proceedings, evidence of a person's bad character is admissible only with leave of the court, unless the evidence—


(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence. (2) This section does not apply in relation to an item of evidence if—


(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or
(b) in the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it. 82C Non-defendant's bad character


In the case of evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant, the court is not to give leave under section 82B unless the evidence falls within section 82D or 82E. 82D Evidence with explanatory value


Evidence falls within this section if—
(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and
(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial. 82E Evidence going to a matter in issue


    (1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—


(a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. (2) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—


(a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;
(b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
(c) where—
(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct, and

20 Nov 2003 : Column 2067


(ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct, the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page