Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements to make: please switch IT devices to silent; tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings; and hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.
No amendments have been tabled to this private Member’s Bill, and nor, obviously, is there a programme motion, so we will start with clause 1 stand part. When that has been dealt with, we will move to clause 2 stand part, and finally to the Question on reporting the Bill to the House. There is no set finish time, so proceedings will be concluded when we finish our consideration of the Bill, or if the Committee agrees to adjourn, should progress not be made.
Clause 1
Extension of powers to obtain documents and other material
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and an honour to present the Bill to the Committee. We heard excellent speeches on Second Reading from several of my hon. Friends and the shadow Minister. I thank them heartily for their interventions, which were succinct and apposite—I could not have thought of better ones if I had tried.
I shall outline briefly the Bill’s purpose. In essence, it will redress a legislative oversight from 1995, when the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established. After some delay, it will give the commission much-needed powers to request evidence from private sources The CCRC is the non-executive body charged with investigating alleged miscarriages of justice, which involves it seeking a range of evidence and information, often going back years. Its skilled investigators, caseworkers and commissioners do this important work.
In the course of its work, the CCRC will look at information and evidence from a range of sources, including the police, the prison and probation services, the NHS, local authorities and other public sector sources. The power to request that information, subject to judicial safeguarding, is set out in section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. However, sometimes the CCRC will also be interested in looking at information and evidence held by private sources, be they individual witnesses, solicitors, private security firms, private medical practitioners, or, increasingly, establishments that were once in the public sector, such as the Forensic Science Service. Until now, the CCRC has relied on co-operation and voluntary disclosure because it has no formal power to require evidence to be disclosed. The Bill therefore will amend the 1995 Act to allow the commission to subpoena evidence from private sources. Critically, as set out in clause 1(1), that power will be subject to the safeguards of judicial oversight and a Crown court order, so the CCRC could compel a private individual or organisation to provide material only by order of the court. Privacy is further protected under subsection (3).
The CCRC agrees that such a process will be appropriate. As with its current practice when preserving public body material under section 17 of the 1995 Act, the commission will not seek to exercise its functions unreasonably or disproportionately. Furthermore, the commission and the Ministry of Justice believe that having the power on the statue book will be enough to persuade many private bodies to co-operate with the CCRC voluntarily.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main. The Opposition wholeheartedly welcome and fully support the amendments to the 1995 Act proposed in the Bill. Perhaps it would help our proceedings if I put my questions collectively at the end and allow the clauses to be taken formally. Is that possible?
The Chair
Yes, if that is acceptable. We can move on to clause 2, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to put his questions before he agrees to clause 1.
Wayne David
My suggestion was that I put all my questions collectively at the end of the presentation of the clauses so that we can have a general debate, rather than specific debates on each clause.
The Chair
I shall therefore put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
William Wragg
The clause sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, which is the same as the jurisdiction of the Criminal Cases Review Commission which, as Members will see, is England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is excluded because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established in 1997 with the powers that the Bill will introduce for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, meaning that the Bill fixes a reasonless discrepancy between the two legal systems. We therefore already have a working example of such a measure in Scotland, where the process has worked well, with no evidence of abuse.
The CCRC has a historic significance to Northern Ireland. Indeed, it was set up in the wake of notorious mishandled cases such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. I hope that the fact that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland is interesting and welcome.
The Chair
I suggest that Mr David makes all his points now because this is the final opportunity for debate on the Bill.
Wayne David
The broad range of support for the Bill is impressive. Indeed, the measure not only is supported by the Government and the Opposition, but has a ringing endorsement from the Justice Committee, while the Criminal Cases Review Commission also supports it. Dare I say there that is almost an unholy alliance supporting the Bill? We are certainly not going to demur from that support.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, this modest but important Bill is needed to deal with a clear anomaly in the original 1995 Act. The explanatory notes to the Bill clearly state:
“Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 gives the CCRC the power to require public bodies to disclose and provide the documents or other material which may assist them in discharging their functions”,
but does not provide for the CCRC to require
“private organisations and individuals to do so.”
That is what this important piece of legislation is all about.
The explanatory notes also refer to the Forensic Science Service, as did the hon. Gentleman, and it is interesting that emphasis is placed on that body. Of course, it was a public body before it was privatised, but I wonder whether slightly undue emphasis is placed on it, because the Bill will apply to private individuals and organisations right across the board.
Some have suggested that the Bill might place an onerous responsibility, and indeed considerable cost, on private organisations and individuals. Private solicitors have said that it will place an enormous burden on them at a time when they are under great strain due to changes to the legal system, cuts in legal aid and so on. Has the hon. Gentleman quantified the increased burden that the new responsibility will put on solicitors in particular, and individuals and organisations in the private sector generally?
On costs and burdens, I wonder if something could be said about the Criminal Cases Review Commission itself. I understand that the body is funded by grant in aid from the Ministry of Justice. In 2014-15, the funding was £5.67 million, which is not a huge amount, given the importance of the CCRC’s work. In the past decade, however, its budget has reduced by some 30%, yet there has been a 70% increase in its workload. I presume that the CCRC’s new power will lead to greater responsibility and seriousness, with perhaps more cases coming forward, and therefore an increased workload. Has any estimate been made of the extent to which the Bill will increase the commission’s workload? Have the Government considered increasing the commission’s funding as a consequence of the Bill? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not speak on behalf of the Government, but I wonder if the thorny issue of money has been discussed with the appropriate Minister in the Department during the detailed negotiations and consultations about the Bill.
Our inclination is to support the Bill. We think that it is important and that it deals with an anomaly, but we would like clarification on my specific points.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am reading section 17 of the 1995 Act and wondering about the penalties for non-disclosure. That is not covered in the Bill, and given that it extends the CCRC’s powers to the private sector, I am genuinely interested in what will happen if the private sector refuses a request.
Wayne David
I would be interested to know that as well. At the moment, the public sector has a legal responsibility to provide the information. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said on Second Reading that it is not uncommon for the private sector to co-operate, but that is a very vague statement. We want precision and obligation. Private sector organisations and individuals will have a responsibility to comply, and I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about possible sanctions or penalties if their co-operation is not forthcoming.
William Wragg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He referred at the outset of his remarks to the Bill’s broad support and an “unholy alliance”, although I have no idea what the unholy aspect of that alliance is, given the nature of the individuals, including his party’s leader, who were kind enough to be supporters of the Bill. I thank him for indicating the Opposition’s broad welcome to the Bill, which he made clear on Second Reading.
The hon. Gentleman asked why such emphasis has been placed on the Forensic Science Service. I suspect, from my limited knowledge of the matter, that that is because in cases of a miscarriage of justice when existing evidence is held by the service, it would probably be the first port of call in order to overturn or quash a conviction, if something was awry.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the burden that could be placed on solicitors, and although I do not have the information to hand, the costs would be limited. Indeed, there is existing co-operation, as he said, so it could be argued that the Bill simply rectifies a drafting error in the 1995 Act, especially when one considers that the equivalent commission for Scotland was given the powers in the Bill a couple of years later. Statistical evidence showing the cost of the commission in Scotland may provide him with useful examples.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the grant to the CCRC, which is currently £5.67 million, and referred to a reduction in its budget over the past 10 years. To my knowledge, the CCRC’s budget is again being increased this year—it has been protected—in anticipation of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about penalties for non-disclosure. I am not able to speak on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, but he is right that the Bill does not make particular reference to that.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Bill provides recourse to the courts to seek an order if a private sector body or individual refuses to give disclosure voluntarily. If an order has to be sought but is breached, meaning that disclosure is not given, the penalty would be no different from the existing penalty for non-disclosure in criminal or civil proceedings. Such a procedure is well used.
William Wragg
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—indeed, my hon. and learned Friend. I am most obliged to have a barrister in criminal law defending me in this Committee. I hope that that intervention satisfies the right hon. Member for Delyn.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
William Wragg
May I express my thanks to you, Mrs Main, for chairing the Committee?
William Wragg
Not at all, Mrs Main.
I thank the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for his help and support—he is helping and supporting in the Chamber at the moment, which is why he cannot be here—and Ministry of Justice officials for their advice and guidance. I also thank the commissioners and staff of the CCRC for their support and kind welcome in Birmingham and, of course, all members of the Committee who are here.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.