Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to find myself intervening at this point but there is no bigger policy than the right to a fair trial. Of course that goes for complainants—and I agree with much of the thrust of what my noble and learned friend says—but there must also be justice for someone accused of any matter, but particularly such a serious one as a sexual offence. The example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warranted more of an answer, and one could conceive of others.

I say that while acknowledging that for decades, too much sexual history has been admitted; there is no doubt in my mind about that. That was why Section 41 had to be enacted in the first place. Scholars in this area will be able to look back at the Hansard of the passage of Section 41 and its various iterations at the time. The section was actually more tightly drafted to begin with but noble Lords in this place, including on the Benches behind me, came up with compelling exceptional circumstances where it would do a grave injustice to a defendant for startling similar fact-type evidence not to be admitted.

I understand that even since the passage and enactment of Section 41, a lot of complainants—and, with all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite possibly women in particular—have felt that there has still not been enough sensitivity on the part of certain judges. However, it cannot be right that if I as a complainant, of whatever sex, assert that a particular type of sexual activity is something I would never and could never consent to and have never consented to, and yet I did the day before—how can it be anything but an injustice to the defendant for that not to be admitted? If I am a man and I say I have been raped by another man because I would never have consented to sex with a man, and yet there is ample evidence of a third party saying that there has been consensual sex —that cannot be fair to the man in the dock who says, “Yes, we had consensual sex” and then the complainant, because he is embarrassed due to his family, his faith or whatever reason, now says that it was non-consensual. That cannot be right.

I agree that we must do more so that juries, judges and indeed society do not assume that past sexual history is determinative of consent, but in my view to say that it is always absolutely irrelevant would not comply with Article 6 of the convention and therefore the Human Rights Act. I do not mean to be difficult but I could not possibly have potential injustices of that magnitude on my conscience, and I do not think this Committee could either.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, in replying, I preface my remarks by commenting on points made by noble Lords. The first was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, at the outset, while the Benches opposite were still thrashing out the batting order. If I may summarise the noble Lord’s position, I think it emphasised the importance of judicial discretion. A judge seized fully of the law and of the particular facts and circumstances applying to any case will most often be best placed to decide what should be done. I know that the noble Lord will recognise that my remarks cut both ways, and that he will hold me to them in the course of today’s debate. However, I fully accept what he had to say about the importance of judicial discretion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this whole group of amendments from my noble and learned friend and others. The reasons given by noble Lords are hugely compelling and, if anything, I think some noble Lords opposite are not enthusiastic enough. I hear the arguments about the public purse, but we would not be here if civil legal aid, in particular, had not been altogether obliterated and if there was not such a continuing injustice to bereaved families.

Frankly, I am not persuaded that there is something so awful about a greater equality of arms between hospital trusts and families who feel they have been sorely let down, or indeed between those families and a range of public authorities who can afford not competence but brilliance—they can afford the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, over there. I am not sure that “near competent” would be enough if you were faced with my friend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We need to have something like the intention behind this amendment; there should be some kind of equality of arms for these desperate people.

My heart broke when the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said that she has spoken to bereaved families who think of an inquest as an irritant. We should all be ashamed of that. Inquests, which are supposed to get to the bottom of things and be at least some kind of comfort to those families, should be the absolute opposite of an irritant.

I want to encourage my noble and learned friend not to let this go into the long grass, or to become an interesting probe that does not get anywhere because we are worried about the precise mechanism, because I am very concerned—we are still in the pandemic—about the coronavirus inquiry or inquiries that must come soon. There may not be another vehicle for amendments such as these, or legislation such as this, in time. It is incredibly important that, in a year or two, or whenever those inquiries happen, we have resolved this to some extent.

I fear we will not have resolved the general, dismal picture when it comes to civil legal aid, but at least we can come up with some kind of fix, however imperfect, to redress the balance of advice and representation for bereaved families. There will be a lot of very impoverished, vulnerable, bereaved families who will have nowhere near the access to private or public money. To be honest, whatever your ideological position, even the inequality between private corporations and bereaved families is bad enough, but surely, with public authorities and public money, there can be no excuse for such an imbalance in the use of that public money if we are really interested in the pursuit of justice.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I also agree absolutely with the principles behind these amendments. It seems as though the Committee has been unanimously supportive up till now.

My question to the Minister is: why have we waited so long for something to happen in the area of inquests? I had hoped that there might be something in what has been rightly described as a Christmas tree Bill to help us along the way, but there is not. It has needed the amendments from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to raise this issue. I was privileged enough to chair a Fabian commission on legal aid, which reported more than four years ago. We considered this urgent—as I think the world did—then and for many years before. At one stage, Hillsborough was a classic example which aroused public interest in this issue.

Is there work being done at the moment within the Minister’s department to look urgently at this issue to see whether some solution cannot be found? Never mind the rest of civil legal aid—though my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti knows I agree with her absolutely on that—is there not something that can be done in this area as a matter of some urgency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the Committee the benefit of his experience. Perhaps it is that experience which informed, or helped to inform, the remarks of the Chief Coroner, his honour Justice Thomas Teague, who has said publicly that one of his key objectives in his role is to ensure that the inquisitorial ethos of the inquest process is maintained. I hope that demonstrates a resolve within the system to address the failings or, at best, the over-eagerness, of counsel whose conduct the noble Lord described.

The amendment to increase the scope of legal aid at inquests would run counter to the approach of retaining their inquisitorial character. There is a risk that additional lawyers present at an inquest would not provide an overall improvement for the bereaved, that being something which ought to be a primary consideration, for the reasons expressed by my noble friend Lady Newlove. It is foreseeable—I think this is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst—that the presence of additional lawyers could have the unintended consequence of turning an inquisitorial process into a complex exercise—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not doubt the sincerity of his concerns about trying to maintain informality in inquisitorial process. However, can it ever be conscionable for an inquest to involve a totally unrepresented core participant or bereaved family in circumstances where those whom the bereaved family suspect of being responsible for their loved one’s death are represented by professional lawyers, counsel and QCs? Can that basic inequality ever be conscionable, not least when we are dealing with lay people, with public concern and with public money that is all going to some parties and not to the bereaved?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention.

I was going on to say that, for bereaved families who need legal help, advice and assistance are always available under the legal aid scheme, subject to the means and merits test. This can help preparation—

--- Later in debate ---

It is important that changing the law is in the interest of victims, as much as possible. They have suffered under this time limit for far too long and, as the former Victims’ Commissioner, I am tired of listening to these women—mostly women—who have gone for support but have been left out on a limb yet again. Leaders from across the violence against women sector contributed to this amendment. They have worked with victims and understand their real-life experiences and what law changes are needed to protect them, so I urge the Government to accept this amendment in full to reflect their work.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support both noble Baronesses’ amendments and urge the Minister to accept them with alacrity or, if that is not possible, to work with the noble Baronesses and parliamentary counsel to achieve the compelling intentions behind both amendments.

The last thing my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley needs to do is apologise to the Committee for not being a lawyer because, if I may say so, her speech in support of her amendment combined every ounce of detailed legal reasoning with a humanity of which any lawyer would be proud. The anomaly to which she refers goes back to the 1956 Act, which sat around on the statute book before the 1997 Labour Government conducted a sex offences review. Clearly, this anomaly has not been corrected.

This particular offence is very grave, and it should never have had a time limit. In criminal law, we understand why certain lesser offences should be time-limited. We would not want every ordinary common assault or minor act of shoplifting not to be subject to a time limit, with this sword of Damocles potentially hanging over young people for the rest of their lives. We understand the public policy reasons to have time limits, but I suggest that to have them for such grave offences is contrary to the rule of law and fundamental human rights. The anomaly to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley spoke so well clearly puts this jurisdiction in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and probably Article 14, on account of the various types of discrimination that are also involved—between not just boys and girls at the time, but children and adults who did not consent. We rightly assume that young children do not have the capacity to consent.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy is so right that the rule against retrospectivity is a presumption against changing the substance of a criminal offence. She put the point well: it is not there to prevent us from dealing with procedural obstacles that are unconscionable, as she is attempting here. So I see no problem at all with retrospectivity, because it would be contrary to any notion of human rights or justice for a defendant charged today, tomorrow or as soon as this is enacted, to argue that he thought he was in the clear because enough years had passed since this terrible crime. Even with substantive changes to criminal law, there have been exceptions to the presumption against retroactivity, as we saw in the higher courts some years ago when the position on marital rape was changed. In one case, the defendant said, “This is not fair; I raped my wife when I thought I was allowed to.” In any event, this is a procedural matter that is standing in the way of dealing with a terrible anomaly and human rights violation that will be ongoing unless we deal with it.

As to Amendment 292C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and her supporters, common assault can be a minor enough offence in certain contexts, such as the two young people who have a fight. It is fine to leave a short time limit for that, but domestic abuse is a very particular context in which the victim, whoever in the family they are, may well still be in the abusive situation within those two years. Rather than create a separate specific offence of common assault domestically, why not deal with it in the fairly neat way that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has?

If the Minister or his colleagues disagree with me, no doubt they, with the aid of parliamentary counsel, can come up with the right fix. However, I say to this Committee that both of these matters need to be dealt with not in future but with this vehicle. Frankly, there are lots of things in this very large Bill that I do not agree with, but the Bill would do something good if these two matters were tackled immediately.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but first I will refer briefly to Amendment 277. The first thing I have to say is that, as any inhabitant of the West Midlands will know, the noble Baroness who moved the amendment is the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. It is pronounced “Cradely”, not “Cradley”—it is a bit like “Chumley” instead of “Cholmondeley”.

My second point is this: the point made by the noble Baroness about the amount of time that sometimes elapses before individuals feel able to come forward is a moot one. Yesterday evening, I watched a new programme with my daughter. It was a documentary on a well-publicised streaming platform that begins with the letter “N”; I will not advertise it here. The programme is called “Procession” and deals with the way in which five men, all of whom were the victims of predatory Catholic clergy 30 to 40 years ago, have finally started being able to talk about what happened to them and come to terms with it. When something like that happens to one at that age—in this particular instance, these young men were even younger than the people we are talking about, aged between 13 and 16—it does not take a brilliant imagination to work out the sort of trauma that it must instil in people and how difficult it can be even to recognise it oneself, let alone bring oneself to talk to others about it. The noble Baroness’s point was well put; it will be hard to disagree with her.

On Amendment 292C, first, I put on record my thanks—indeed, our thanks—to Yvette Cooper, who has been pursuing this forensically in another place. Her latest attempt was made today when she asked the Home Secretary directly what her view on this is and whether anything will happen. I am not clear why we are debating this amendment at all because, on 5 July, Victoria Atkins, now in the Ministry of Justice but the then Home Office Minister, said this in the House of Commons when talking specifically about this same amendment:

“We take this issue very seriously, and I can assure the House that we will return with a proposal at a later stage. I certainly do not rule out an amendment, if appropriate, in the Lords. This must be looked into”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/21; col. 572.]


There it is on the record.

As the noble Baroness said, the Home Office seems to have developed a sort of hotline with certain reporters in the BBC, where certain potential developments are briefed to the BBC, which puts them out fairly prominently. There is then complete radio silence; there is no acknowledgement by the Government or Home Office in any way, shape or form that a briefing took place, so we are left in a slight quandary as to whether it did or not. Unlike some noble Lords, those of us on the Cross Benches have a high enough regard for the BBC that we tend to believe it when it comes out with something like this, so I find this practice of putting these things out into the public domain then saying nothing about them somewhat unhelpful. Frankly, it is a sort of legislator abuse since many of us are trying to do our best in talking on behalf of others and it is confusing when the Government apparently say one thing to the media and then stand at the Dispatch Box and say something similar to what they have been saying, sometimes for many years. My noble friend Lady Newlove put the case clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her amendment.

For the victim of a crime to be told that the culprit cannot be prosecuted because a time limit has elapsed would doubtless be the cause of, at the very least, dissatisfaction and, at the very worst, anguish, and may very well lead to a loss of confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why, in respect of offences that are serious enough to be capable of being tried in the Crown Court, such time limits are virtually unknown in our system of criminal law in England and Wales. That differentiates England and Wales from many other jurisdictions, where time limits apply even to the most serious offences.

In England and Wales, the only exceptions are certain customs offences and offences of unlawful but consensual sexual intercourse, which I shall refer to as USI, with a girl aged 13 to 15 years committed before 1 May 2004, when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force. The statute which that Act replaced, the 1956 Act—I extend apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for yet further legal history here—included a requirement that a prosecution for USI with a girl aged between 13 and 15 must be commenced within 12 months of the offence. That requirement was highly unusual even when it was enacted, and it was duly removed by the 2003 Act. I am sure that members of the Committee will echo the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in relation to the 1956 Act.

That was an anomaly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and other noble Lords have described it in our discussion today. However, when it was removed in 2003 it was done so only prospectively, from the point when the Act came into force; in relation to offences that would fall to be charged under the 1956 Act, the time limit remained.

As your Lordships are aware and have heard again today, Parliament usually acts on the principle of non-retroactivity. Removing the time limit in circumstances where a prosecution was already time-barred, while it would not have amounted to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, would have exposed a person to criminal liability where there had been none before. Thus, Parliament’s aversion to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural preconditions for the bringing of charges against an individual. In relation to that—the point was canvassed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—I make reference to the case before the European Court of Human Rights called Antia and Khupenia v Georgia. Oh, for a Lord Russell of Georgia, that I might be corrected for any mispronunciation of the names of any plaintiffs in that matter.

For that reason, we do not consider it would be right to disregard the time limit in the increasingly rare cases in which it would apply. Since the changes in the 2003 Act were not made retrospective at that time, I submit that it would be difficult to justify now extending them to cases in which prosecution has been time-barred for at least the intervening 17 years—even allowing for the development in our understanding of sexual crime, as referred to by Members of this Committee who contributed to the debate.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others in acknowledging the skill and humanity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, presented her amendment to the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing a willingness to meet. I would be delighted to meet her at any time, but I think it would be more convenient for her, for the purposes purely of this amendment, to meet with my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister in charge. I have taken steps by electronic means during the discussion in the Committee to arrange that my noble friend is made aware of her desire to meet, and an appointment will be fixed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Obviously I will go and read the Georgian case—I will call it “the Georgian case” so as not to repeat my earlier offence in relation to my noble friend—but, before any meeting, I will just say one thing. The Georgian case is now being cited as the reason why the Government will not move in my noble friend’s direction. I repeat my concern that we are currently in breach of the convention on human rights, not in relation to an Article 7 point but in relation to an Article 3 violation in relation to any woman, of whatever age, who now says “My statutory rapist will not be dealt with”. The Georgian case is up against cases such as X in the Netherlands and all the other cases where people were barred from getting redress in the criminal courts. That needs to be considered by the Minister as a senior law officer in Her Majesty’s Government.

If our positions were reversed and I had to face these two potential challenges in the European Court of Human Rights—a man who says “I had the opportunity to run Lord Pannick’s arguments about delay but none the less I was convicted of a historic statutory rape and I say that is a violation of my Article 7 rights” versus a woman who says “My rapist was not dealt with because of this time limitation”—I know which of those challenges I would rather defend as Her Majesty’s Government.