Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, rise to support this Motion and also, in part, to atone for my own part as Treasury Counsel 30 years or more ago, when I did all that I could to obstruct the recognition of prisoners’ rights—sometimes successfully in the short term, although generally not in the longer term. Preparing for the debate tonight has involved me in a wander down memory lane. In 1981, in a case called Payne against the then chairman of the Parole Board, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal under Lord Denning that it was quite unnecessary to give prisoners any reasons whatever as to why their parole applications had been refused. In 1984, in a case called King, I persuaded the Court of Appeal that prison governors’ disciplinary proceedings were wholly immune from judicial review, lest their authority be undermined.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, as your Lordships already know, I was one of the minority of four to five in the Supreme Court in Adams in 2011, and I support the Government in their efforts here to give effect to our minority judgment. I recognise that in the light of the speeches in the House this afternoon I am now one of an endangered species. However, the truth is that four of us reached a clear view on this, including the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who unhappily cannot be in this place today. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this is a difficult issue and I do not suggest that the majority reached an absurd or impossible view. I suggest that it was wrong but, right or wrong, that is not now the question. The question is: what does the House think is the appropriate approach to the question of compensation for miscarriage of justice?

It is critical to bear in mind that in the course of this debate we are talking not about criminal justice or the presumption of innocence, or about whether people who cannot at the end of the day be shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be guilty should go free. Of course they should and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is right to say that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned. All that goes without saying but we are concerned here with monetary compensation. The obligation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act, and under the international convention to which that gives effect, is to compensate only in a very limited and narrowly circumscribed group of cases. It is not all those who, having been imprisoned, are ultimately set free and presumed innocent; far from it.

Compensation is not paid and even under the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would still not be paid, for example, to those who have been in custody, perhaps for a very long time while awaiting trial or during a trial, and are then acquitted. Nor is it paid to those who are freed only when an appeal, perhaps many months later even though it was brought in time, comes to be allowed. Nor is it paid to those whose appeal comes to be allowed not because of newly discovered facts but rather, for example, because of some serious misdirection by the judge at trial or because the judge wrongly admitted evidence, even if they have been incarcerated for many years. Very importantly, nor is it paid—and it is apparent to me that not all your Lordships fully understand this—in cases where an appeal, possibly after many years, comes to be allowed because the newly discovered facts have created a doubt as to whether the original jury, with these fresh facts in mind, would still have convicted the accused. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, clearly recognises that but certain things said suggest that others do not.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its recent second report, published just a fortnight back, suggests in paragraph 73 that under the test of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, compensation would have been granted in Sally Clark’s case. That is the tragic case, as I wholly accept, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke so passionately both today and at Second Reading. Having now read the detailed judgment in that case, and indeed the commentary on it in the other case of Meadow, it seems to be entirely plain that compensation would not—I repeat, not—have been paid to Sally Clark under the test of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Notwithstanding the doubts about the value of Professor Meadow’s evidence that emerged quite early in that case, Sally Clark’s first appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal on the basis that the evidence against her remained overwhelming. There then came to light further fresh evidence—again, as referred to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—regarding certain biological tests on one of the two children. That, said the second Court of Appeal, could—I repeat, could—have affected the jury’s verdict. It did not say that no jury could possibly have convicted in the light of it. With the best will in the world, I suggest that that would not have led to compensation in her case.

Compensation is designed only to compensate those most obviously and conspicuously wronged, apparent to all. They will have been incarcerated the longest, which is why it applies only in respect of an appeal out of time, and, if the Government’s approach is accepted, they will have been shown to be truly innocent and indeed that would have been recognised to have been so if only the fresh facts such as DNA evidence had come to light sooner rather than later.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I really must correct the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps reading a commentary or returning to published facts about the case and reading a shorthand account of it will not give one the proper understanding of what the evidence was that allowed Sally Clark’s appeal. I chaired an inquiry in which that evidence was placed before us. Medical evidence—slides showing the state of an infant’s lung condition—was never disclosed, and it was never explained why that was never disclosed at the time of trial. There was no doubt that it put a completely different complexion on the views taken by all those dealing with this case medically, and the case turned on medicine. I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord is not right in the description that he gives of why this case was overturned.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I am of course enormously reluctant to take issue with the noble Baroness because she was in the case. I have here the transcript of the Court of Appeal judgment in April 2003, extending to 182 pages, by which on the second appeal it finally acquitted Sally Clark, but there it is; I pass to my second point. I hasten to say that these further points will not take quite so long.

Again with regard to the recent second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, relating to Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has already been touched on, I just cannot accept the suggestion that the test proposed here by the Government is incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Not one of the nine of us in Adams in the Supreme Court thought that Article 6.2 had anything of value to say to the case. Today, very fairly, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, were not putting any particular emphasis on it either.

When refusing a compensation claim, the Secretary of State cannot say, “I think you are guilty after all”, but he can say, “You haven’t suffered a miscarriage of justice such as qualifies you for compensation. Of course your conviction was rightly quashed, you were set free and you are to be presumed innocent, but to qualify for compensation you have to establish more”. That indeed is also the position under the test of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The underlying test of a refusal of compensation, even under his formulation, is that you cannot show that the jury would have acquitted you, they might still have found you guilty and indeed the evidence would have justified a conviction. That is the underlying rationale on which you still refuse those eventually acquitted under the test of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is not logical—I am afraid that the European Court of Human Rights is not always infallible —that the one satisfies Article 6.2 but the other does not.

Thirdly, in reality the test that is now proposed by the amendment is, frankly, a fudge, and it has all the uncertainties and disadvantages of a fudge. None of the many counsel who appeared before the Supreme Court in Adams—and they included leading counsel specifically instructed on behalf of that admirable institution Justice, which appeared as interveners in the case—argued for the approach now suggested and, indeed, that the majority of five reached as a sort of halfway house, as they felt, in Adams. It was indeed recognised by the Bar that there was no principled difference between this approach and the approach of compensating all who eventually succeed on their late appeals. As the Joint Committee points out in the same paragraph, paragraph 73, as that in which it refers to Sally Clark, the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,

“is narrower than the amendment proposed by Lord Beecham at the Bill’s Committee stage, which was based on the Divisional Court’s modification of Lord Phillips’s test”.

That modification came in a later case, in Ali, and the fact is that there were such problems with the majority’s approach in Adams that it was chosen to modify it. But now it is proposed to restore the majority in Adams. For my part, I respectfully question whether that produces certainty and is more workable than the Government’s test.

I have always made it perfectly plain that I am entirely relaxed about whether under the Government’s approach the claimant has to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities, or merely that the Secretary of State now looking at the whole case in the round is properly satisfied that he is being asked to compensate someone who is truly innocent. One of the plain troubles with the proposed amendment is that some—not many, I accept, but some—of those who are indeed undeserving will be compensated often to the tune of very substantial sums, hundreds of thousands of pounds it can be. I gave instances of this at earlier stages of the Bill and I do not propose to repeat them now. The fact is that there are cases which eventually succeed on appeal but there is other evidence or circumstances where, although this test would be satisfied, nobody really would regard the person as truly innocent.

My fourth and final point is just this. Before we came to decide the case of Adams there had been in this House, while we still heard final appeals here, the case of Mullen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn—who, alas, is no longer in his place—held in that case that compensation was payable only when the person concerned was clearly innocent. That was entirely consistent with the explanatory report of an exactly equivalent provision in one of the protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights. The explanatory document report said:

“The intention is that states would be obliged to compensate persons only in clear cases of miscarriage of justice, in the sense that there would be acknowledgement that the person concerned was clearly innocent”.

It is that intention which Clause 161 is designed to give effect to and, for my part, I propose to support it.

Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to his new Front Bench role. I have long been among his many admirers on the Bench and have benefited over many years from his invariably helpful and thoughtful submissions. I have not always been able to accept them, and it is just possible that I will not feel able to accept them tonight in regard to these amendment regulations.

The regulations remove legal aid from borderline cases. Borderline cases are those where there are no further identifiable investigations able to be carried out, yet where it is still not clear that the prospects of success are better than 50:50, but nor is it clear that they are worse than 50:50. The reason that neither is clear is because there is a basic dispute as to the law, which has yet to be clarified or developed in this particular way, or as to the facts or expert evidence.

It is absolutely critical to recognise and bear in mind in the course of this short debate that under the existing funding scheme—the scheme it is now proposed to abolish—borderline cases are funded only if they are either of significant wider public importance or of overwhelming importance to the applicant. In other words, the cases to which it is now intended to deny future funding will be either those with implications for the relationship between the state and a substantial number of individuals, or those that impact on such fundamental interests as an individual’s life, liberty, health, housing or something of that character. Surely, these cases are ones that must therefore justify a broader merits test than the bald test simply of establishing that there is at least a 50:50 chance of success.

I suggest that they justify funding so that the critical, disputed question—whether that be of the law, fact or expert evidence—can be clarified. However, instead of that, under these amendment regulations, those cases are to be condemned, deemed to be cases where the prospects of success are “poor”, or less than 50:50.

When I spoke last July on the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to take note of the effect of a whole raft of proposed government cuts in legal aid funding—which included those we are now discussing—I urged the Government to take particular note, among the innumerable responses to consultation, almost all of which were opposed for a variety of reasons, of the consultation response prepared by ALBA, the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association, of which I was once privileged to be president. ALBA’s arguments were and remain cogent and convincing, not least as to the borderline cases. Among the material that ALBA presents is a 2012 study by Doughty Street Chambers—chambers that are prominent and highly respected in the field of public law and from which the just retired Director of Public Prosecutions came—showing that in the three years until then, borderline cases had achieved a substantive benefit for the funded party in between 47% and 56% of those cases, which was an average of just over 50%. I repeat, those cases are by definition important cases that affect either the public at large or the vital interests of an individual. Therefore, they are not cases from which the Government should be withdrawing funding. The suggested savings are uncertain; the price of achieving them is altogether too high.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I join everybody else in welcoming the noble Lord to his position on the Front Bench—a very public-spirited move on his part, I am sure, but immensely encouraging to others who deeply regret the fact that the Lord Chancellor can be chosen in a way that removes his presence from this House and in a way that does not require him to have had legal experience. We have suffered somewhat from the lack of the sort of experience that the noble Lord can fortunately bring. It is a significant step forward and to be immensely welcomed.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his Motion of Regret, which gives us an opportunity to express our regrets at this measure. I spoke, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in July. One of the things I said was that I hoped we would not have a succession of Motions of Regret because I hoped that these things would come up in the form of public Bills that we could then debate in depth. Unfortunately, that has not happened so I am afraid that we will have a series of Motions of Regret, one after the other.

I shall try not to repeat what others have said but the first point on which I want to comment is the borderline test itself, particularly the use to which it has been put. I have a feeling that it has a sort of arithmetical sense to it. When one talks about a borderline case, people at conferences will ask: is it above or below 50%? That is fair enough; that is what the test really means. If it is 50%, it is on the borderline. However, the problem, as has been explained by so many others, is that these things do not measure themselves arithmetically.

That brings me to a series of questions about how this will work in practice. How will fairness be achieved up and down the country? I understand that decisions are taken by independent funding adjudicators who look at the papers. We are not dealing with a single individual—it is difficult enough for one person—but one can imagine a series of people in different offices applying their minds to this test. Is any guidance to be given on how to approach the question of arriving at the borderline? If there is to be guidance, will it be made public so that we can comment on it and make suggestions, particularly if the system is to be reviewed in the future? There is then the very important point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf: will there be any element of discretion or shading in a situation where it is difficult to say that it is exactly at 50%? Can one, for example, have a margin of error in favour of granting legal aid, as against not doing so? It is that kind of guidance, if the Minister could explain it, that would help to flesh out how this will work in practice.

The problem with the test, as has been said already, is that it introduces an unequal playing field. The state on the one hand, with all its resources, is in a position to apply a different test on whether or not it wishes to contest the claim, whereas the individual is caught by this very exacting test. There is the vital point about the development of case law. I recall a series of cases, which have already been mentioned, but because I was involved I dare to mention them again. There was the case of Purdy, but it was preceded by that of Pretty, who is unfortunately no longer alive. That was the original assisted suicide case. It was a very difficult case in which to say that she had a 50% chance of success. In fact, she lost. She went to the Strasbourg court and lost there again, but the advantage of her case was that it helped us to begin to develop jurisprudence in this immensely difficult subject, which all Members of this House will have to discuss again before too long. It cleared a lot of the ground, which made it easier to grapple with the Purdy case when it came along.

Then there were the succession of cases, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has referred, in the field of social housing, which were also very difficult to predict. I bear a personal responsibility for this because I sat with Lord Bingham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, and, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, all of whom took one view. Three judges went one way but I turned the case around. Three others followed me and we were a majority of four to three. Who could have predicted that? Everyone knows—this is a commonplace criticism of the Privy Council jurisdiction in the Caribbean—that you need to know who the judges are and the way cases vary. How can one predict when it depends so much on personalities in cases that are so narrowly balanced, as they so often are in the highest courts?

The last point to which I want to draw attention is one of the difficult areas of our law, which has been repeatedly commented on. What do you do as judges, particularly in the senior courts, when you are applying Section 2 of the Human Rights Act, which refers to having regard to decisions of the Strasbourg court? Some of us have been fairly inclined to follow Strasbourg; others have not, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who asked the other day in a lecture why we should do that. He said we should take an independent view. Again, one will have to guess what the judges are going to do with that jurisdiction, whether there is to be any change and who will be sitting on the panel. One can predict, looking at the Supreme Court today, who will vote one way or the other. That makes this whole idea of the borderline test extremely difficult to accept unless there is to be some really rigorous guidance, which I hope the noble Lord may be able to comment and guide us on. I would respectfully support the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has moved.

Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) (Funding) Order 2013

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not think I have any relevant disclosures to make. I have not had a private client for some 34 years since I followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as Treasury Counsel, and I shall never have another.

This very afternoon, in answer to a Question about our trade prospects with China, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, said:

“The UK legal sector is a great strength … the rule of law and support from professional services are very strong. I will certainly seek to champion the legal sector going forward”.

I believe that I quote him accurately. I just wish that he would share his views and commitment with the Lord Chancellor.

For many years the criminal Bar has been the poor relation of the various specialist Bars. Over the past decade it has already suffered a series of cuts in public funding. Of course it does not earn for the Exchequer the riches that, for example, the commercial Bar earns when acting, very often on both sides of the litigation, in commercial disputes. However, I argue that the work undertaken by the criminal Bar is altogether more important than most commercial work. Most commercial cases result ultimately just in the adjustment of companies’ balance sheets and book entries; they rarely affect the quality of people’s lives. The outcome of criminal cases, by contrast, is generally critical to real people; usually their very liberty is at stake. More than this, the strength of the rule of law, and indeed public respect for it, depends above all else on the proper administration of the criminal justice system.

Very high cost cases, the subject of the swingeing further cut in fees under consideration here, are generally the most demanding of all the cases in the criminal calendar, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has explained, and usually, and appropriately, they are undertaken by the elite of the criminal Bar. There already exist few financial attractions for those contemplating practice, or indeed already practising, in crime at the Bar. If you impose these additional cuts, that elite will fall away.

The Attorney-General himself is said to have acknowledged at a recent Bar conference that he no longer expected people of excellence to come to the criminal Bar. Consider, if you will, the effect of that upon the future quality of those who practise at the very heart of the criminal justice system. Consider its impact on recruitment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has made plain. Consider its impact on the rule of law, and consider its inevitable consequences in terms of the future judiciary. Where shall we find the next generation of criminal judges? What indeed about the present position, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with current cases going hopelessly awry because, understandably, Counsel are on occasion declining to continue with cases with their fees savagely and retrospectively cut?

Of course I recognise that the Ministry of Justice has many calls upon its budget and that we live in harsh economic times, but I just cannot accept that these difficulties justify cuts so inevitably and gravely damaging to the criminal Bar, to the administration of justice and to the very rule of law. If drastic economies in the legal aid budget are required, and if they must be found in relation to the kind of cases in question here, better far to my mind that the department revisit a measure long ago suggested but, regrettably, hitherto rejected: the ending of the automatic right to jury trial in complex and protracted fraud cases. Indeed, it is my own clear opinion that not merely would this save countless millions of pounds of legal aid funds, it would also make for better justice.

That, of course, must be for another day. In the mean time, let us surely strive to safeguard rather than destroy the quality of the existing criminal Bar. Let us annul, not merely postpone, this order and these regulations. I, too, support the Motion.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, along with others, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for tabling these Motions so that we can debate these important measures. I should make it clear that I have never practised at the English Bar and never sat in an English court. My experience has been of practice, both civil and criminal, north of the border. However, although I have never sat in an English court, I have sat in a United Kingdom court, have had some experience of dealing with criminal cases and think that I can speak with some authority in support of the points which have been made so effectively by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.

A cut of 30% on fees previously set by the Government surely must be regarded in the present financial climate as severe. I appreciate, of course, that the Minister and those for whom he speaks in this House have very little room for manoeuvre, given the cuts that already have to be made across the entire department. However, it would help if the Minister in his reply were able to put these two measures into their overall context. As I understand it, we are dealing here with cases that take a very long time and provide the advocate with the benefit of continuity of employment throughout a long period. As has been pointed out, these are complex cases which require unusual amounts of work outside the court room and are, in comparison with rates elsewhere in the system, better paid. I could therefore perhaps understand it if the strategy behind these measures was to reduce the cost of legal aid at this level, so as to keep any reduction at the lower levels, with which we are not concerned this evening, to an absolute minimum—or even to preserve the existing position at the lower levels. After all, it is at the bottom of the scale that there is real hardship. One hears not infrequently that the costs of travel and other overheads exceed the amounts payable as fees to the advocate. If there is any margin over that, it is often very small. I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether this is what the Government have in mind, and give us an assurance that there is no question of cuts of this dimension being made elsewhere across the system. That would be some reassurance to those who are deeply concerned about what the Government have in mind in the overall planning.

I will direct my remarks to the amendment set out in regulation 3(5) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, as the provision which it seeks to insert affects the advocate’s freedom of contract. The standard terms already provide for their amendment within the terms of the contract. There is a contractual power to do this, but it is not entirely unqualified; this is not the place to debate how extensive that power is. However, when it comes to altering the terms for payment, I suggest that it is a question of degree. The stage may be reached when the amendment proposed, purportedly within the contract, is so great that it cannot be altered without the advocate’s agreement. In that situation, if agreement is not reached, the advocate would have a right to terminate the contract.

That leads me to consider what the effect would be if the amendment goes through. As I understand it, it would tie the advocate who agrees to this form of contract to the rates set out in Schedule 6. That being so, those rates can then be amended by a further order without the need for the advocate’s agreement. There is no need to alter the contract: what one does is to look at the schedule and alter the schedule by a further order. Once the advocate is tied in to such a contract, he or she has no escape from it, however much the reduction in the rates may be. As there is every prospect, if one is realistic, that the cuts now proposed will not be the last, the stage could be reached when the rates will become wholly uneconomic—indeed, some may say that this stage has already been reached. That amendment is a profoundly unattractive change in the existing arrangement. I do not understand why it is there and I suggest that the Government are taking a great risk by proceeding along these lines.

Members of the Bar, after all, are not civil servants. One of the strengths of the Bar, vital in our modern democratic society, is the independence of each one of its members from each other and from anyone else. That is an essential part of the system, which lies at the centre of maintaining the rule of law, which we all believe in. One of the characteristics of their independence is that advocates cannot be forced to accept terms to which they have not agreed or which they find unattractive. That leads directly to the consequences—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, drew our attention —which could be very far reaching and very damaging. Those already engaged in work of this kind might be well advised to withdraw from their contracts, lest they be sucked into an ever increasing pattern of cuts. There are many who might be attracted to this kind of work in other circumstances who would not wish to subject themselves to the reformed contract where they are subject to change without any further amendment of the contract itself.

I therefore have this further question for the Minister: what assurance can he give to those who may be willing to accept employment on these amended terms as to what the future holds for them? This is very relevant to the issue of recruitment. Schedule 6, as I have suggested, is open to further amendment. Are we to expect further cuts in these rates next year or is it proposed to do so within the life of this Parliament? If so, what further opportunity will there be—indeed what opportunity will there be at all—for consultation before any further amendments are proposed? What opportunity will there be for an advocate to withdraw if he decides that the rates that are then proposed are so completely unattractive that he is not prepared to carry on with that work? These are questions that all those engaged in this kind of work would wish to be answered and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to do so.

Lastly, on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, about jury trials, I come from Scotland where, as it happens, there is no right to a jury trial. It is up to the prosecutor to decide whether the offence should be tried by a judge alone in the sheriff court, with a sheriff and a jury, or in the High Court with a jury. The length of sentence is affected by that decision, but there is no reason why a case of very considerable complexity should not be tried before a single sheriff. The accused has no right to object to that. It raises the issue as to whether there is not considerable force in the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that we are reaching the stage where a jury trial in some of these cases may need to be reconsidered.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I recognise that the great majority of noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate on this clause, and the great majority of those who have spoken or propose to speak in this debate, are against Clause 151. However, if I may say so, they are under a considerable misapprehension as to the essential nature of this provision.

The clause has everything to do with statutory compensation but, frankly, little to do with criminal justice. That may sound simplistic but it is true. Convictions may be quashed in a wide variety of circumstances. It may be that fresh evidence comes to light that shows that the accused could not possibly have committed the particular offence. That may be as a result of DNA evidence, or perhaps someone later admitted to the very offence of which he has been convicted. Or it may be that the fresh evidence gives rise to a “lurking doubt”, as it is called, as to whether the defendant really was guilty. Or perhaps the judge can be shown to have unfairly admitted evidence or possibly misdirected the jury so that the conviction can no longer be regarded as safe. In all these cases, the conviction must be quashed and the defendant set free, and the presumption of innocence applies at that point in all those cases. However, it would be a very great mistake to suppose that all those defendants, merely because their convictions have been set aside and they are now presumed to have been innocent, are thereby entitled to the payment of compensation.

On the contrary, under the international convention to which our legislation is giving effect, only a very restricted number of cases are entitled to compensation: only those who by virtue of new facts disclosed on a late appeal can be shown conclusively to have suffered a miscarriage of justice are entitled to compensation. The critical question is: what, for this purpose, is a miscarriage of justice? It is not—I repeat and emphasise, not—the case that any conviction subsequently shown to be unsafe and set aside is a miscarriage of justice.

In the case that we have all been considering, Adams, the Supreme Court divided by 5:4. I should make it plain, as I did at Second Reading, that I was in the minority of four. The appellants and Justice, which intervened in that case, argued for the position that is apparently being taken by those participating in this debate, whereby all those whose convictions are set aside as unsafe should qualify for compensation. That, I understand, is what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, contends. That indeed clearly appears to be the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, at Second Reading. She said:

“If we legislate in the way suggested by the Government, we will create two types of ‘not guilty’ … those who are fortunate enough to be able to present evidence that proves conclusively that they are innocent; they will be entitled to compensation. Others, not so fortunate, will only be able to prove that they should not have been convicted”.—[Official Report, 29/10/13; col. 1515.]

However, even under the amendment, those whose convictions are set aside as unsafe and who may well be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, truly innocent will still, by common consent, not be able to claim compensation. The international covenant that we have given effect to in our law shows that only a limited category is entitled to compensation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, then the Lord Chief Justice, in the minority of four in Adams, explained that Section 133, which gave effect to our international obligation distinguishes the reversal of a conviction and a miscarriage of justice. These concepts are distinct. In short, for the purposes of Section 133, the reversal of a conviction and the consequent revival of the legal presumption of innocence are not synonymous with a miscarriage of justice.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in the case of Mullen, concluded that compensation was payable only when,

“the person concerned was clearly innocent”.

That, if I may say, was entirely consistent with the explanatory report that related to an article in the protocol to the European convention, which was enacted in terms virtually identical to those of Article 14.6, which our Section 133 is designed to implement. The explanatory report said:

“The intention is that states would be obliged to compensate persons only in clear cases of miscarriage of justice, in the sense that there would be acknowledgement that the person concerned was clearly innocent”.

In Adams, the majority devised a sort of halfway house, which was later redefined by the Divisional Court in Ali to say that compensation is payable if a new fact shows,

“beyond reasonable doubt, that no reasonable jury (or magistrates) properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered”.

That, noble Lords will readily see, is essentially the identical language to that which Amendment 15 now proposes to put into Clause 151. That, I respectfully suggest, is the worst of all possible worlds.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I said that the two questions posed by Section 31 should be capable of being answered without too much help from lawyers, but that has not proved to be the case. In the 27 years since 1986, the section has been considered on no fewer than eight occasions in our highest court, and on two occasions already this year. On one of those occasions it was said:

“This is unfortunate, especially in an area of the law which has to be applied on a daily basis by courts at all levels, and in which clarity is therefore of particular importance”.

I think noble Lords would say amen to that. Happily, there is one word in the section on the meaning of which everyone is agreed, and that is the word “likely” in subsection (1). It does not mean more likely than not. It means only that there is a real possibility of harm to a child or, as one judge put it, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored.

Perhaps I may paraphrase Section 32(1) again. It states that a child may be taken into care only if, first, it is suffering significant harm or, secondly, there is the real possibility that it will suffer significant harm. I shall not repeat all the wording. In other words, there are two separate conditions which may trigger the threshold, one relating to the present and the other relating to the future. When the case is put on the basis of present harm—for example, that the child is being physically or sexually abused by its father—it will be necessary to prove that fact on a balance of probability. Anything less than that would be unfair on the father and, indeed, on both parents. This is so also where the case is that the child has suffered serious injury and it is uncertain whether the injury was inflicted by the mother. It will be necessary to prove on a balance of probability that the child has indeed been injured and that the injury was inflicted by either the father or the mother, or both, but it will not be necessary at the threshold stage to decide which parent it was. That will be decided, if it can be decided at all, at the welfare stage on all the evidence which will then be available. The same principle of the threshold test also applies in relation to any unharmed child of the family.

So far, all is plain sailing. The difficulty arises when the parents separate. Let us suppose that the father goes off to live with another woman who already has a child of her own of the same age as the injured child. Is the threshold satisfied in relation to that child? Common sense would suggest that it is. There is a 50% chance on the proved facts that it was the father who injured the first child, who we will call child A. There must be at least a serious possibility that he will also injure child B—a possibility which, I repeat, cannot sensibly be ignored. If so, the threshold would be satisfied in relation to child B as well as to child A. However, the Supreme Court has held in a very recent case, Re J (Children), that that is not so. The Court has held that a serious possibility that it was the father who inflicted the injury is not enough. In order to satisfy the threshold in relation to child B, it will be for the local authority to prove on a balance of probability that it was the father and not the mother who injured child A. Since on the assumed facts that could not be done, child B would remain at risk.

I suggest that this cannot have been what Parliament intended when enacting Section 32(1), otherwise why did Parliament include the word “likely” as the alternative ground on which the threshold may be satisfied? The matter can be tested in this way by assuming that the mother is also now living with another man and has had a child which we shall call child C. Does child C also have to remain at risk because it cannot be proved on a balance of probability that it was the mother rather than the father who inflicted the harm on child A? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, who gave the leading judgments in the three initial cases on Section 31 in the House of Lords, described such a result as,

“grotesque because it would mean the court would proceed on the footing that neither parent represents a risk even though one or other of them was”,

responsible for the harm in question.

How then, one may ask, has the Supreme Court in Re J arrived at a different conclusion that, as the noble and learned Lord has said, on the face of it is “grotesque”. How can two of the judges in the Supreme Court have held that the injury to child A in such a case is logically irrelevant in deciding whether child B and child C are at risk and must therefore be disregarded altogether?

The answer to how the Supreme Court can have reached that conclusion is to be found in the judgment of Lord Justice McFarlane in the same case but in the court below. Lord Justice McFarlane is one of our most experienced Family Division judges, and is the author of one of the leading textbooks in this field. It was he who gave the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal in Re J. He went through all the House of Lords and Supreme Court decisions going back to 1996, and he showed that a clear distinction is drawn in the cases between those where the question is whether any harm has been proved at all and those cases where harm has been proved but the perpetrator of the harm is uncertain. That is the very distinction drawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, in the House of Lords case that I have already quoted.

Somehow though, that distinction was overlooked in later cases. Lord Justice McFarlane makes no secret of the fact that he favours the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, and would therefore have allowed the appeal in Re J if he could. However, subsequent decisions in the Supreme Court meant of course that his hands were tied. So the Court of Appeal took the unusual course of dismissing the appeal but itself giving leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, thereby, one might think, inviting the Supreme Court to have another look at this problem. Unfortunately, as I see it, the Supreme Court simply came up with the same answer again.

Lord Justice McFarlane’s judgment is long and detailed but his conclusion is clear, concise and very relevant in this context. It is contained in a single page of the Law Reports, which I have had copied, and the Committee may find it helpful to read his conclusion when considering this amendment. Copies are available on the table by the door.

I come to the decision of the Supreme Court itself in Re J. Is it open to us to take a different view? If so, is it wise for us to do so? To both those questions I would answer yes, for three reasons. First, three of the judges in the Supreme Court were themselves attracted by the argument that the approach in these cases has become much too complicated and that this is having unfortunate consequences. Secondly, the decision in the Supreme Court has been subjected to a hail of criticism in lengthy articles by Professor Mary Hayes and Stephen Gilmore, appearing in Family Law. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that, as they point out, the decision is causing real concern, if not consternation, among social workers and local authorities who have to apply Section 32 in practice. Thirdly, the decision in the Supreme Court hardly does justice to Lord Justice McFarlane’s decision in the Court of Appeal; indeed, it is scarcely even mentioned.

There is another reason for accepting this amendment. I am not seeking to amend the wording of Section 32(1) itself; the wording is fine and has stood the test of time. It is only the interpretation of that section that needs correcting, and that is what the amendment seeks to do. Its intended purpose is to clarify, and above all to simplify, the approach in cases of the kind that I have described where the harm has been proved on the balance of probabilities but the court cannot make a finding on the evidence whether it was the father or the mother who inflicted that harm. A judge of great experience in the Family Division said that that is the sort of case that occurs very often—“commonplace”, I think he said—in practice. In such cases, if the amendment were accepted, both parents would be placed in what is called a pool of possible perpetrators, thus enabling the case to proceed to the next stage, the welfare stage, where a decision could be made.

I refer to a “pool” because that is the term used by those who read these cases, or a “list”, as it is called in the amendment. Why does one have to have a pool or a list? The reason is quite simple: in one case, which has actually occurred in practice, there was a third possible perpetrator. In addition to the parents of the child in question, there was a childminder who also had a child of her own of about the same age. In such a case, it obviously makes sense that the childminder should be included in the pool of possible perpetrators, thus enabling that child to be protected should it become necessary. I hope that this has done something to clarify the purpose of the amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendment as strongly as I may. The critical consideration to keep in mind here, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has explained, is that what we are concerned about today is a threshold provision. The amendment would mean simply that in a small but very important additional category of cases, the court would have the jurisdiction and the power to investigate the case in depth and to consider whether in all the circumstances it should then make a care order or supervision order for the child’s protection. The small category of additional cases—again, the noble and learned Lord has explained this—is where it is established that some other child has already suffered significant harm, perhaps has even been killed, but the local authority concerned about some other child can demonstrate only the possibility, rather than the actual probability, that the perpetrator of that harm was someone who is now caring for the child in question—the child, that is, whose safety is presently under consideration.

As it happens, I was not in any of the string of cases in which the question of the true interpretation of Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 has arisen in recent years. Whether in the original House of Lords case I should have agreed with the majority view or with the dissenting minority view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and indeed of my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd, does not matter. It is unnecessary to decide now which was the better interpretation of the language that Parliament originally enacted in 1989.

What is clear, as again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has explained, is that several judges who have had to grapple with this point, even if they felt bound by the original majority’s decision, have expressed serious misgivings about the consequences of that interpretation. In the case last year, Re J, to which again my noble and learned friend has referred, both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, then the Lord Chief Justice and now a Member of this House, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, then Master of the Rolls and now President of the Supreme Court, agreed with Lord Justice McFarlane. His judgment expressed his trouble with the interpretation given to this section and described it,

“as a cause of concern amongst child protection agencies”.

What is certain is that the clause as originally enacted was not clear enough as to what Parliament then intended. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, or some comparable draft, would make it plain. It would solve the real and recurrent difficulty that this vitally important part of the law has got itself into, and it would produce a result that for my part I believe we should be striving for, which is to open the gateway to the court.

I repeat, this is only a threshold provision which would apply whenever a child is found to be at risk of being harmed, as must surely be the case when one of the caring parents is shown to have been a possible perpetrator of serious harm in the past. To anybody who is concerned that the court, following this amendment, would too readily take children away from a parent who only might have harmed some other child, I would say this is absolutely not the case. To quote subsection (2)(2A) of the proposed amendment,

“to infer that a child is likely to suffer significant harm”,

is to infer no more than that there is a risk of that child being harmed as surely there is if there is a real possibility that its carer has significantly harmed some other child. Crucially, it would then remain for the court, looking at all the facts of the case, to decide whether, under Section 1 of the 1989 Act, the child’s welfare is indeed best served by making a care or supervision order. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

My Lords, as an amateur and a non-lawyer, I hope that the Government will be able to accept the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. How very fortunate we are to have people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with us in Parliament; how important it is that people with experience as Law Lords should be able to return and give us the benefit of their expertise. I was entranced by his exposition of the amendment because, as an amateur, it is clear to me that people who abuse children do not stop: if you have abused one child, you will undoubtedly go on to harm another.

In the kind of case that the noble and learned Lord described, where a couple split up, we do not know which one of them was harming the child—perhaps it was both. They move into a new family with other children, that harm will continue and the new child will be at risk as well. It has been made clear to us that the Court of Appeal cannot at the moment understand with clarity what it is supposed to do. This would help enormously and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. However, he is looking very grim, so perhaps he will not.

Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, in relation to the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, I seek some guidance and some information from the Minister. In terms of the composition of the commission, to which the Minister referred in his remarks, Regulation 4(5) includes as a legally qualified member of the commission a,

“fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives”.

What particular judicial appointments would the commission comprising such a member be involved in? Perhaps the Minister can assist me. I may have something further to say once I know the answer to that.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I, too, echo the words expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead about the signal and striking contribution made over the years by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, to the laudable, estimable cause of judicial diversity. It is indeed a pity—I cannot put it higher than that—that at the very moment that she would stand to be a critical part of the selection process these regulations in every sense must disappoint her.

I would also say a word sharing my noble and learned friend Lord Scott’s concern, though perhaps without the passion he brought to bear on the point, about the insistence throughout the regulation—he referred to the various places where this concept appears—that it is purely for the opinion of the Lord Chancellor whether any relevant person is incapacitated from serving as a member of the selection commission. The same formula he pointed out appears in Regulations 7(2)(b), 14(2)(b), 16(1) and 17(2)(b). That is exhaustive but that is where the concept appears. He made a point on Section 16 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 with regard to the incapacity of the Lord Chief Justice. It is fair to point out that in Section 16 that is a permanent incapacity, and indeed “incapacitated” is defined in Section 16(5) in relation to the Lord Chief Justice to mean,

“unable to exercise the functions of that office”.

It is made plain that that is on a permanent basis. There is a distinction between that and, in our regulations, the formula,

“for the time being incapacitated”.

I suggest a possibility: somebody else, together with the Lord Chancellor, could be involved in making a judgment and expressing a determination as to whether there is, for the time being, incapacity of the relevant member—that is, simply incapacity from serving as a member of a selection committee. I would suggest possibly the Lord Chancellor together with the Lord Chief Justice did that. If somebody were then to make the point, “Well, it may be that the Lord Chief Justice could himself be a candidate for appointment either to the relevant office or, indeed, to being on the selection committee”, in such a case it could be the next senior UK judge, who, again, is defined within the statute. I merely put those forward as possible suggestions to dilute the objection and concern voiced by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott that it is, at least in terms of perception, troubling that the matter should be left simply to the untrammelled opinion of the Lord Chancellor unaided.

Legal Aid

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, if the Lord Chancellor’s welcome concession last week on choice of representation is anything to go by, it appears that these proposals are not to be regarded as set in stone and are well worth debating. I join with those who thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for enabling this to happen. It is much to be hoped that other of these proposals too will similarly come to be recognised as ill-judged and will be abandoned. It is on just one of these that I propose to focus—one relating to judicial review not among those identified by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is the proposal that lawyers should not be paid for their work in making application for judicial review unless eventually permission comes to be granted. It is crystallised as question 5 on the consultation paper.

First, I want to digress just briefly to express a few heartfelt words of regret at the radically changed role of the Lord Chancellor in public life, following the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. How unfortunate it is that we no longer have as Lord Chancellor someone in the tradition of the great holders of that office who, quite recently, included the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is a great privilege to have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in this debate. He chooses very fastidiously the occasions when he invites the attention of this House. What huge benefits to the office they brought: not merely were they highly experienced and distinguished lawyers in their own right but, no less importantly, their voices were authoritative and statesmanlike at the very heart of government. They were voices that recognised the central importance in our democracy of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and rights of access to justice. Such Lord Chancellors had already, of course, achieved the summit of political life; they were not career politicians with personal ambitions still to be realised.

Let me make it quite plain that I have nothing whatever against the present Lord Chancellor. He became such after I retired and I do not know him. Nor do I have anything against career politicians. No doubt they are essential to any healthy democracy. However, I cannot pretend to have the same confidence in proposals of this sort that emanate from a career politician with no background whatever in the law as I would have felt, and indeed used to feel, towards proposals from Lord Chancellors past. Grateful though one is for the recent concession as to choice of legal representation, it does not fill one with confidence that these proposals as a whole have been properly thought through by someone with real knowledge of our legal processes, properly sensitive to the imperative demands of access to justice.

I turn, necessarily briefly, to the proposal that concerns me most, the proposal that, unless permission comes to be granted for a full judicial review, no costs at all—only non-legal disbursements—will be paid for work carried out. It is opposed, perhaps unsurprisingly, by all parts of the profession, including notably the Administrative Law Bar Association, of which I am proud to say I was president for many years. It is also strongly opposed by the Judicial Executive Board—that is, the higher judiciary—the Civil Justice Council and Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges.

These responses are cogently and convincingly argued, ALBA’s perhaps above all. It is very difficult to suppose that anyone could fairly reject their conclusions. Manifestly, the proposal will result in fewer challenges to administrative decision-making and there are those—I am not among them—who would suggest that this is their central and cynical purpose: an attempt to insulate the Government, as far as possible, from legal challenge. However, I regard the proposal not as mischievous but merely as fundamentally misguided. It is misguided because it stems from a basic misapprehension of the place of permission in the process of judicial review and it would result in consequences far removed from those intended and very damaging to this critical part of the courts’ jurisdiction—the ability to supervise the proper exercise of public power.

Bear in mind that, as of just last week, 1 July, following the earlier changes to legal aid, when the High Court refuses permission to proceed on the documents, the judge now can certify an application as being “totally without merit”. In itself, that prevents the applicant requesting an oral hearing of the application; all he can do is to make one further application on the documents. If more than that is required, let the lawyers be deprived of costs in that very limited category of cases on the certification of a judge but not in the altogether larger category envisaged by this present proposal.

The problems with this proposal are so many and so various that, alas, I have no time to spell them out. All one can say is that it may discourage solicitors taking even perhaps the strongest cases. The strongest cases are those where the defendants are most likely to respond early by making the concessions that make judicial review ultimately unnecessary and thus inappropriate, but there are so many more objections. Read ALBA’s full letter of response and you will not persist in this ill-judged proposal. I suggest that it would damage the process profoundly; it is a rotten idea and it really ought to be abandoned.

British Bill of Rights

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships too long. Indeed, had I appreciated in advance what a wealth of legal and constitutional expertise was to be available to the House in this debate, I doubt that I would have troubled your Lordships at all.

I speak as one who, over the 13 years since the convention became part of our domestic law, has probably been involved in at least as many cases dealing with convention rights as any other judge in the country. The main reason I speak is to try to save my successors in the courts from what I believe would be the nightmare of implementing the majority’s central recommendation in this report; the nightmare of having to wrestle in the courts in future not merely with the complexities and uncertainties of the convention and of the vast body of jurisprudence that it has spawned but with those of a new UK Bill of Rights superimposed on it. I say “superimposed” because it is, of course, a given of the majority’s case in favour of a domestic Bill that it would in no way detract from the existing rights and freedoms under the Strasbourg convention. Rather, as the report states,

“such a Bill would incorporate and build on all of the UK’s obligations”,

under the convention.

The report presupposes the,

“UK’s continuing adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and to the European Court of Human Rights as a given”.

It follows inescapably from this that the baseline of any future challenge would be whatever rights already exist under the Strasbourg convention and case law. Inevitably, it would be necessary to explore all this in full and to establish that baseline before the court proceeds to consider whether the UK domestic Bill enlarges upon that right.

Of course, I recognise that the position would be different in respect of any discrete rights that the UK Bill might introduce, such as specific environmental rights, or what are called socioeconomic rights, or, indeed, rights to a jury trial in certain cases. However, the introduction of those would be highly contentious and fraught with all sorts of difficulties, and in any event could be enacted entirely independently of the sort of full-blown UK Bill which I understand the majority of the commission to envisage.

What I understand to be the core justification in the eyes of the majority for restating all existing convention rights in different language in a new United Kingdom domestic Bill of Rights is what the report calls,

“the need to create greater public ownership”,

of the rights. According to the report, the majority suggest that this could be achieved if the Bill,

“was written in language which reflected the distinctive history and heritage of the countries within the United Kingdom”.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for securing this debate, and indeed to his huge contribution over many years to the wider human rights debate. In his characteristically thoughtful personal explanatory note as to why he is prepared to join the majority view, he states:

“it calls for a restatement of civil and political rights and liberties in terms that respect our constitutional and legal heritage”.

With the best will in the world, the process that I sought to describe earlier of first having to ascertain the position under Strasbourg law and then seeing whether the claimant’s case can be advanced by reference to some additional rights under the UK Bill—I interpolate that the respondent’s rights could never be improved because there is no question of detracting from the Strasbourg rights—could never hope to persuade the public that we have somehow now come to own these rights.

The sad fact is that in whatever instruments and whatever language minority rights are enshrined, certain judgments which courts are on occasion required to give are bound to be deeply unpopular and to be misleadingly, and indeed mischievously, portrayed by some in such a way as can tend to alienate the public from the whole notion of human rights. Paragraph 82 of the report rightly refers to,

“the highly polemical way in which these issues tend to be presented by both some commentators and some sections of the media”.

Later, it quotes a witness speaking of,

“the climate of disrespect surrounding it”—

that is, the Human Rights Act—

“created and perpetuated by political and public figures and the media”.

In short, the convention, the Strasbourg court and in turn our own judges are all too often maligned. But ‘twas ever thus and regrettably it always will be. We do not, and indeed must not, outlaw unpopular minorities—prisoners, asylum seekers, immigrants and so forth—and we must not outlaw even the wicked. However, judgments in their favour often attract great hostility from the majority, and it is all too tempting for that majority, and even on occasion for government, then to blame the judges. Indeed, on one occasion in the Supreme Court I recall that we were shown Home Office minutes expressly recognising the impossibility of the Government’s position under established human rights law and yet suggesting that the Home Office should maintain its stance and,

“let the judges take the hit”.

No UK Bill of Rights is going to cure that sort of problem. Let us stay with where we have got to and try gradually to improve that situation.

I acknowledge the contribution made to the wider debate by this report, but for my part I would align myself with the minority.

Defamation Bill

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I rather hope it was not mine, but it might have been. At any rate, it has been moved now.

The proviso of republication in a different manner as the application of the rule in my view provides sufficient protection. That was the unanimous and strongly held view of the Joint Committee, and it is one which I urge the Government to reconsider. I would add one caveat which is that, while I support the principle of this amendment, I can see the need for its qualification to ensure that this situation is addressed. It is possible to envisage a first publication by an insolvent publisher and then a second publication by a publisher who is worth suing. It would be perfectly reasonable for a claimant to take the view that he did not propose to sue the first publisher, but that he did wish to sue a publisher at a later date when the original limitation period might have expired because that publisher was worth suing and was likely to be good for the costs and the damages. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of draftsmen to cater for that position and to allow suing a second publisher in those circumstances. Subject to that caveat I support the amendment.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I was not proposing to speak to this amendment at all but it seems to me that there is an enormous distinction to be made between person A and person B as to which publication one is being denied by the Limitation Act the opportunity of proceeding in respect of. It is, with respect, not only whether the second publisher may be financially worth suing as opposed to the first publisher which must be catered to in this provision, but surely also the standing and reputation of the publisher. One can very well imagine a situation in which one simply would not be bothered to be defamed by person A because that person’s standing and reputation was itself so low and yet a republication by somebody of real repute and standing would trigger one’s intent to sue. So if this Amendment 44A is to be accepted, that sort of thing should be catered to, whether under the provisions of subsection 4, with a specific provision about material difference lying on occasion in the character and position, financially and otherwise, of the publisher, or in some other way, I leave to others to consider.

As to the other amendments, I agree with the view that Amendments 45, 46 and 47 are a simpler and more elegant fashion of expressing those provisions. As to Amendment 47B and the proposed insertion of new Section 5A, I am neutral as to how desirable it is to spell out these considerations which shall not be regarded as materially different. I would respectfully suggest that the expression should be not,

“shall not be deemed to be”—

it is not a question of deeming—but

“shall not be regarded as”,

but that is a very minor point indeed.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

On my noble friend Lord Phillips’s Amendments 45, 46 and 47, I hardly ever argue with parliamentary counsel as being defective in the way that they approach their work. With respect to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I do not think that it is an improvement to save two words by twice repeating,

“or a section of the public”,

when it is clear beyond argument in Clause 8(2) that protection to the public includes publication to a section of the public. I therefore oppose what Lord Wilberforce once described as “the austerity of tabulated legalism”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, there is no need to take any time to establish that all of the members of the Joint Committee believe in the importance of trial by jury. That was not the issue. The issue was whether jury trial was appropriate in defamation cases. Most of us went into the committee being unsighted, and the evidence was very quick and almost unanimous: judges had in effect already decided that jury trials were probably not the way to go in defamation cases. A number of witnesses told us that there had not been a jury trial for defamation or libel in the past 18 months to two years; the practice had largely ceased. We were moving to a position of saying that we endorsed the present situation.

Then we got evidence from the editor of the Guardian. In his evidence, he said something which caused us all to perk up. He referred back to the case of the Guardian against Jonathan Aitken. He said that he and his newspaper had wished that that trial had been conducted in front of a jury. He made the case that occasionally, perhaps even exceptionally, people in public life needed to be tried in front of their peers simply because of the public perception and ramifications of someone in high office being in that position. He specifically mentioned judges, Members of Parliament and, if my memory is right, very senior people in the Armed Forces, where the credibility of the public and the individual were such that they needed to be tried in those circumstances. However, other than that, he said that what the judges had already established was the way to go. All I have sought to do in this amendment is accurately to reflect our evidence. I hope that I have done so faithfully. I beg to move.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, there can be few occasions, particularly at five past five on a Thursday afternoon, when one feels entitled to tell, so to speak, a story from one’s own experience. However, I believe this to be just such an occasion.

Over a quarter of a century ago, I tried, with a jury, the case of the late Robert Maxwell suing Private Eye. It was a defamation case. The burden of the central complaint that Maxwell was making was that Private Eye had published a piece which insinuated that he had tried, by means of free holidays and the like, to bribe the then leader of the Labour Party—Neil Kinnock—to recommend him for a peerage: plus ça change. The case was opened—as all these cases invariably are—at great length and the witnesses started to go into the witness box. I came back from lunch on the fourth day to find a note from the jury which read, “Please, sir, can you tell us what a peerage is?”. On the fourth day of a case all about peerages they did not know what that meant, which did not increase my faith in, and admiration for, juries.

A later case over which I presided in the Court of Appeal was that of Grobbelaar, who secured a very large award from the jury—I cannot remember the exact amount but I think that it was about £100,000—on the basis that he had been libelled by a newspaper which had accused him of match fixing. Noble Lords will remember that he was a Zimbabwean who I think played for Liverpool at the time. We eventually held—we were upheld in this by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords—that that was a perverse award. Again, that was not greatly to the credit of juries. Therefore, I confess that I am very strongly opposed to juries in defamation cases, not least when important people—celebrities—are involved. Juries tend to be mesmerised by celebrity. Indeed, that is true of defamation cases and there are many other instances—it is perhaps invidious to mention them—where that can be seen to be so in the libel context and perhaps more widely.

Under Clause 11 as drafted, defamation cases will be tried without a jury unless a court orders otherwise. The matter is left to the general discretion of the court. Obviously, only very exceptionally would it be thought a good idea to have a jury trial with all the disadvantages of such a trial in terms of length, expense, unreasoned judgment and all the rest of it. If I may respectfully say so, the problem as I see it in this proposed amendment is that it is, first, too prescriptive and, secondly, may well encourage the use of jury trial. In the original report of the Joint Committee, it was recognised in paragraph 25 that it would be undesirable to restrict this discretion—that is, the court’s general discretion—although it is fair to say that it went on to state that it should be possible to outline general principles. The general principle later referred to was that the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised,

“should generally be limited to cases involving senior figures in public life and ordinarily only where their public credibility is at stake”.

The first problem with the proposed amendment is that it limits the discretion of the court because it states that:

“A court may only order a trial with jury”,

in this class of case, and there may be others. For that reason, it also raises in acute form the definition problem of deciding who is properly to be regarded as a senior figure in public life and when that person’s credibility is at stake. Perhaps more fundamentally, the amendment raises the very concerns that the Government in their response to the Joint Committee report refer to in paragraph 62. It was there said that:

“Concerns were expressed that including guidelines in the Bill could be too prescriptive and could generate disputes”.

I have already alluded to that as one of the problems. It goes on to say that:

“There would also be a risk that detailed provisions setting out when jury trial may be appropriate could inadvertently have the effect of leading to more cases being deemed suitable for a jury than at present”,

which would work against the committee’s view, one that the Government share, that jury trials should be exceptional. If this clause is amended as proposed, there is a risk that if somebody who claims to be a senior figure in public life whose credibility is at stake wants a jury or, indeed, the defendants to a claim by someone who is arguably within that description want a jury, then initially you have a dispute and a debate as to whether it is a case where it is permissible to have a jury and, if so, the suggestion would be that Parliament would have implicitly sanctioned the thought that that is indeed a case where it is appropriate, whereas I would suggest through my earlier illustrations that not even in that case would it generally be appropriate for a jury trial. I would respectfully oppose the amendment.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just made that very important contribution. I agree with all of it and therefore I can be extremely brief. I could add recollections from my own casebook of cases where juries were wholly inappropriate. The particular one I have in mind is the Convery case in Northern Ireland, but I will not go into that now.

I want to make only a couple of points. The first is that in the 19th century, Albert Venn Dicey said in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that the best safeguard of free speech is the English jury, which is far better than all those charters of rights, whether continental or American. That was the view at the end of the Victorian era, and Fox’s Libel Act did of course place great emphasis on the role of the jury. It was that Act, as Sir Brian Neill reminded me, that led judges to be very concerned about not giving rulings on meanings too early because they did not want to interfere with the jury. I was surprised to discover, when acting for newspapers, that they no longer believed that trial by jury was a good safeguard of free speech. They preferred the reasoned judgment of a single judge which could be appealed, because it was a reasoned judgment, to the unreasoned and incapable of being appealed judgment of a jury. In my Private Member’s Bill, with Sir Brian Neill as my guide, I took the step of saying that, not always but normally, trials should be by judge alone and not by jury.

Much to my surprise, the free speech NGOs and others, with the one exception being Liberty for reasons I understand, all supported it, as did the entire press. I note, of course, what Alan Rusbridger has said, but I do not agree at all with making a special case for celebrity public figures. As the Minister will remember, recently in another context the House agreed to abolish the old common law offence of scandalising the judiciary. The Law Commission agreed with that, as did the senior judges. It could not be seen why senior judges should be made a special case to be protected from gross offence, rudeness and attack when nobody else could be. Were we to approve this amendment, we would be saying that there was a special privileged class, called the great celebrity or public figure, who were to be given special point under the legal system. That would create completely the wrong impression.

One of the most important reforms is abolishing a presumption of trial by jury. The reason is that that then enables the Government, in their procedural changes, with the judges’ co-operation, to make all kinds of changes that would not be possible if the normal mode was trial by jury. This is an extremely significant clause and I very much hope that the Government hew to it without amendment.