Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove; I also support my noble friend in her powerful advocacy for her own amendment.

I want to emphasise a couple of points made by the noble Baroness. She referred to HMIC report, Police Response to Violence Against Women and Girls. I must say it makes for very sober reading about the inadequate response of many police forces to these issues. We know from the report and from the statistics referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that many cases do not proceed through the criminal justice system and, of the offences that do come to the attention of the police, many do not proceed any further. I would not argue that time limits are the sole reason, but they are a factor. I am indebted to Refuge, which does fantastic work in this area, for setting out some of the challenges that particularly women experiencing domestic abuse face and why they delay reporting incidents of common assault. They may feel understandably traumatised or physically unsafe immediately after the incident. They may still be in a relationship with the perpetrator. They may be dealing with the traumatic and logistical challenges of fleeing the scene.

Due to the six-month time limit on charging summary common assault offences, by the time many women are ready to speak to the police, they are told that the charging time limit has passed and there are no further opportunities for them to seek justice against their perpetrator or access protection through criminal restraining orders. There are so many reasons why, quite legitimately, women in particular are not able to come forward and meet the time limit. I appeal to the Minister not to respond with a typical ministerial response but to say that he will take this away and look at it. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I have noticed the practice of announcements being made in the media about what the Home Secretary is going to do but then often dying a death. We realise that sometimes they are flying a kite to see how it lands, but this is not the way to do business on such sensitive and important issues. I hope that the Minister will bring us comfort.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I shall add two very brief points in relation to Amendment 277, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. First, the noble Baroness referred in her speech to the Appellate Committee decision in R v J. The Committee may be interested to know that in that decision Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior Law Lord, said at paragraph 15 that the history of the 1956 Act

“has been shown to result in much internal inconsistency and lack of coherence”.

His Lordship added that the fact that an unambiguous statutory provision—and it is unambiguous—is

“anachronistic, or discredited, or unconvincing”

does not enable a court to do anything about it. This Committee and Parliament are, of course, under no such inhibition, and for the reasons that have been given, I hope we will do something about it.

The only other point I want to make is that any defendant in any criminal case who believes that the passage of time results in unfairness to them is perfectly entitled to submit to the court that it would be an abuse of process for the trial to continue. They are perfectly entitled so to argue, but that is not a reason why we should not amend the law in the way suggested.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group and I should like to start with Amendment 44A. At Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seemed to think that this was peripheral to our debates today but I do not think that it is. Surely the context in which we consider the Bill is in relation to the measures that are necessary to prevent terrorism. We were offered a Statement in lieu of a PNQ in the other place on the matter to which I am going to refer, but it is just as appropriate to discuss it here.

Amendment 44A essentially asks the Secretary of State to commission an independent review to report on the operational effectiveness of the terrorism prevention measures in place at our international borders. That is set in the context of serious concern about the operation and effectiveness of the terrorism prevention measures in place at our international borders and the Bill has to be seen in this context. Of course, one has to refer to the significant reduction in the levels of security in border checks at UK points of entry in the summer of 2011, which has been the subject of considerable parliamentary debate and concern over the past two to three weeks. The noble Lord will be aware that the Home Secretary has yet to answer some very serious questions, particularly in regard to the scale of the security breaches that have taken place.

The subject of the PNQ in the other place today concerned reports this morning that thousands of passengers arriving on private jets from all over the world were allowed into this country this summer without any passport checks as a matter of official policy, at least according to information that appears to have come from UK Border Agency e-mails. The internal UKBA documents show that immigration and customs staff were instructed not to meet passengers arriving on private charter flights, including executive jets, as part of a so-called light touch targeted approach to border checks that was adopted this summer without, as far as I am aware, the information being put into the public domain.

These e-mails from the UKBA also reveal the extent to which full passport checks on European passengers were scaled back under the limited pilot scheme authorised by the Home Secretary on 28 July. I have to say that this is a very worrying state of affairs. In the context of the cuts that have taken place in the UKBA budget, it suggests that the UKBA is having great difficulty in carrying out its functions effectively. Essentially, since the Government came to power, a number of additional responsibilities have been placed on the UKBA at the same time as the huge reduction in its budget. No wonder we have reached such a difficult situation. The point that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is that this exposes general concerns about the operation and effectiveness of terrorism prevention measures, which is why I commend Amendment 44A to the House.

I return now to a group of amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The noble Lord is not able to be with us this afternoon but I am grateful to him for putting his name to my amendments. Essentially, they propose keeping the existing control order provisions for relocation—which is the central point of many of our discussions on the Bill so far—until after the Olympic Games. From a chosen date after 1 January 2013, it would be open to the Government to come back to Parliament and replace the current relocation provisions with the provisions in the Bill, which would remove relocation subject to the emergency legislation that is also in the Bill.

The evidence given by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner to the Public Bill Committee in the other place was quite persuasive on the reason for and effectiveness of the use of control orders. The decision in the case of CD earlier this year was made after the Government argued, in the interest of national security, for a relocation component in CD’s control order. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked if the Government had changed their mind about CD and, if so, why. If they have not changed their mind, why are they bringing the Bill before us?

On timing, is it really sensible to remove the relocation provisions at the current time? The Olympics are almost upon us. The noble Lord will know of reports in the media of US concerns about Olympic security. I fully accept that the Government have stated that this has not been reported accurately, but there is no denying the challenge facing us. My amendment does not seek to detract from the essential point of this legislation. All it does is keep the existing exclusion order provisions until after the Olympics. At that point, if the Government are satisfied that they no longer need the provisions, they merely have to bring an order to Parliament and the provisions in the Bill will take over. If I may so, it is a pretty good offer. It allows the Government to continue with these provisions over a particularly challenging time but does not undermine what they are essentially seeking to do. The noble Lord was not very warm towards these amendments in Committee. Let us hope that he is a little warmer to them at Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

I support the Government in their decision not to include the relocation power in the Bill. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was notable for what he did not say about relocation powers. He did not mention the central feature of such a power, which makes it particularly intrusive and particularly damaging to the life of the individual who is the subject of it as well as to the lives of all members of their family. That is why such a measure should surely only be available if the Government conclude that it is truly necessary to protect national security. My understanding is that they do not, as the Minister made clear in Committee. I support them in that.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Will the noble Lord address the evidence given by the deputy assistant commissioner, which I know he will have read, which pays tribute to the effectiveness of that exclusion order?

[Lord Pannick]

I am coming to that, but let us at the outset recognise the impact of a relocation measure. If one is going to adopt a measure or power of this sort, one needs to recognise the striking impact that it has on the spouse and the children. A measure that amounts to internal exile of a person needs a compelling justification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

The noble Lord can intervene as many times as he likes. I welcome his interventions. My answer to his point is twofold. We can always add more and more intrusive measures and protect ourselves more effectively from the perspective of national security. The question is: what is a fair balance? I am assuming that the Government, not just concerned about a particular individual case but looking at these issues as a whole, have concluded that relocation would undermine the fair balance because of its particularly intrusive nature and that the combination of the measures contained in the TPIM and the surveillance measures that can always be imposed on an individual who is not relocated will effectively protect the public. It is true that there is a financial cost, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Does the noble Lord wish to add to that?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Lord is being very kind in accepting all these interventions, but this is an important point. If the Government were really confident, they would not be producing a draft emergency Bill or having the provision in this Bill to allow the Home Secretary in an election to use the enhanced measures. I am afraid the fact is that in their heart, and particularly in the noble Lord’s own department, they know that the exclusion provisions are very important. I am sure that, in the future, they are going to have to use the emergency provisions if this Bill goes through. I do not think that the Government have that confidence, and that is the worry.

[Lord Pannick]

We will hear from the Minister in relation to that in a moment. I am satisfied that a sensible and fair way of dealing with what is a very difficult issue, because of the primacy of national security and the particularly intrusive nature of a relocation power, is for the Government to satisfy themselves, as I assume they have done, that relocation powers are not needed. However, given the importance of this power, they recognise that it is sensible to have reserve powers available which, God forbid they are ever needed, can be brought into force. I support the Government on this.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful. If the noble Lord accepts—I hope he does—that the public view on these issues is not determinative, although plainly it is important, we will not differ much, save that I suspect that in some sections of the community there is particularly grave concern about control orders. My concern is that that may well be undermining the extent to which those communities are prepared to co-operate with the police and the prosecution authorities in bringing forward evidence that is vital to secure the conviction of terrorists and information that can be used to implement the administrative process. That is my concern, and it is why I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, that we must not be complacent about these matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in opening the debate that it is necessary to have the TPIM regime in those cases where prosecution is not possible. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, eloquently supported that approach. I, of course, understand the force of that point, but we must surely accept that it is nevertheless difficult to reconcile this approach with the rule of law. It is an exception to the rule of law. Because it is an exception—perhaps a justifiable exception—it is vital that we ensure that the detailed implementing provisions in the Bill satisfy the test which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated at the end of his speech, and which I was very pleased to hear from him. As I understood him, the test is that the provisions must go no further than is absolutely necessary. I commend that test to the House as the right one to adopt in testing the provisions of the Bill. That is the first concern.

The second rule of law concern is that the Bill allows for the sanctions—that is what they are—to be imposed by a Minister and not by a court, albeit that the court has a reviewing role. If a TPIM procedure is appropriate outside the criminal process—I understand why it is—the rule of law surely requires that Ministers do not themselves make the initial decision on such matters as who a person may associate with and where they may stay overnight with the court confined, as it is under Clause 6(3), to determining whether the initial decision of the Minister is “obviously flawed”. Surely the role of the Minister should be to make an application to an independent judge. It should be for the Minister to produce the relevant evidence, perhaps in closed session with a special advocate, for the judge to assess. It should be for the court to decide whether the order should be made. In urgent cases, the court could no doubt apply a threshold test. We need to consider this seriously in Committee.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, in relation to the point the noble Lord has just made, has he ascertained the view of the senior judiciary about whether they would wish to be drawn into making such decisions? There is a balance here as to whether it is more appropriate for the Home Secretary to make those initial decisions, subject to judicial scrutiny, because ultimately the Home Secretary is responsible for security issues and is accountable to Parliament. Does the noble Lord not think—and I think he is following the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on this—that there is a danger of moving responsibility from the Home Secretary to the courts? I wonder whether the judiciary would want to accept that responsibility.

[Lord Pannick]

The factual answer to the noble Lord’s question is no. Of course I have not asked the Lord Chief Justice about this matter, but under the Bill, it is, in any event, the responsibility of the judge at the reviewing stage to decide whether the TPIM should be maintained. The Government accept in the Explanatory Notes that that should be akin to an appeal procedure, not just a judicial review test. The judges will have that responsibility at the end of the process. It seems to me that they should have that responsibility from the outset of this process. I would say to the noble Lord and to the judges, with genuine respect, that it really is not for judges to determine what responsibility they should have in relation to this fine balance between the public interest and civil liberties. It is surely for Parliament to decide how the balance should be struck and for us to decide whether it is best struck by the courts having the role that I suggest.

There is a third respect in which the Bill offends against the rule of law. It allows for sanctions to be imposed without any proof of wrongdoing, even proof to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A TPIM notice may be issued by the Secretary of State where she,

“reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.

When he winds up, will the Minister please explain why these sanctions should be imposed on a person if the Secretary of State is unable even to show that it is more likely than not that the wrongdoing has been committed or will be committed by the individual concerned? If the security services, with all their resources, and even with the use of evidence that could not be disclosed in a criminal court, cannot satisfy the judge on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorist-related activities, there is surely no justification for taking these legal measures against that person. Of course, surveillance measures may well be appropriate against such persons, but that is not what we are discussing in this Bill.

There is a fourth respect in which the Bill departs from the rule of law: it allows for sanctions to be imposed although the individual has no right to see the material on which the allegation is based. In the AF case in 2009, which has already been mentioned, the Appellate Committee considered how the principle of fairness under the rule of law should apply in the context of control orders. I declare an interest: I represented AF in the Appellate Committee. The Law Lords decided that a control order is invalid unless sufficient of the case against the individual is disclosed to him personally to enable him, if he can, to give instructions to his lawyers to answer the allegations against him, and if the Home Secretary is not prepared to disclose that much, the control order cannot be maintained.

The TPIM, like the control order, involves severe restrictions on the personal liberty of the individual. Therefore, it seems to me that a TPIM will inevitably be unlawful unless the AF principle—you must disclose as much as enables the person to have a proper opportunity to answer the allegations—is satisfied. Does the Minister accept that? If so, does he agree that the Bill should be clarified by stating that point clearly?

I make one final point. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Dubs, I think that it is appropriate, given all the matters that I have mentioned, the sensitivity of the issue and the extent to which matters will develop from year to year, that this House and the other place have the opportunity to consider these important matters every year, not only at the expiry of another five years.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, in the light of the debate, given that this is a very modest amendment, would the Minister consider accepting Amendment 68? I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

I support the noble Lord’s observation. The Minister, in his response to the previous amendment, agreed that a full public consultation would be highly desirable in many, if not most, circumstances, but in some cases it would not be appropriate to have a full public consultation, and it seems to me that Amendment 68 deals precisely with that point.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am under instructions to resist—I think that is usually the phrase that is used. However, I understand the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords to have a requirement, where public consultation does not take place, that at least the proposal is put on the website. I think that the Government are in a position to consider this and, if necessary, will bring forward an amendment at a later stage.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not recognise that at all. It is tempting to mention Mr Asquith, if only to encourage the noble Lord to make further enjoyable interventions.

There are two issues here. We are changing our system and we believe that the change from four to five years will be damaging to our constitutional arrangements. Extending the elections by, in practice, around one year will distance people from the politicians. The debate before the dinner break on the issue of the devolved Administrations was very interesting because it highlighted the principle of unintended consequences of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is likely that, as a result of this legislation, the term of office in Scotland and Wales, and possibly Northern Ireland, will be extended to five years. That must be the clear implication of what the noble Lord said. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is in his place. He argued that we should not have a referendum on this Bill because, although under the Bill the term of the Parliament will be fixed at five years, that will not be outwith the limit in the current legislation. However, in relation to the devolved Administrations, moving to five years will go outwith the current primary legislation. I hope that there will be a referendum on that proposal if it comes before Parliament.

My noble friend has raised the very interesting and ingenious proposition that four years should be the norm while respecting the principle of a five-year limit. He deserves a comprehensive response from the Minister.

[Lord Pannick]

Before the Minister responds, I should like to add my response to these amendments and, indeed, to so many of the thoughtful amendments to Clause 1 that have been tabled. They tinker with a fundamentally misconceived concept of a fixed-term Parliament, as was explained by so many of your Lordships at Second Reading. As we have already debated this afternoon, Clause 1 is driven by the short-term political considerations of the coalition and will reduce the effective power of the electorate to have their say about those who govern them. I am coming to the view that the correct approach is for this House to agree that this Parliament should last for five years—that will deal perfectly adequately with the short-term political needs of this Government—but refuse to accept that we should legislate for any future Parliament. After this Parliament, the normal, traditional procedures, which have worked very well, should continue. I very much hope that on Report we can decide that that should be the case.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendments. As we have already briefly debated, Clause 1(3) is very important because it specifies which bodies and functions can be transferred from the bodies listed in the schedules. My noble friend is, first, seeking clarity and then, importantly, asking the Government questions, particularly about their ability to transfer functions to an unincorporated body of persons.

I find it surprising that the noble Lord is proposing to give himself power to give such functions to a group of unincorporated persons. It would be helpful if he could explain under what circumstances this could happen and what safeguards would be in place. In a sense we are following on from our previous debate. Will the accounts of such organisations come under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Will freedom of information or data protection legislation apply to the same extent as when functions are delivered in the public sector? Potentially all the functions carried out by all the bodies listed in these schedules could be transferred to such bodies. My own view and that of the Opposition is that those powers are far too open-ended. The noble Lord has said that in the end accountability is to Parliament, and that is so. However, the problem we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has spotted, is that it is likely that even when we have orders, they will in themselves give considerable discretion to Ministers in their dealings with the functions that are encompassed by the bodies listed in the Bill.

When it comes to the orders, we have another problem. We have the Cunningham committee’s report on conventions. We debated that in Question Time this afternoon. But the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will know that the conclusion of the Cunningham convention in relation to this House seeking to defeat secondary legislation is now disputed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, in correspondence between himself and the Merits Select Committee which has been published in the past few weeks. So we are not even sure at this stage whether the Government even accept that it is the right of this House to vote to seek to defeat the Government on secondary legislation.

Behind the amendment moved by my noble friend lies a real concern about the draconian powers being given to Ministers and a doubt whether the kind of parliamentary scrutiny currently envisaged in this Bill is sufficient to ensure proper discharge of ministerial accountability to Parliament.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I should like to add a question to the series of questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and give my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. Is it the Minister’s understanding that if these functions are transferred to a company limited by guarantee, for example, judicial review in the courts would apply to the exercise of those functions by such a body, and would the Human Rights Act apply where appropriate to the content of any decision taken by such a body? This is of obvious importance because if the answer is no to either of those matters, the very important safeguards that exist when the functions are exercised by public bodies would be lost.