Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, there have certainly been exchanges of correspondence with the Law Society. I am not sure whether that included the Bar Council, but the Law Society is certainly aware and has exchanged correspondence.

The Bill has only two clauses and a single effect: to return the law to where it was commonly understood to have been for the previous 25 years. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that all we are doing here is restoring the status quo ante. The Government are quite clear that the Bill in no way widens police powers. So that there is no doubt, it may assist the House if I say a little more about Clause 1, which contains the substantive provisions.

Subsection (1) of Clause 1 has the effect of making clear that all time limits and time periods in Part 4 of PACE are to be read as including time actually spent in detention and excluding time spent on bail. Those limits and periods include initial time limits under Section 41 of PACE, superintendents’ extensions under Section 42 and warrants of further detention under Sections 43 and 44.

Subsection (2) of Clause 1 amends Section 34(7) of PACE. That section provides that when a person returns to detention from bail, whether that return is previously arranged or is as a result of being arrested for breaching bail, the person is to be treated as having been arrested for the original offence and the remaining detention period will have deducted from it the time previously spent in detention. The amendment in subsection (2) makes clear that those calculations also exclude the time spent on bail.

Subsection (3) of Clause 1, as part of the Government’s wish to return the law to its previous position, gives the Bill retrospective effect. I realise that that may be a matter of concern to some of your Lordships as a matter of principle—I will come on to that. As your Lordships will have seen from the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill, the Government have considered very carefully the issue of retrospective effect. We have come to the firm conclusion that, if the Bill is to fulfil its objective of returning the law to the position that was commonly understood before the judgment of the High Court in Hookway, it must be expressed as always having had effect. That is because, as the many lawyers in your Lordships’ House will be aware, the Hookway judgment also had retrospective effect. If the Bill were not to apply to the past as well as the future, there would be very real questions as to the legality of many past detentions, both before and since the Hookway judgment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Minister would help me. She says that we would be going back to detentions in the past, but she referred earlier to restoring the status quo. Well, the status quo of Mr Justice McCombe is right: it was an illegal situation, where people were detained illegally.

[Baroness Browning]

I can understand why my noble friend makes that point, but the purpose of this Bill is to restore the legislation that comes out of PACE to the understanding that has been exercised for the last 25 years as to the conditions that apply to detention and bail. My point about the need for the Bill to be retrospective is that we are seeking not to add new elements to the Bill but to restore what we believe was Parliament’s intention in passing it, and what certainly has been the understanding for the past 25 years of those who have been engaged in the legal processes from all sides, both lawyers and the police. I would therefore say to my noble friend that, if we were not to make this retrospective, there could be many thousands of claims for unlawful detention, and a similarly large number of claims that evidence gathered after 96 hours had elapsed was no longer admissible. That would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, which could tie up the courts and the police service for thousands of hours.

I would also point to the conclusions of Liberty on this issue, in paragraph 8 of a widely circulated briefing that it prepared on the Bill. Liberty commented:

“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would not in our view … fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties”.

I am also aware that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has commented that it is,

“concerned that asking Parliament to legislate in these highly unusual circumstances raises difficult issues of constitutional principle as regards both the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

While the Government are always attentive to the observations of the Committee, as I indicated in a letter to the Committee yesterday we do not see that the decision to legislate in advance of the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court raises any constitutional issues. The sovereignty of Parliament means that it is entirely open to Parliament to legislate at any time in response to a judgment of the superior courts.

I am also aware that, since the Hookway judgment, there has been some commentary from within the legal community—particularly from those acting on behalf of those suspected of an offence—which has sought to express concerns that the Hookway judgment is some sort of warning to the police that the courts will not put up with the way that they use pre-charge bail. We will take account of the wider issues of the way the police use bail, but in this particular case, nothing in the terms of the written judgment indicates that Mr Justice McCombe had any underlying concerns in relation to the operation of police bail; he seems to have reached his judgment purely on the basis of his interpretation of the statute.

Following a lot of discussion and some correspondence —indeed, I have had discussions with noble Lords in the House—I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed, including by Liberty, Justice, the Law Society and others, about excessive duration of police bail in some cases and about unduly onerous conditions attached to the bail. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Policing and Justice indicated in the other place, we are not able in this Bill to deal with any wider issues about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Moreover, it would be wrong to make changes to police bail in haste and without proper examination of the issues and consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the legal profession and others. However, we will reflect carefully on the debates on the Bill, both in this House and in the other place. In relation to these concerns, it is our intention in autumn this year to consult on matters relating to bail more generally and to the conditions that apply to them.

I also point out, for those who may be concerned about this point, that anyone who is on pre-charge bail can challenge the conditions of their bail in their local magistrates' court. That is an important safeguard against any perceived abuse by the police of their powers to bail those under investigation.

I hope the House will be reassured that we are most certainly listening to people and intend to consult on those wider issues that have come to the forefront as a result of the legislation before us, but the urgent nature of this fast-track legislation means that there will be limited time today for debate on those wider issues. We will of course consider any observations that noble Lords make in that area in the course of our deliberations today and will come back to those at another time. The issue before us today is to correct the situation and restore to the police the powers required to protect the public properly. The Government believe that the Bill does that and no more. The other place agreed unanimously to the Bill when it considered it last Thursday. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is a very telling intervention from my noble friend. Surely that is the case. All I would say to the Minister is that I hope lessons will be learned from this matter.

Changing the law retrospectively is in general undesirable and creates great uncertainty. It threatens natural justice if people end up breaking up a law they did not know existed. In this case, my understanding is that the Government are seeking simply to restore the law to what we in Parliament thought it was, to what it had been intended by Parliament at the time to be and to what the police, the CPS and others have followed in good faith for many years.

I noted the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Like the Minister, I also noted the comments of Liberty, which are worth emphasising. Liberty does not believe that the Government are seeking retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden, so it would not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Is the noble Lord saying that he can envisage what Parliament meant many years ago, when a High Court judge has determined through the language used what was meant? If anybody disagrees with his interpretation, surely the appeal for which leave has been given should be pursued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I agree with everything he said. It may be that the answer to his final question is that Royal Assent should not be given to this Bill until we have the judgment of the Supreme Court, and then there could be no necessity for it to be repealed.

When the noble Lord was speaking I was reminded of the story of the acorn falling on the head of Chicken Licken, who informed Henny Penny, Goosey Lucy, Turkey Lurkey and others that the sky was falling in. Finally, they all told Foxy Loxy, who listened to their panic-stricken warnings and then ate the lot of them. Much emergency legislation is introduced like the fabled acorn. The Hookway case merely declared that the relevant legislation did not allow the police to save up unexpired periods of authorised detention and to use them to detain and question suspects pre-charge at any date in the future—and this is the important point—even though no fresh evidence had been obtained.

If this is what Parliament meant in passing the legislation, as Mr Justice McCombe has held in his complex judgment, which required to be in writing before it could be properly addressed, then it seems to me as a matter of policy a highly desirable result. If the police and the CPS advising the police do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge a person today, why should they be allowed to detain and question the suspect in six months’ time, he having been on police bail, on exactly the same evidence? It is lazy policing. Of course, if there is fresh evidence as a result of a more vigorous or deeper investigation—a matter of some topical relevance today—that is a different matter. In such a case, if there is fresh evidence, a power of arrest would arise and a person could be detained and questioned in relation to the whole case, including the fresh evidence.

The problem that arises in this case is that a suspect can be detained again at a later date—six months, or even more, later—and questioned when no further investigation has taken place. He is simply being questioned on what was in the past. If Mr Justice McCombe’s interpretation of the statutory provisions of what Parliament meant—which is what his judgment is and not what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, thinks from reading an article in a magazine—is correct, then Manchester Police should continue with its appeal, for which, as your Lordships have learnt, it has obtained leave through a certificate that it is a matter of public importance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did not continue entirely with the Constitution Committee’s point, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has also made, that Parliament would then have the benefit of a considered judgment from the Supreme Court to assist its deliberations if the appeal were allowed to go ahead. We would then know what the Supreme Court thinks about Mr Justice McCombe’s interpretation.

This simple Bill ensures that lazy and possibly oppressive policing can continue but it raises a much more important question: has the practice of indefinitely extending police bail become a genuine abuse? There is no statutory limit when a person is given bail pre-charge and invited to come back at a later date. In Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill of 2003, my noble friend Lord Dholakia moved an amendment to insert a provision that police bail should not extend more than 28 days, as had been recommended at that time by the Home Affairs Select Committee. He said that his amendment would limit the pre-charge period and that:

“The CPS will of course progress the case as fast as possible. However, we have concerns about the unlimited bail periods. Set deadlines go some way to ensure that matters are reviewed and less likely to drag on unnecessarily”.

The then Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, responded that pilots that had been carried out suggested,

“that in most cases a five-week period should be sufficient to enable charges to be brought”.—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 683-84.]

He thought extending police bail for about five weeks was appropriate. Consequently, on 29 October 2003, I moved an amendment on Report for a limit of 35 days —five times seven, taking the Attorney-General at his word. He said in response that he did not wish to have a statutory limit but that it would be better for guidance and instructions to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Were such guidelines ever issued?

I am indebted to Mr Roger Windsor who has pursued this topic with freedom of information inquiries which reveal that in 2008, in three police areas alone out of 43—West Mercia, Sussex and Surrey—358 individuals spent more than nine months on police bail to which conditions were attached. I have supplied his findings to the Minister. I am also indebted to Mr Csoka QC of Lincoln Chambers in Manchester and Mr Joseph Kotrie-Monson for their views, which I have similarly passed on.

Not only are there no time limits in relation to how long the police can keep a suspect on police bail when no new evidence has emerged but there is no mechanism whereby the degree to which the police are acting with due expedition—or, worse, with bad faith—can be independently scrutinised. One wonders whether the cuts in funding for the police and CPS could be translated into restrictions on the liberty of those who have not been charged with any offence. The conditions that can be imposed on those bailed can include reporting, curfews, travel and residency restrictions. It is my own personal experience and that of others that conditional bail can last for months or even years with no sign of any activity by the police or the CPS. In other words, people can be given bail at the police station and are welcome to walk out of there subject to the restrictions but those can continue indefinitely without any possibility of seeing whether the police are carrying out their functions expeditiously.

When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted the police could bail only without conditions—there was merely a requirement to surrender on a future date. In 1995, after 10 years of PACE, the police were given the power to impose conditions. The use of those powers has now reached epidemic proportions. It is the experience of defence lawyers that conditional bail is used punitively against suspects who the police believe are criminals but against whom there is no or no sufficient evidence. The police can extrajudicially, by the grant of bail subject to conditions, curtail their liberty for an indefinite period. Additionally, those arrested for public order offences at political demonstrations are often bailed for inordinate periods with a condition; for example, not to enter Westminster or not to attend further demonstrations. Often no charges are ever brought. They have been subjected to a form of control order which is effectively outside the rule of law. This happened in 2009 with protesters planning a protest at the E.ON power station in Nottingham and the arrest, detention and bailing of protesters during the occupation of Fortnum & Mason on 26 March this year.

The simple solution is to bring in a legal framework which imposes time limits on pre-charge bail and gives a right to appeal. Defendants who are remanded in custody have the protection of custody time limits. Extensions of custody time limits—normally six months —can be granted only if there is a good and sufficient cause and the prosecution has acted with due expedition. It is a frequent case in court that the prosecution goes along and explains how its inquiries are going and why there has been a delay. There ought to be similar protection for those on police bail. Extensions of time could be granted by a district judge but only if the police show good and sufficient cause—that there are reasonable lines of inquiry which could not, with due expedition, have been completed within the initial time limits.

Such a system would protect not only the rights of a suspect but also the victim: a rape victim, for example, has the anxiety of waiting months to see whether a charge is to be brought. Time limits will prevent inefficiency, poor staffing or indecision from creating a culture of delay.

Unhappily, the acorn at the moment is too small and this Bill is too light to carry the burden of extensive amendments to deal with these problems. I am grateful to Mr Justice McCombe for leading Parliament to investigate this area and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for indicating that an urgent review will be carried out in the autumn into what is potentially a very considerable abuse of the system, which certainly Parliament never meant when it passed the legislation in 1985 or when it was considered at any later date.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that was not the point I was making. The noble Lord asked me where I referred to the supposition in relation to putting it back to where Parliament thought it would be. I quoted from an article, which in turn quoted quite clearly from Hansard of the debates at the time. But that was not the point I was arguing.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I have made all the points that I wished to make. I look forward to the review. I look forward to participating in a parliamentary debate on that review and we can see whether this abuse, which I believe does exist, can be cured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall begin at the beginning and work my way through the timeline. Because we have had such a short debate, it is very important to put this on the record so that noble Lords have the full information. I will read it slowly because a lot of dates are involved.

On 5 April 2011, the district judge refused the Greater Manchester Police’s application for an extension to a warrant of further detention in the Hookway case. On 19 May, in a judicial review, Mr Justice McCombe, sitting alone at the Divisional Court in Manchester, upheld the district judge’s ruling in an oral judgment. I should point out that he sat alone because an early hearing was requested, but only one judge was available to sit; so the request was made—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. On 25 May, the Greater Manchester Police sought initial views from Ann Whyte QC, who stated that the judgment may relate only to specific cases or warrants of further detention. Yet again, the legal advice was that this might have quite a discrete interpretation in terms of its wider implementation. The following day, 26 May, the Greater Manchester Police invited Home Office officials to become an interested party in an effort to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and forwarded papers for consideration. The written judgment was not of course available at that point—26 May.

As I am reading this, I realise that it is all right for me—I have a piece of paper in front of me. For the purposes of clarity, when I have read this into the record I will also place it in the Library of the House.

On 17 June, the Greater Manchester Police, as we have heard, received the written judgment from the High Court and forwarded a copy to the Home Office on that day. That was a Friday. On Monday 20 June, the Greater Manchester Police and Home Office officials studied the written judgment, and the broad scope of the problems presented by the judgment first started to become apparent. Until that point, there had been some consideration—not only because of the QC’s opinion but because of the wording of the judge in his oral judgment—that this matter was not going to be as far reaching as it has subsequently proved.

It was on 20 June that the GMP and Home Office officials started to consider the written judgment. The next day, 21 June, the GMP invited ACPO representatives and the Home Office officials to meet to discuss the implications. Home Office officials agreed with ACPO to convene an urgent meeting to discuss the implications, which took place the following day. ACPO, the CPS and the Home Office officials met at the CPS’s headquarters. The full magnitude of potential difficulties then became quite apparent. The following day—we are talking about one day following the other—ACPO alerted the CPS chief executive, and ACPO issued notification of judgment to all chief constables. On 24 June, the ACPO lead met with the CPS director-general, and Home Office Ministers were informed at that point. ACPO commissioned advice from Clare Montgomery QC, and ACPO issued interim guidance to all chief constables. That was a Friday.

The following Monday, 27 June, Clare Montgomery QC’s advice was received in conference by ACPO, the CPS and Home Office officials. ACPO issued further guidance to all chief constables. ACPO commissioned forces to provide real-life examples of the impact of the ruling to support the case for urgent legislation. On 29 June, ACPO commissioned further legal advice from Steven Kovats QC. The following day, ACPO received that advice from the barrister and presented its case for urgent legislation to Home Office Ministers. On the same day, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made an Oral Statement to the House of Commons on the need for urgent legislation. To pray in aid the words of ACPO lead Jim Barker-McCardle:

“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June, and a number of senior people were able to spend some significant time considering the issue, that the seriousness of this became apparent. As the ACPO lead on this issue, I was not going to advise Ministers that the police service needed, in exceptional circumstances, fast-track legislation until I had satisfied myself first that the legislation was necessary and that the police service could not operate effectively in light of this judgment, beyond the very short term”.

I hope that that is helpful to the House and I am sorry if it is lengthy and detailed.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend a little further. Neither the district judge nor Mr Hookway was represented at the hearing before Mr Justice McCombe, and there was a single counsel appearing for the Manchester police. It was clearly very low-key at that point; the respondents to this application were not even there.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for adding that information.

I hope that I have been able to allay some fears that the timeframe needed was a result of the Home Office—or, for that matter, anyone else—being dilatory. Had the judge’s and the initial QC’s advice not both indicated that this was not likely to be as far reaching as it subsequently turned out to be, I might accept some of the criticisms. However, the Government have acted as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

I understand that the GMP did ask the Supreme Court for an early hearing. I gather that it was initially given a date in the autumn and, when pressed, the date was brought forward to July. I will soon come on to some of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords about the timeframe and the Government’s intentions with the wider issues that have been spoken to by noble Lords, including particularly my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the need for consultation and a fresh look at bail and its conditions. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Law Society and the Bar Council will, of course, be invited to take part in the consultation. We will make sure that all partners in this matter are fully engaged in the consultation, because I know that they will have a lot to contribute to this.

I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who, as ever, brings a very measured response to these matters. We have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, who have had many years of experience in policing in this country. I was rather struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in pointing out the operational difficulties that the police currently have to manage, said that no other court decision has had the scale and magnitude regarding operational policing as the one that is before the House tonight. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that, again, one of the things that always strikes me, having come from another place to your Lordships’ House in the not too distant past, is that the first-hand experience that noble Lords contribute to these debates is what not only makes them of a very high quality but helps to inform the way in which we legislate and proceed in these very difficult matters.

When the Association of Chief Police Officers presented us with clear evidence of the adverse impact of this judgment on the ability of the police to investigate offences and protect the public by enforcing bail conditions, we had a duty to act as a Government, and I believe we have quickly done so. From the debate, it was evident that your Lordships accept the need for fast-tracking this legislation, for the most part. If anything, this is one of those occasions when, notwithstanding the issues that noble Lords have raised, the House has acted and come together to make some progress and help resolve a very urgent problem.

The House would rightly have been sceptical had we sought to introduce a fast-track Bill on the back of an oral judgment, given that the judge in the Hookway case said at the time that the consequences would not be,

“as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.

We now know that assessment of the operational ramifications of the judgment to be misconceived but, as I explained, that became apparent only after the written judgment on 17 June.

Professor Michael Zander QC has been cited around the House. I understand that Michael Zander is someone whom noble Lords feel confident in citing because of his reputation in the field. I do not want to let go the opportunity to cite him myself. He said:

“The Home Office has been criticized for being a bit slow off the mark. But measured from the date when it received the transcript of the judgment, it dealt with the problem in a little over three weeks—which, as these things go, is not bad going”.

We have all prayed in aid Professor Zander; he sounds a pretty good sort of chap to me. I have not met him, but his judgment is clearly respected on all sides of the House.