Terrorism Act 2000 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2020

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Friday 10th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I express my support for the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, but I will not follow him on the particulars that he has just given.

The introduction many years ago of video recordings of police interviews was a welcome step forward. There used to be many a wrangle about the validity of the written confession of an accused. I recall a case in Hong Kong, where my client contested a signed written confession on the basis that the detective chief inspector had stamped on his hand until he signed whatever had been written out for him. When I expressed some doubt, he drew my attention to a photocopy of the confession. His signature after the caution at the beginning was in firm characters, but the characters with which he signed at the end were so shaky as to be almost illegible. The court threw the alleged confession out.

Video recordings that were subsequently introduced of the “harshing” of prisoners in Iraq during interviews have led to the Ministry of Defence paying out millions to claimants, and the MoD has given undertakings that none of these video recordings will ever be destroyed, so that the significance can be appreciated. Video recordings protect not only the accused from brutality and fakery, they also protect the police interviewer from trumped-up allegations. I am sure that that has led to a great diminution in these practices.

These regulations cover two important aspects: tampering and security. The first issue is dealt with by ensuring immediate access by the accused to a copy of the digital recording. This is well covered in the code of practice.

The second issue arises in the event that no charges are brought. Is the recording of an interview to remain for ever, if not in the cloud then on the secure system described by the Minister? Is there a time limit? When will it be destroyed or deleted? Paragraph 7.15 of the draft code of practice requires digital files to be stored in read-only format on non-removable storage devices to ensure their integrity; for example, on hard disk drives. Access is restricted under paragraph 7.16 to those who have been given specific permission to access them, or for

“specified purposes when this is necessary.”

That is completely vague. Access for the purposes of a prosecution is given only as an example, not as an exhaustive definition. Who specifies the purposes and what is the ambit or the limitation of those purposes?