Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Browning]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)]

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are aware of the circumstances in which this Bill comes to us from the other place. However, I will summarise the position in an effort to assist the House in its unavoidably brief examination of the Bill.

Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, known almost universally as PACE, came into force in January 1986, it has placed an upper limit of 96 hours on the period of pre-charge detention for a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a non-terrorist offence, provided that detention past 36 hours is authorised by a magistrates’ court. That period of detention could be interrupted by one or more periods of bail, and detention time would run up to the time limit only when the person was in police detention; the clock would be paused during any period or periods of bail.

That understanding of the limits on detention was shattered last month when the High Court, sitting in Manchester, issued its written judgment in the Hookway case. The court held that, as a matter of statutory construction, the maximum period of 96 hours runs from the time that a person’s detention is first authorised and is not paused by a person’s release on bail. Once the police service had the opportunity to consider that judgment, alongside advice from some of the most eminent members of the Bar, it advised my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the judgment posed major operational difficulties for it and that the judgment needed to be reversed at the first available opportunity.

Let me make it clear to the House that we had to wait until we had the written judgment, so that we could understand its scope, and had also tested with ACPO whether it could continue to protect the public, including victims and witnesses, within the detention and bail framework as redefined by the ruling. ACPO’s very clear advice on 30 June was that any mitigating action it might take could endure only in the short term. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made an Oral Statement in the other place that very same day, setting out the issue and promising urgent legislation to give certainty to all those involved in the process of pre-charge detention and bail.

That urgent legislation is of course the Bill before us today.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

My Lords, have there been any discussions with the Bar Council and the Law Society concerning this matter?

[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 ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, this has been a constructive debate. I welcome the support for the Bill from the opposition Front Bench. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his remarks in his opening speech. He raised some issues that I shall touch on since they were also picked up by other Members of your Lordships’ House.

I shall reiterate something about the scope of the review of bail. This was raised not only by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Dear, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. When we look at pre-charge bail later this year, it will be to consider the issues raised today, including the overall time limit. However, we will need to ground that review in evidence. At the moment, much of what we have heard is anecdotal. Therefore, any and all input to that review in advance of its terms of reference being drawn up will be welcome. I can tell your Lordships’ House and the wider community today that, further to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about members of the public, there is a wide community of interest in this whole area. We would welcome, even before the autumn, any written submissions that will help us to set the terms of reference for that review, which will be wide and far-reaching. I hope it is of help to the House to know that.

I was asked about what legislation might follow. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it is a bit premature for me to identify any legislation that may come from the review. There might well be something, but until we see the terms of reference, have gathered that information and can see how to take the matter forward, it would be premature for me to say today what legislation might be needed.

A lot has been said about the Home Office and timeframe involved by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick. I hope the House will bear with me but it might be helpful, since a lot of attention has been paid to this, if I read out for the record of the House the situation as regards the timeline. To set that in context, the wider consequences of the ruling could not be considered until the judge issued his written ruling, setting out the reasons for his decision. That judgment was issued on Friday 17 June. Most importantly, even at that stage, its wider consequences were not readily apparent. The judge himself reiterated his belief that the consequences would not be as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases. It was only as the complex ruling was examined early the following week by ACPO, the CPS and Home Office officials that the full consequences became apparent. However, I will, for the record of the House, read out the points in this whole process and those at which the Home Office—both officials and Ministers—was involved.

[Lord Pannick]

Can the noble Baroness explain why the Home Office was unable to understand the implications and importance of this decision on 17 June, when Professor Michael Zander was able to publish an article on this subject on 18 June and must, therefore, have understood the implications some time before that?

[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.

[Lord Goodhart]

I have known Professor Zander for 58 years, and my view of him is very high.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I do not doubt that for one moment. I shall cite him as often as possible on behalf of the Home Office.

I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who talked about there being no precedent for the fast-track legislation in front of us. There is a precedent for this. A High Court judgment in July 2002 in the case of Hwez and Khadir held that the practice of granting temporary release, subject to restrictions, to people detained under the Immigration Acts was unlawful. The Government legislated to overturn that judgment in Section 67 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Subsection (3) provides:

“This section shall be treated as always having had effect”.

The purpose was to avoid a situation where people subject to immigration controls who do not have leave to remain but who cannot lawfully be detained were left at large without there being any way of keeping track of them. Retrospection avoided the need to reassess the cases of persons on temporary admission on an individual basis.

As a member of the Constitution Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has raised issues that replicate some of those that the Constitution Committee raised. I notice that the Constitution Committee may return to the issue after the Bill is enacted and the Supreme Court has heard the appeal by Greater Manchester Police. We will, naturally, consider carefully any further report that comes forward from the committee.

The noble Lord also asked what steps are now taken to ensure that police and public authorities report judgments to central government as soon as possible. There is an assumption there that the Greater Manchester Police should have acted quicker in alerting the Home Office to that judgment. As I pointed out in explaining the timeframe, we were aware and officials were engaged, but under a set of circumstances that was perhaps not quite clear to the House under the legal advice at the time. I do not disagree with the principle of what the noble Lord said. Timeliness is very important; lessons can always be learnt. We need to look forward to see things coming over the hill and not just wait to see what happens, when it is too late. That is my understanding of his question. I hope that I have satisfied him by outlining the timeline, but the general principle of what he asked, which is about the timeliness of information-sharing between agencies and authorities, is important, especially in issues as serious as this. I take his point; I know that, in the Home Office, we will endeavour to ensure that it is not overlooked.

On the question of the Supreme Court, although Mr Justice McCombe gave his judgment orally in May and certified the point of law, it was not possible for police counsel to prepare the appeal papers until the written judgment available on 17 June. As I have explained, an early hearing was requested but 25 July was allocated by the Supreme Court. An early date having been allocated, neither the GMP nor the Home Office believed that there was any prospect of an even earlier date being allocated.

The noble Lord also asked why the Secretary of State did not ask the Attorney-General to hear the case earlier in the public interest. The Secretary of State was made aware that the GMP was appealing to the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing. Subsequently the police also requested that the court stay the effect of the Hookway judgment. The court gave an expedited hearing date of 25 July, which, as I have said, is earlier than the original date. The Home Secretary felt there was no reason to think that government intervention would make that hearing even earlier. That is the case and I do not think that I can add any more to that. Clearly the Home Secretary did not feel it appropriate to approach the Attorney-General because a concession had already been given with the date agreed for the hearing.

[Lord Pannick]

The noble Baroness is being very patient indeed. We do not have a Committee stage on this Bill, so I hope she will excuse me if I press her slightly on this. Does she agree in principle that it is highly desirable, before emergency legislation is brought before Parliament, that every step is taken to try to ensure that the Supreme Court is asked to hear a case with very considerable expedition so as to avoid emergency legislation if at all possible?

[Baroness Browning]

I certainly do not disagree with the noble Lord on the general principle, and I will take his point back with me.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

What I do not understand from what the noble Baroness has said is whether counsel even asked the Supreme Court for an earlier date. All we have heard is that it would have fallen on deaf ears, but we do not know. Why did counsel not ask for that?

[Baroness Browning]

Counsel did ask for that. The original date was in October or November. Counsel went back and asked for an earlier date, and that was why it was brought forward to July.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

If the Supreme Court had understood that Parliament would not be sitting at that particular time, should they not have been made aware that Parliament was going to rise on 20 July?

[Baroness Browning]

I do know whether or not the Supreme Court, in bringing forward the date to July, was made aware of the date on which Parliament was sitting. The Home Office was clearly actively involved in these things, but of course the GMP was approaching the court, not the Home Office. I cannot specifically answer the particular point raised by the noble Lord, but I will endeavour to find out for him.

I can only reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks. I know that this is a matter for the Constitution Committee, but we really do not believe that we are undermining the constitutional separation of powers by asking Parliament to legislate to reverse the effect of a High Court decision in advance of the issue having been decided by the Supreme Court. As has already been pointed out, had we waited we would have been in recess when that determination was made. The House will not return until September. We have already heard about the urgency of the need to take action in this matter, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear; nor has the point been lost on us in our discussions with ACPO that these are really serious matters.

The daily problem of the management of bail and offenders and the impact on victims of crime have rightly been pointed out by the opposition Front Bench, particularly in certain circumstances; the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the question of domestic violence and people going back into the same area where they have previously committed a crime. These are very serious operational matters for the police to have to contend with.

Picking up on points raised around the House, I hope this is something we shall deal with when we have the consultation on bail and bail conditions. The police are between a rock and a hard place at the moment in trying to manage this. They are doing incredibly well, but as has been pointed out they can manage this only in the short term. If we were to ask them to manage it throughout July and August and well into September, before this House could come back to this issue, some of the cases that would come to the attention of your Lordships, and through the legal profession, would give cause for concern, not because of the police deliberately doing things that perhaps are outwith their powers but because of the very difficult position that they are in in having to manage these matters even now.

It remains to be seen whether Greater Manchester Police proceed with their appeal once this Bill is enacted—although I understand that it is their current intention to do so—and if so, what view the Supreme Court will take. The Constitution Committee may well want to consider this legislation in the light of that judgment, whatever it may be, and may well return to this later in the year. We will of course study that and carefully consider any report on the broader issue.

Members have touched on the matter of a sunset clause, although I noted that this has not been pressed particularly hard, and I am grateful for noble Lords’ understanding of it. Given that the Bill does no more than restore the law on the calculation of the detention clock to the position that it was commonly understood to be in 25 years prior to the Hookway judgment, we see no case for a sunset clause in this instance. Indeed, this is one of those instances in which a sunset clause could well have an adverse effect, in that it would perpetuate the very uncertainty about the proper interpretation of part 4 of PACE, which we are seeking to address in passing this Bill.

Finally, let me respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Thomas, and touched on by other noble Lords, on the wider issues involving bail and the consultation that we are going to put in place. No hard evidence has been received, but sufficient concern has been expressed from so many quarters that we need to get this right. Examination cannot be rushed; there needs to be an ordinary process, including consultation with the police, the CPS, and legal practitioners. Noble Lords have indicated that there is an understanding in the House that we could not include that in the Bill before the House today. I welcome support from all sides of the House for the Bill.

Bill read a second time.