Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

57: Clause 25, page 23, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of this section, “police constable” also includes any person who is an employee or agent or acting under the authority of a constable (including in a supporting role), or is performing any function that would, if performed by a constable, fall within policing duties.”

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I queried whether we did not have laws enough to deal with police corruption and other noble Lords asked, “Why single out the police for this new offence?”. The Minister has answered some of those points but this is a slightly different question: will Clause 25 work anyway? I must straightaway thank the parliamentary clerks for their advice and assistance in trying to knock the wording of this amendment into shape, and I thank others outside the House who have offered comment. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his Bill team for contacting me last week to discuss my concerns. However, on my reading of the Bill it is far from clear that Clause 25 would catch anyone or deal with the more serious cases. Indeed, the excuse “It was not me, it was that other person over there” seems an obvious get-out.

There are several categories of non-warranted persons who might be acting qua police: PCSOs, police volunteers, contractors and civilians working in administrative, intelligence or custody suite roles. I am not clear about probation officers but doubtless there are many other categories. These do not appear to be covered by Clause 25. In my view, such as it is—I am not a lawyer or necessarily an expert here—police corruption can sometimes be, but in reality seldom is, a completely solitary activity. In some more serious instances, it involves other agencies such as the Crown Prosecution Service, local authorities or the health service. Among the characteristics of performance management, an absence of leadership and the collectivisation of risk and responsibility are two. So the target for any charge of police corruption is potentially formless, impersonal and uncertain. By its very nature it is also covert, so in all probability few signs or fingerprints, if I may use that term, will show up. All that a victim of this process knows is that there is no justice; a collective cover-up is all that they see.

Before the Recess, I sent to the Minister’s then colleague at the Home Office, who is now our esteemed Chief Whip, a series of documents which had been put forward in a particular case as witness statements. I did not ask for comment on their specifics, because the case is ongoing, but drew attention to the public interest aspects that they raised. There is the fact that a custody record had been altered post hoc to include a gratuitous reference to violence; apparently there are two custody statements. A prosecution witness statement had apparently been altered without the knowledge of the witness concerned to include additional damning points relating to the accused. Digital photographic evidence had also been manipulated to show times and dates at variance with the facts. There were other aberrations but over recent months I have come across a number of similar instances.

Some of this stems from seemingly unchallengeable powers, such as those in the areas of antisocial behaviour, but there have been clear instances of making up for evidential deficiencies by invention. We also now know of large-scale documented corruption where information inconvenient to the police version of events has been suppressed, mislaid or deliberately destroyed. Few, if any, responsible officers seem to have suffered significant consequences and if Clause 25 is aimed at remedying that, I support the aim. I particularly have in mind that those clearly implicated in corrupt acts should not automatically be able to escape to a comfortable retirement, leaving the lives of others in complete ruins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing these matters to the attention of the House and for telling us specifically about the incidents to which he has drawn the attention of the Home Office—although he will, of course, understand, as I think he accepted during his remarks, that I cannot comment on specific cases. However, by using a specific case, he raises a wider concern about the fact that it is not specifically and exclusively police officers who may be involved in what might loosely be described as corruption.

Before dealing with the amendment in a little more detail, I will reassure the noble Earl that although the new offence in its current scope is not retrospective, existing laws will continue to apply to any behaviour before the commencement date of the Act. The question of corruption remains a considerable concern of police forces and prosecuting authorities—and the police, sadly, are used to dealing with it. In the next few weeks, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary will publish a report on anti-corruption capability—so there is an awareness of the need to ensure that this matter is well and truly a focus of its intention.

At Second Reading and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in the context of the earlier amendment, I said that the offence in the Bill has been brought forward in response to particular issues of corruption that have occurred in the past among police officers—some of senior rank—not all of which are capable of being pursued under the common law. This offence would allow such cases to be addressed. It is something of an irony that senior police officers opposed the introduction of the offence on the basis that it was unnecessary. The noble Earl takes the opposite view: namely, that the offence should be extended beyond the scope which it currently has to include those who are enmeshed in the whole process of corruption. He is right that agencies do not act alone. They are best when they act together in a concerted way. It is very unfortunate if they act in a concerted way that is also corrupt.

Sadly, I am sure that there have been cases of police staff and other public officials corruptly accessing sensitive information or seeking to disrupt investigations by manipulating IT systems. However, the Government have taken the view that it is imperative at this time to address corruption among police officers. Other public officials, including police staff, remain subject to the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, to which I made reference earlier. There have been high-profile prosecutions for the common-law offence in recent months in connection with selling information to the press, including of prison officers, military personnel and police officers. I reassure the noble Earl that we are dealing with corruption across the board.

I should also point out that the Law Commission is starting a project to examine the broader issue of misconduct by public officials, including the misuse of sensitive official information. That, I suggest, is the proper place to look at misconduct and corruption in other areas of public service. I encourage the noble Earl to raise his concerns with the commission when it publishes its consultation document early next year. I also say to the noble Earl and to the House that the amendment would greatly extend the reach of the new offence to a group of individuals who may not have received any specific training of the type that one would expect and may not be clear that they fall within the definition he proposes, and for whom there is no public clamour for a specific anti-corruption offence in the same way that we believe there is for police officers.

I make no criticism of the noble Earl’s drafting. His intention is perfectly clear. But we believe that, notwithstanding the continued anxiety we all face to eradicate corruption wherever it is found, it would be unwise to agree such a broad amendment at such a late stage of a Bill without an opportunity to consult with police representative bodies or the wider public. Therefore, I thank the noble Earl but nevertheless ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extensive reply and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the support in principle for what I have been trying to deal with. The Minister covered a number of areas reasonably satisfactorily—although, in suggesting that my amendment covered too wide a category of others, he failed to address the issue of PCSOs who, after all, are to all intents and purposes to most people in the street wearing a uniform and are under the pay and authority of the chief constable. While I thank him for that, I will reflect on what he has said. I also reserve my position and may return to this matter at a later stage in order to see whether some other “near-police personnel”, as I call them, who are not warranted officers, should not be included in this provision. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.