Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Earl of Sandwich Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 60 and 61 which were spoken to by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. Having listened to the contributions that have been made, it is clear that the whole area needs rewriting. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, queried the various phrases that are used. Not to hold public bodies to account when they have behaved unlawfully is something which a country that prides itself on decent behaviour should not allow.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate amendment, but having had some experience of immigration and immigration detention I just wanted to make one point. I know that we are coming on to issues related to that. I declare an interest as a patron of visitors to Haslar detention centre in Portsmouth.

Like others, I understand that the protection of liberty is one of the primary factors in the allocation of legal aid. Yet the advice I have received is that this Bill will fall heavily on the most vulnerable people in our society—asylum seekers and those in detention who are awaiting removal to their home country. In many cases, it will mean that a vulnerable person, perhaps a victim of torture and perhaps as young as 16, will be unable to present their case without access to any formal representation and whose legitimate cries for help under international asylum law will simply be unheard. Applications for bail will be refused even more often than they are today simply because of the lack of legal aid and proper representation, if I have understood the situation right.

I well understand that the Minister has to defend the Government’s position in difficult times but I would like some reassurance that the test of vulnerability under this legislation will be reasonable. Perhaps he could explain how it will conform with international human rights law.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I rise to deal with the amendments in this group, one of which, Amendment 90ZZA, is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach. It might be thought odd that that amendment is included in the group we are discussing, but I will deal with that later.

I wish to deal first with the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I suppose that it can only appropriately be described as an original amendment as it relates to the Duchy. However, it raises an interesting constitutional point which needs to be explored, although, it may be thought, probably not in the context of this Bill. The noble Lord raises a legitimate concern and he is not responsible for the grouping. The matter does not fall entirely within the purview of the group that we are discussing and perhaps not of the Bill, but no doubt those matters will be addressed in some other way at an appropriate time.

I wish to touch briefly on the government amendments which are wholly uncontroversial and entirely acceptable to the Opposition. The Minister may not offer a detailed description of those amendments as they speak for themselves.

We certainly support Amendments 60 and 61, which were spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We entirely agree with him that we need clarity as to what constitutes harm for the purpose of the Bill, and in this context the loss of liberty must certainly be included. I trust that that is acceptable to the Minister. Frankly, it would be absurd if that were not the case. There is a question in my mind, and perhaps those of other noble Lords, about the precise meaning of “deliberate” in this context. Does that refer to the act of omission or commission—the substantive act—or to the fact that the consequences which are complained of were intended all along or ignored in a negligent way? It seems to me and to other noble Lords who have spoken that this amendment deals very adequately with those matters, and should be accepted.

The noble Lord who moved the amendment properly referred to immigration. In a briefing provided by Bail for Immigration Detainees, the point is made that the Bill does not define what “deliberate” or “harm” mean. It expresses concern that the ministry will seek to interpret “deliberate” as more than unlawful, and “harm” as injury, and that that would result in the exclusion of many claims for damages for unlawful intention or false imprisonment brought by individuals who lost their liberty as a result of unlawful acts by the immigration authorities or the police. In that event, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that without legal assistance such claimants could properly make their case. No doubt, the Minister will clarify the intention of the Bill in that respect.

However, these matters are not necessarily confined to immigration cases. There might well be other cases in which liberty might be lost, arrests made and people detained—for example, under the auspices of defective warrants. It may be that arrests are unlawful on the grounds that the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act were not observed, where the actions of officers were unlawful but were not thought to be deliberate. Other cases might arise out of breaches of the Data Protection Act, where a disclosure might wrongfully be made about someone who, for example, alleged that he had a criminal record when that was not the case and damage might be occasioned. Another example might be where someone in custody, either in a police station or prison, might be assaulted by someone else simply because of the negligence of those operating the facility in question. I should not imagine that the Government would seek to exclude the provision of legal aid in those cases.

Amendment 90ZZA refers to a rather different set of circumstances—in fact, an entirely different set of circumstances—that bring into play the position that might arise in the Court of Protection. On an earlier amendment, we heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, restraining his glee at pointing out the defects in amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and supported by me, on the applicability of Court of Protection proceedings. However, this amendment relates to a different case. It seeks to insert “mental or psychological” harm, in addition to physical harm, into paragraph 4 of Part 3 of Schedule 1, relating to,

“Advocacy in the proceedings in the Court of Protection”.

At the moment, legal aid would be limited to,

“a person’s right to life … a person’s liberty or physical safety”,

and some other matters. However, physical safety is not by any means the be-all and end-all, and there are clearly cases where people might be subjected to psychological or emotional harm and may require legal assistance. One can think of people with learning disabilities being abused or taunted, generally suffering as a result of the actions of others, and needing the protection of the Court of Protection—and therefore needing legal aid to pursue their remedy and obtain protection. It is fair to say that it is unlikely that there would be many cases of this kind, and therefore, as has been suggested in respect of other amendments that we have discussed, the cost would be likely to be limited. However, the Court of Protection can deal with such matters by granted orders and injunctions to protect people from harm that may amount to physical or emotional harm, in addition to the ordinary rights that would be available regarding legal aid.