Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Debate between James Berry and William Wragg

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[William Wragg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He referred at the outset of his remarks to the Bill’s broad support and an “unholy alliance”, although I have no idea what the unholy aspect of that alliance is, given the nature of the individuals, including his party’s leader, who were kind enough to be supporters of the Bill. I thank him for indicating the Opposition’s broad welcome to the Bill, which he made clear on Second Reading.

The hon. Gentleman asked why such emphasis has been placed on the Forensic Science Service. I suspect, from my limited knowledge of the matter, that that is because in cases of a miscarriage of justice when existing evidence is held by the service, it would probably be the first port of call in order to overturn or quash a conviction, if something was awry.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the burden that could be placed on solicitors, and although I do not have the information to hand, the costs would be limited. Indeed, there is existing co-operation, as he said, so it could be argued that the Bill simply rectifies a drafting error in the 1995 Act, especially when one considers that the equivalent commission for Scotland was given the powers in the Bill a couple of years later. Statistical evidence showing the cost of the commission in Scotland may provide him with useful examples.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the grant to the CCRC, which is currently £5.67 million, and referred to a reduction in its budget over the past 10 years. To my knowledge, the CCRC’s budget is again being increased this year—it has been protected—in anticipation of the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about penalties for non-disclosure. I am not able to speak on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, but he is right that the Bill does not make particular reference to that.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The Bill provides recourse to the courts to seek an order if a private sector body or individual refuses to give disclosure voluntarily. If an order has to be sought but is breached, meaning that disclosure is not given, the penalty would be no different from the existing penalty for non-disclosure in criminal or civil proceedings. Such a procedure is well used.