Lord Beecham
Main Page: Lord Beecham (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Beecham's debates with the Ministry of Justice
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Beecham Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is very rare indeed that I do not wholly agree with the noble Baroness. As for my noble friend, Lord Lester, I do not even stop to assess whether I agree with him because I know that I should. However, as the noble and learned Lord has just mentioned, we in Parliament are used to our proceedings being recorded—we barely notice the cameras now—and edited. I am constantly taken aback by the number of people who watch the Parliament channel and our proceedings at great length—they must be terrible insomniacs, but they do. It may be that they prefer to watch and listen to a large chunk of a particular matter rather than have the proceedings edited by that very respectable and useful programme, “Today in Parliament”, or the print media. I support giving that opportunity with regard to the courts.
I recently attended a sentencing. I was there accompanying somebody who was concerned with the case. Waiting for my friend afterwards, I listened to the quite considerable number of print journalists there, writing up their stories. They had been handed a copy of the judge’s sentencing remarks but barely referred to the copy. They checked one or two comments with each other instead of bothering to go back to what they had been given, and I could hear how they were editing the remarks to make a sensational story.
I am very happy to rely on the Lord Chief Justice and the judges in particular cases where, as I understand it, the ability to make particular restrictions will still continue. Of course, editing—being a camera—is subjective. I have agonised about this quite a lot and I spoke rather in the other direction at the previous stage, but I have come down to believing that this quite cautious move is the right one. Judges are less tempted than politicians to make off-the-cuff remarks about major moves forward. I am therefore very happy that the Lord Chief Justice is so much involved.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I understand the points made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is an innovation in English court procedures and we should approach it with a degree of caution. The case for opening up the judicial system to more public information and understanding is well made, and to that extent I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was less happy with the second part of his speech, which addressed the amendments in my name. I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said about discretion on the part of the trial judge to decide whether or not to permit broadcasting. That ought to be a significant safeguard, but it is not quite good enough to rely just on the Lord Chief Justice. I say “just”; although one has every confidence in the holders of that office, this is, as I say, a new departure and there is a wider interest to be considered. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser try to establish the principles both in relation to any decision to extend court broadcasting and regarding the matters to be considered when a court gives a direction, precisely to meet some of the objections and difficulties envisaged by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Amendment 120B requires any statutory instrument to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am in slight difficulty here because, when these matters were raised in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that the government amendments would make the provisions under what was then Clause 22 and is now Clause 23 subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. She also referred to what was then Clause 29, which again required amendments to primary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I may have missed them but I cannot actually see those references in the Bill. They may be disguised under some form of words that does not immediately disclose their presence, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could confirm that the affirmative procedure would apply so that it would not simply be a matter of a decision by the Lord Chief Justice but, if there were to be significant changes, particularly to extend the range of matters that could be broadcast, then the affirmative procedure would apply. If that were the case, we would certainly be content to support the Bill in its present form. Perhaps, with the assistance of the Box, he may be able to help me and, more importantly, your Lordships, to come to a conclusion about whether the Government’s intentions are currently reflected in the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, it is always interesting to examine such issues. I have listened to the speeches and the arguments, although I was not in your Lordships’ House when the arguments were put forward for the televising of Parliament. I listened, as I always do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke about words being put into people’s mouths and perhaps being interpreted differently. I suppose that every now and again parliamentarians, and politicians in particular, suffer that consequence, which is well understood.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. As we have seen, again there is strong opinion on both sides of the argument. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, her amendment would limit court proceedings to appellate proceedings and, in effect, would require the Government to return to Parliament before broadening court broadcasting to other types of court proceedings, such as those in the Crown Court. I am also aware, as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill pointed out, that this amendment was specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report of the Bill. I would, of course, like to thank the Joint Committee for its report. I am also glad to read that the committee agrees with the Government’s objective of making justice as apparent and as publicly accessible as possible.
We have heard about 18th century judges, although I am minded not to travel back in history to that extent. However, in 1924, the Lord Chief Justice, Viscount Hewart, said:
“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
I believe that sentiment underlies the Government’s view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, talked about caution. The Government recognise that as regards court broadcasting. It is our view that any order made under Clause 23 will require, as has been mentioned by various noble Lords, the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. But that is just one lock. It will also require the approval of the Lord Chancellor and will be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Therefore, court broadcasting will be introduced in a safe and proportionate manner. That is akin to putting not one or two locks on the door but to putting three locks. It will take three people to open that door.
However, we can go one step further. We believe that this triple lock, combined with existing reporting restrictions and the additional provision to allow judges to stop the filming and broadcasting of court proceedings to ensure the fairness of proceedings and to prevent any undue prejudice, will ensure that the interests of victims and witnesses, who are most important, as well as jurors, defendants and other parties, are fully protected. I hope that this will address the concerns of not only the noble Baroness but also the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to the court’s requirement to consider when to allow or to prevent broadcasting.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned that moving cameras changed people’s actions, they certainly changed my action. As she mentioned it, I looked towards the camera and the camera moved. There is some credence and fact behind that statement.
The Government announced plans in September of last year to allow the broadcasting of judgments and advocates’ arguments in cases before the Court of Appeal and, over a longer period, to allow broadcasting from the Crown Court but to limit this to the judge’s sentencing remarks after conclusion of the trial. We believe that this will help to increase the public’s understanding of sentencing, with low risk to the proper administration of justice. Let me assure your Lordships’ House that we have no plans to extend court broadcasting beyond these two sets of circumstances. We believe that, once Parliament has approved the principle of broadcasting selected court proceedings, the details safely can be set out in secondary legislation. I would remind the House that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not take issue with this approach as long as the secondary legislation was subject to the affirmative procedure, which it now is. This means that the Lord Chancellor may make an order only under this clause which has been approved by both Houses. That being the case—I refer in particular to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham —Amendment 120B is not needed as that ground is covered already by Clause 30(4)(f). As with all primary legislation, these provisions will be subject to post-legislative review three to five years after Royal Assent.
Lord Carswell
My Lords, I support this amendment. I spoke briefly in Committee and I intend to be brief again today, particularly in view of the way in which the House has so far received the amendment and what the Minister has said.
Since that debate in Committee, the Law Commission has published this admirable consultation paper, which contains a full and helpful discussion of the issues, the principles and the possible solutions. My view, which was very direct and brief in Committee, remains unchanged. The special sanction for judges remains unnecessary. My reasons remain the same. Judges have to be hardy enough to shrug off criticism, even if it is intemperate or abusive, which has happened; even if it is unfair and ill-informed, which has certainly happened; and even if it is downright deliberately misleading, the same applies.
I speak from some knowledge. I have been scandalised on several occasions in the course of criminal trials at which I was the presiding judge without a jury. It was intemperate, certainly ill-informed and extremely offensive. I was deeply offended and hurt, but I certainly did not consider attempting to ask anyone to invoke the special procedure of scandalising the court. If anyone had suggested it, I would have firmly discouraged him at that time, which is a good many years ago now.
After I read the Law Commission consultation paper, I considered quite seriously whether there was room for the possibility of a new and more specific offence, penalising possibly deliberate and malicious targeting of a judge by making untrue and scandalous allegations into something of a campaign. I am persuaded, however, that it is better not to introduce any such offence into the law but simply to leave it at abolishing the offence of scandalising.
My reasons are three. First, special protection of judges immediately invites criticism from those who are all too ready to give vent to it. Secondly, if a judge had to give evidence in such proceedings, it would create a further and better opportunity for intrusive cross-examination and create a field day for publicity for critics of the judiciary. Thirdly, as I have said before, judges have to put up with these things; they have to be robust, firm and, on occasions, hard-skinned enough.
The Law Commission, in my view, was right in its provisional conclusions and I hope that when the report has been considered, the responses will confirm that. I would certainly support the amendment that the offence should simply be abolished.
Finally, as noble Lords have said, this of course does not apply in Northern Ireland. The authorities there will form their own view and take their own course. I cannot and do not in any way speak for them, nor have they consulted me about such provisions. I have to say, and I hope that they will take this into account, that I cannot see any reason why judges in Northern Ireland should have any different protection from judges in England and Wales against scandalising. I think the same considerations apply, and having been a judge there for 20 years, I would certainly not wish to see any differentiation.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I echo the remarks made by the Minister and by other noble Lords. We are entirely supportive of the amendment, and glad that the Government have agreed to take matters forward in the way that the noble Lord indicated.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The Justice Committee in Northern Ireland recently agreed to proceed with an amendment to its Criminal Justice Bill that would see this offence repealed. I am sure that the words uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, about his own experience will carry great weight. However, this is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I hope the Minister can give a positive reply to the noble Baroness. She has made a powerful case in connection with a particularly vulnerable group for whom existing services are perhaps not adequate. I do not know whether the Minister will be inclined to accept the amendment at this stage or whether he will at least be prepared to take it back for consideration before—or rather at—Third Reading. I think that that would satisfy the noble Baroness and most Members of Your Lordships’ House and I hope he feels able to take that course.
Lord Woolf
I also urge the Minister to do what has just been urged by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. It is the judge’s most important duty to ensure the fairness of the trial. However, the problem identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is one that the judge simply cannot tackle himself. There needs to be hands-on assistance of the sort she indicates. Therefore, for the same reason, I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to this.
Lord Beecham
No, I want to speak now if that is all right. Thank you. Burglary is a serious crime and a particularly distressing one. The forced invasion of one’s home adds a further dimension to the effect on its occupiers. I suspect several Members of the House will have shared my experience, at least in part. My home—which, incidentally, was built by the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to whom I apologise for anticipating in this debate, for reasons that I shall give later—has been burgled and my office has also been burgled once. Fortunately, little damage was done; even more fortunately, no one was present at the time. Where the householder or other occupant is present, the impact of the crime transcends distress and, too often, becomes traumatic.
I say at once that we welcome the extension of the present law to non-residential premises, such as those of shopkeepers, to which the Minister has referred. However, in relation to domestic premises, while absolutely affirming the right of residents to defend themselves and their property, we have doubts about the Government’s proposals. The amendments have been spatchcocked into the Bill at virtually the last minute, almost, it would seem, as an initiation rite performed by the new Lord Chancellor. Unlike the proposals on community sentencing, we have not had the opportunity of a general debate under the recommittal procedure. I propose therefore to treat the debate on these amendments as, in effect, a Second Reading debate, which is why I sought to speak now rather than later.
Burglary is an offence against the person as well as against property, because a break-in destroys the victim’s peace of mind by violating the safe haven of their home. The householder is not in a position to exercise calm, cool judgment. The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar; and, in measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you are not doing a paper exercise six months later:
“You have to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear”.
These are not my words—although I concur with them—but the words of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, commenting on the recent case of two men jailed after raiding a remote cottage, when they were blasted with a shotgun. What is significant is that his words reflect the present state of the law. Although the victims in that case were questioned by police, their Member of Parliament, Alan Duncan MP—not, I think, generally known as a bleeding-heart liberal—said:
“The police did a very good job and investigated as thoroughly as they had to when a firearm is involved”.
The first question is what the government proposal adds to the present state of the law, as enshrined by the Labour Government’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the present Government’s clarification, embodied in Section 148 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, passed only a few months ago. In my submission, it adds only confusion. It purports to allow the use of disproportionate force but not grossly disproportionate force. Can the Minister define, or even better exemplify, the difference between the two, especially bearing in mind the words of the Lord Chief Justice? What difference, if any, in his view would the amendment’s wording have had, for example, on the case of Tony Martin, who shot dead a burglar? What does the Minister make of the statement by Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin? He said:
“The law already recognises that people react in a certain way in the heat of the moment”,
and argued that the law does not need changing.
The second element that the proposal might add to the Bill is, paradoxically and obviously unintentionally, a heightened risk to home owners. A study in Texas has demonstrated that the notorious “stand your ground” law, promoted by the US gun lobby and enacted in several US states, has led to more injuries and deaths being inflicted on householders and others by criminals, rather than fewer. Anyone who watched the recent TV programme on “stand your ground” would surely hesitate before opening the door to similar unintended consequences here, even allowing for the radically different gun culture that is such a blemish on American society.
There are other questions to be asked. Have the Government consulted the judiciary or the police on the proposed changes? If so, what responses have they received? If they have not consulted them, why not? Have they conducted an impact analysis? Your Lordships might think that a particularly fitting term in this instance for an assessment of the consequences of legislation. What is the evidence that the present state of the law, as defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is inadequate? The Minister has circulated what purports to be a fact sheet. Your Lordships might think that that document contains precious few facts and no evidence on which to base the Government’s proposals.
My right honourable friend Sadiq Khan sought information by means of Parliamentary Question on the number of home owners arrested or charged after defending their property against burglars since 1994. The answer was:
“The information on arrests is not collected centrally … It is not possible to match the arrests data to any subsequent outcomes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/12; col. 641W.]
The Guardian recently reported, after a review by the CPS, that there were all of seven cases—I repeat, seven cases—between 1990 and 2005 in which a householder was prosecuted. In other words, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the problem the Government purport to be addressing is significant in terms of numbers, whereas it is clear that neither the police nor the courts are going to fall over themselves to prosecute householders who react in the way described by the Lord Chief Justice.
Is the Minister suggesting that where serious injury or death is inflicted on a burglar—or even someone such as the man featured in a recent BBC radio programme who was thought to be a burglar but was apparently just a confused man trying unsuccessfully to enter what he thought was his own home—the police should not investigate the situation in a proper manner, not least in the interests of those whom they interview? I wait to see not only what answers to these and other questions emerge from this debate but what transpires when this Bill goes to the House of Commons.
I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor will seek to portray himself as the champion of the victims. It is a pretty hollow claim on the part of a Government who are both alienating and cutting the police force; undermining community policing; presiding over the reduction of community support officers, who provide invaluable back-up to front-line policing; and savagely slashing or altogether removing compensation for the victims of crime by their changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Those changes, I might add, were forced through the House of Commons by the process of mugging several Conservative members of the relevant committee, including John Redwood MP, a senior former Minister, and substituting placemen in the form of Parliamentary Private Secretaries—not much consideration for victims of crime in that context.
I repeat that we are at one with the intention to protect the householder and punish the burglar. We remain to be convinced that the Government’s proposals are sound in law and safe, from the perspective of the very people they are supposed to protect.
Lord Pannick
Before the noble Lord sits down, in the light of his very powerful speech, is he going to invite his Benches to enter the Lobbies to oppose this amendment?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am treating this as a Second Reading debate, which we could and should have had some time ago, to allow the Government the opportunity to make their case—which, it seems to me, the Minister has failed to do today—either here or in the other place, but we will not be voting on these proposals today.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I should disclose that I presided over the case of Tony Martin on appeal. I oppose this amendment because I regard it as a very bad example of where statutory interference with the common law is wholly unnecessary. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, my home has been burgled so I am not totally objective on these matters and know the concern that they can cause.
The position here is that nearly every word the Minister used in moving this amendment is the sort of remark that judges up and down the country would make to a jury when dealing with those very few cases in which a householder is prosecuted. I could hear myself making precisely those remarks in those days of longer and longer ago: such as saying that the person whose house was broken into, or who was attacked by a burglar, cannot be expected to draw a fine line between what is permissible and what is not. He has to be judged in the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed. The great advantage of that situation was that the jury of men and women with their own experiences could set the standard and decide what was reasonable or what was not. Certainly, based on my experience, they always exercised that task in a way that was sympathetic to the defendant whose home was interfered with.
The problem and disadvantage caused by introducing an amendment of this sort is that you will always try to put into language the appropriate circumstances where you think a particular result is desired. However, there will be circumstances that are very similar to those circumstances, but where the language used does not apply. You cannot anticipate all the circumstances. One inevitable difficulty with this sort of amendment is that there will be amendment after amendment to the law, making it more and more complex and difficult to apply. Yet, as the quotation from the present Lord Chief Justice makes clear, a statement of the sort he indicates will achieve justice in the particular case.
I can understand why it is thought to be a good thing to do everything possible to defend victims of a particularly nasty crime from unintended consequences. However it is not desirable when the law itself is satisfactory and changing the long-standing law that upholds the spirit of the common law is sought by reducing it to the kind of language we have here.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the new clause proposed by the first amendment in this group would remove the restriction whereby an appeal against the refusal of asylum can be brought only where the person has been granted leave to enter or remain for more than 12 months. Noble Lords will be aware that unaccompanied children who are refused asylum are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave for periods of three years or until they reach the age of 17, whichever is the shorter, on the basis that they cannot be sent back to their country of origin. Bearing in mind that the UKBA takes months and sometimes years to decide whether to grant humanitarian protection in lieu of asylum, the child might arrive at the age of 15 or even earlier, might be refused asylum at the age of 16 and might still have to apply for discretionary leave to remain for a period that would make the total more than 12 months before appealing against the refusal.
I take it that there are very few refusals of the extension of discretionary leave, as almost all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will have had no contact with family in their country of origin and therefore will still be ineligible for return when they reach the age of 17. The effect of the provision in the 2002 Act is to delay the permanent settlement of these children in the UK, making it harder for them to access the whole range of public services, including further and higher education, so that their economic and social potential is less than it would be if and ultimately when they become permanent residents of this country.
My noble kinsman said on 4 July 2012, in col. 710, that it was an “unfortunate consequence” of the otherwise very sensible 12-month restriction. He gave an assurance that the policy as it affects children would be reviewed. I was looking forward to hearing the outcome of that review at this stage of the Bill. It seemed to me that the Bill could only confirm the unfortunate consequences, as my noble kinsman called them, and that the Government would explain how they would eliminate them. Instead, my noble friend Lord Taylor told me in a letter of 20 November:
“We have considered this matter very carefully and have concluded that no change in current practice is appropriate”.
He stated, quite inaccurately, as I see it, that the,
“amendment would undermine the intention of the existing appeals framework, namely, to prevent multiple appeals that result in significant cost to the taxpayer”.
Those who are recognised as refugees will not need any second appeal, but the children and trafficked persons in question will get no appeal at all until they face removal—something that, had their case been decided correctly at the outset, they would never have faced. My noble friend says that the young persons affected by Clause 83(1),
“are on the cusp of adulthood, and … the detrimental impact of any delay in an appeal right arising is less severe than it would be for children of a younger age”.
I think the opposite is true, because younger children tend to accept the situations they face as a result of adult decisions, but as they approach maturity they can recognise deliberate unfairness inflicted on them by authority. I would like to know whether my noble friend sought the advice of experts such as the Children’s Society before he expressed that opinion or whether it was ex cathedra.
Does his review cover trafficked persons, who are granted leave for one year following a determination through the national referral mechanism set up by the Government to identify and support victims of trafficking in the UK? That process was established in pursuance of the Government’s obligation to identify victims under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Human Trafficking. Article 14 of the convention provides that a victim of trafficking shall be granted a residence permit, which will be without prejudice to the right to seek and enjoy asylum. That seems to imply that the 12-month residence permit granted to trafficked persons would not debar them from submitting an asylum claim. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how this can be squared with Section 83(1).
I turn to the second of the new clauses. The purpose is to remove the statutory presumption that a country other than a person’s country of nationality is a safe country to which a person seeking asylum can be removed simply because the Secretary of State asserts that it is a safe country. A safe country is one where the person will not be persecuted and from which he or she will not be refouled in contravention of the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 establishes a scheme whereby persons seeking asylum may be precluded from a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum unless and until they have left the UK, including where this may mean returning to their home country or to a third country that the Secretary of State asserts to be safe. Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 limits what the asylum seeker can argue on a judicial review about the safety of the third country.
Section 94(8) creates a statutory presumption that, when the Secretary of State asserts that a country other than the person’s home country is safe, it is presumed that in that country the asylum seeker will not face persecution for a refugee convention reason and will not face being returned to a country in which he or she does face persecution for a refugee convention reason. The statutory presumption seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a court to consider the correctness of the Secretary of State’s opinion as to the safety of such a country.
The provisions of Schedule 3, which the new clause proposes to delete, require a court dealing with a judicial review relating to a removal to make presumptions of safety. For example, paragraph 3(2) states:
“A State to which this Part applies shall be treated, in so far as relevant to the question mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), as a place … where a person's life and liberty are not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.
In the case of NS, the claimant asylum-seeker had sought judicial review of his third country return to Greece. Whereas the Administrative Court in England and Wales had been concerned as to the conditions in Greece, it considered itself bound by previous authority to uphold the UK Border Agency decision to return NS to Greece. The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. That Court concluded, in the context of European Union arrangements for safe third country returns within the European Union, under what are often referred to as the Dublin Regulations, that,
“to require a conclusive presumption of compliance with fundamental rights … could be regarded as undermining the safeguards which are intended to ensure compliance with fundamental rights by the European Union and its Member States. That would be the case, inter alia, with regard to a provision which laid down that certain States are ‘safe countries’ with regard to compliance with fundamental rights, if that provision had to be interpreted as constituting a conclusive presumption, not admitting of any evidence to the contrary”.
The presumptions in Section 94(8) and the paragraphs of Schedule 3 seek to be such provisions, and accordingly ought to be removed.
Greece is not the only safe country where these presumptions may be unfounded. Section 94 allows the Secretary of State to list not only countries that are safe, but countries that are safe for a given description of persons. Thus a number of African countries are designated as safe for men, so that women threatened with return to those countries still have an in-country right of appeal. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people, who suffer relentless cultural, social and even legal pressures and persecution in more or less the same list plus Jamaica, have no such right.
In the case of HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon), which was dealt with in the Supreme Court in 2010, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke about the,
“rampant homophobic teaching that right-wing evangelical Christian churches indulge in throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa”.
It was lucky for HT that he did not come from one of the countries designated as safe such as Malawi where, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, two gay men who celebrated their engagement had recently been sentenced to 14 years in prison. If those men had sought asylum in the UK, their claim would have been treated as unfounded and they would have had no right of appeal. Curiously enough, two lesbians in the same circumstances would have had a right of appeal, since Malawi is treated as a safe country for men only in Section 94.
If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, the least they could do is to make the list in Section 94(4) correspond with the reality of persecution on account of sexual orientation as well as gender, which can be done by order. My noble kinsman replying to a similar amendment at Committee, claimed that an appeal after removal was a satisfactory remedy for those removed to a “safe country”. Could the Minister tell your Lordships how many people who were removed after claiming asylum from a supposedly safe country on the basis of their sexual orientation managed to appeal from abroad, and in how many of those cases they were successful? I know that the Government are very well aware of the widespread persecution of LGBT people, so I assume that they will have kept records of these cases, although I do not expect the Minister to be able to produce them on the spot.
I turn to the third new clause. The purpose is to ensure that an appeal is not treated as abandoned when leave to remain is granted to the appellant. The situation at the moment is that under the provisions sought to be left out of Section 104 of the 2002 Act, this happens automatically, and the result is that the tribunal is prevented from reaching judgments on points of principle that are dealt with in the case. It can happen that a series of cases, all turning on the same principle, are aborted by the Secretary of State in this way, contrary to the interests of justice.
In the case of Osman Omar, the judgment handed down on 29 November 2012 by Mr Justice Beatson addressed this issue. He resisted attempts by the Secretary of State to argue that the claim was redundant in that she had already granted the claimant further leave to remain. He ruled, in effect, that the Secretary of State cannot keep knocking cases out by settling them on the facts and refusing to litigate on the point of principle. As Mr Justice Beatson said:
“The substantive issue raised by the claimant is an issue which arises regularly. It arose in Francis. It will arise in the case of Ahmed ... which, as I have stated, is listed for hearing at the end of January 2013”.
Therefore, the challenge in these particular cases is to the vires of the regulations, which provide for a fee to be payable for an extension of discretionary leave, but with no discretion for the Secretary of State to waive it in the case of an applicant who seeks leave on human rights grounds but cannot afford the fee because he is either destitute or in receipt only of NASS support. I hope the Minister will agree that it is important for this question to be determined, and that in cases of this kind, it is common sense to leave the matter to the tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord’s first amendment, but am not perhaps quite as persuaded by the subsequent amendments. However, in any event I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his consistent concern with the problems of a particularly vulnerable group in our society and his very powerful advocacy on their behalf. He has obviously seized the opportunity to bring that concern into this Bill. I object less to that spatchcocking than I did to the previous amendment moved by the Minister in relation to burglary, but perhaps it is not the best forum in which to take these matters forward. I hope that the Minister can go a little further than he appears to have done in correspondence with the noble Lord and at least indicate that this whole area should be reviewed. It is some time since we have had a proper debate around the particularly delicate issues to which the noble Lord referred. While it is probably the case that this is not a matter to be voted on today, it should not be neglected indefinitely and ought to be considered.
Perhaps the Minister could indicate that discussions, not in respect of Third Reading but more generally, could take place around these and allied issues in connection with asylum and immigration matters where they impinge on the presence or otherwise in our country of people who have fled persecution and danger elsewhere, in a context that is outside the legislative framework for the time being. That might be a way forward in which a broad consensus could be reached across the House rather than dealing with it in terms of the amendments that are before us today. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for raising these matters. I hope that can be seen as a first step and not the last step in a process of looking at the issue.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I support my noble friend and add one further thought. In terms of public awareness, I have heard it said that these issues are now at about the same stage that domestic violence was about 20 years ago. I think that there would be a good deal more public understanding and sympathy for the sorts of changes that my noble friend has advocated even than there might have been four or five years ago. I think that the public mood is moving somewhat on this. It would be nice for the Government to be ahead of the public mood.