Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, I can confirm that. Recent changes in the law that were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 will make it easier to prosecute those serious cases by extending the time limits on summary-only communications offences, and by allowing cases covered by section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be dealt with in the Crown court.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am pleased that this question has been asked, but I am rather concerned about the lumping together of general harassment and stalking. The Solicitor-General knows full well that stalking is a distinct offence and should be treated accordingly.

[The Solicitor-General]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I pay tribute to him, because this is probably the last occasion on which he will be able to raise such matters here. I am sure that he will continue to campaign in whatever capacity his party allows him to, and I wish him well.

In the year to last December, 818 stalking offences had been brought to prosecution. We now need to calculate the proportion of successful prosecutions, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that more work will be done through extrapolation from those figures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It was important that we fill the loopholes in the law. We now have the stalking and harassment legislation introduced by this Government and legislation on coercive control. We are doing everything we can to deal with the scourge of emotional and psychological abuse.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I commend the Solicitor-General on his co-operative and informed attitude to the issue of coercive control and on the way in which he took the matter through Committee? I also thank him for sponsoring my ten-minute rule Bill on the subject last year; it would be remiss of me not to say that. On a more serious note, will he assure the House that prior to the commencement of the new law, welcome as we all say it will be, there will be sufficient time to train the police and prosecuting authorities and the necessary guidelines will be produced?

[The Solicitor-General]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and I entirely agree that we must ensure that full training of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and all the authorities that will be responsible for dealing with the new legislation is put in place before we bring it into force.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Buckland and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). He said that there was a lack of evidence to support the need for change, which was reminiscent of where the proposal for 90-day pre-charge detention fell down. I believe that part 2 of the Bill threatens to undermine the principle of natural justice that demands that parties to an action should be given access to the case they confront. The Bill is deeply contentious, but some vital amendments have been made by the other place and I think that they must be upheld as a bare minimum, although I am sure that I am not alone in wishing that certain elements of the Bill should be removed entirely. On my reading, even as amended the Bill could result in members of the public losing their cases against the state without ever having been told why, in the Government’s being allowed to hide evidence of wrongdoing, and in officials being given the power to exclude the other party from court proceedings. As Reprieve points out, that effectively means that they could place themselves beyond challenge and hence above the law.

Last week, we heard about the Finucane case. We were all heartily disgusted at what went on—the collusion between the police service and the security services. God forbid, but if such a thing happened again, I believe that the Bill would make it easier for the state to prevent a family from suing in such circumstances. Have we thought about that?

Part 2 also sets out the Government’s intention to remove the courts’ power to order someone who has been involved in wrongdoing to disclose information—the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which needs to be considered in Committee.

I shall restrict my remarks to the proposed extension of closed material procedure—known as “secret courts” in outside parlance—to all civil proceedings in clauses 6 to 13. Responding to those provisions, the president of the Law Society and the chairman of the Bar wrote to the Minister without Portfolio saying:

“CMPs…undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public and will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms. These are both essential elements of the rule of law.”

I might also add, as others have, that they undermine the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

We have heard what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said. It has been vocal in its criticism of the legislation and has drawn attention to the

“troubling lack of evidence of any actual cases demonstrating the problem which the”

Government “asserts to exist.” At no point have the Government produced any known case that could not be tried under the current public interest immunity system, which I have seen operate over many years as a legal practitioner myself.

The special advocates memorandum says

“CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition...the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction...no such reasons have been advanced; and...in our view, none exists.”

It speaks volumes that the special advocates memorandum was so scathing about what the legislation purports to do; special advocates, of course, are better qualified to comment than anyone else. Among their concerns was the fact that the Bill as originally drafted required a judge to allow the Government’s application for a CMP if there was any material at all that could damage national security, even if the judge considered that the case could be fairly tried under the existing PII. The memorandum also makes the point that the decision on whether to trigger a CMP should lie with a judge and not the Secretary of State—an amendment to that effect has been carried and is most welcome; I hope that it will remain in the Bill.

Furthermore, under clause 6 as it originally stood, only the Government would have been able to apply for a CMP and not both parties. That is objectionable. The amendment on that is also welcome and I hope that it will be retained, although I am sure that the circumstances in which a plaintiff or claimant would apply would be limited.

I wish to refer to comments made by Lord Hodgson on Report in the other place. He said:

“I would like to see enshrined in the Bill a set of steps-hurdles…that the Government of the day will have to clear before they can resort to a CMP. The first is a requirement to go through the public interest immunity procedure, from which the judge can reach a balanced conclusion on whether the interests of national security require a closed court.”

In the same debate, Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent Queen’s Counsel, is recorded as arguing that

“a judge in an individual case should have a discretion, not a duty, to order a CMP.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1812-14.]

I urge the Government to take heed of those arguments and to uphold the amendments carried in the other place.

Perhaps the most disturbing provision of all is in clause 7(1)(d), which provides that, if a CMP is triggered, a court is not required to give the excluded party a summary of the closed material. Rather, the Bill as drafted requires only that the court should “consider requiring” that such a summary be given. Clause 7(1)(e) provides that the court must ensure that where a summary is given it

“does not contain material the disclosure of which would be”

against

“the interests of national security.”

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the problem with his argument on clause 7 that there will be cases, if only perhaps a very few, where gisting will not be possible without revealing the essence of what needs to be secret? Therefore, is it not essential to retain some discretion for the court to “consider”, and does that not give more power to the judges?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously thought about this, and he may well be right, but at the moment we are all looking into a rather dark room as we do not know what we are actually facing. What he says is quite logical, and I accept it, but I remain concerned.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Elfyn Llwyd

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that assurance, which I take to be an invitation to write to her. I had another seven or eight questions, but I shall not labour the House with them this evening.

Before I sit down and allow others to take the matter further, may I once more express my sincere gratitude to all the parliamentarians who took part in the research work? I think this may be the only time when a cross-party group that is not a Committee of the House has succeeded in bringing forward a change in the law. I do not know how often that will happen, but it is certainly a precedent that I favour—I would say that, wouldn’t I?

I wish again to say how grateful we are to Laura Richards of PAS and Harry Fletcher of NAPO, and to all the victims who assisted us by giving evidence. I am also very grateful to the Home Secretary, because I know she has been on the side of the angels on this issue for some time. I am sure she shares my pleasure in the fact that something positive is now being done.

The Bill’s provisions on stalking show that the Government have carried out a listening exercise, and we will now have firm laws. They will prevent lives from being ruined and, crucially, from being lost. They represent an important change in the law, and I have been privileged to play a part in achieving it. The inquiry has been the most enriching and worthwhile experience of my political life, and I am delighted to see the result.

[Mr Buckland]

I will not repeat the constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and others on the provisions that all parties have accepted. I am delighted to have been part of the process, but hope that does not give me, as a relatively new Member, a false sense of what can be achieved so quickly by consensus. The Government have moved with speed and with willingness to listen, and I commend their fleetness of foot. I am grateful to them for acting and amending their own amendments. That shows their willingness to listen to the debate and to engage with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, to which I pay tribute.

The journey does not end here. Once the Bill is passed, it is essential that we get training for police officers and guidance for prosecutors absolutely right and monitor the progress of the new laws. Stalking is emotional terrorism; it is a crime of control, a crime of manipulation and, yes, a crime of violence. It was quite clear from the evidence heard by the all-party inquiry heard these changes to the law were necessary. I started as somebody who was not convinced that the law should be changed, but I ended as somebody who was entirely persuaded. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Elfyn Llwyd

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

That is certainly reassuring, but had we had a decent amount of time to discuss the proposals we could have probed them earlier. There is also some confusion about new clause 33, which will no doubt be picked up in the other place.

I know that I have done nothing for my street credibility, and even less for the Lord Chancellor’s, but I believe that the IPP system has been brought into disrepute. It is only right that we do away with it, and to that extent I agree with what the Government seek to do.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I shall be brief. I support the Government’s amendments. We need a system that does not try to predict risk, but sentences according to the seriousness of the offence. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made some very interesting points that deserve consideration, but now is the time for change. The current system is not sustainable. We are not dealing with the risk that these people pose and a system of determinate long sentences would be a far better service to the victims of crime, who are too often left in the dark about what happens in cases—