Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

East Jerusalem—they were designated as occupied territories. However, the world has moved on and, as my right hon. Friend correctly pointed out, there are now other parts of the world that could, either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law, be considered occupied territories. The Government must be more open, or at least clearer, about the definition of an occupied territory.

There is, however, perhaps an even more important matter that needs resolving, which involves the level of criminal intent for the offences described in clause 17. In framing my remarks, I am grateful for the help I have had from the British Art Market Federation, the British Antique Dealers’ Association, Mr Hugo Keith QC, and Professor Janet Ulph of the University of Leicester school of law. I stress, however, that what I shall say is my interpretation. If I have got things wrong, that is my fault and not the fault of those who valiantly tried to explain the matter to me. You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I cannot for reasons of time go into the detailed legal analysis undertaken by them, but I sent the Secretary of State a copy of Mr Keith’s opinion, which carefully explains why the use of “reason to suspect” in the context of this Bill is unwise and unfair.

Clause 17(1) makes it an offence to

“deal in unlawfully exported cultural property”

that the dealer knows or has

“reason to suspect… has been unlawfully exported.”

So far, so good. No one can support the dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property when they know it has been unlawfully exported, but the mens rea—criminal intent—required under the provision has caused concern in the London art market. The worry is that “reason to suspect” will place an unacceptable and stifling burden on the market. That aspect of the Bill was touched on only briefly in the other place but was not taken up by the Government.

Clause 17 creates an offence of dishonesty, carrying with it a sentence of imprisonment of up to seven years, as well as the destruction of reputation. The problem that worries me arises from the provision that relates to the state of mind, which must be proved before the defendant can be convicted. Dealing in prohibited property knowing that it has been unlawfully exported, the first offence created by clause 17, is simple, easily described, uncontroversial and comes within well-established and clearly understood principles of criminal law. Dealing in such prohibited property believing that it has been unlawfully exported would also be an equally straightforward offence. “Knowledge” or “belief” identify the mens rea, or criminal state of mind, accompanying the prohibited activity. To establish guilt, the prosecution would have to prove that at the time when the prohibited activity took place the defendant knew or believed that he was dealing in prohibited property.

That, however, is not what the second offence created by clause 17 provides. Rather, it defines the criminal activity—dealing in prohibited property—but by relating the criminal state of mind required for the offence to “suspicion” it introduces an unusual concept into the ordinary law that applies to offences of dishonesty. Indeed, it does not even provide that the offence is proved if the defendant personally suspected that he was dealing in prohibited property.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any other examples of mens rea of this type that are in use?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

One often sees the type currently drafted into clause 17 when a defendant has to rebut a presumption—the possession of certain items in sexual offences or drugs offences. It is also to be found under certain rarely used disclosure offences, such as under section 119 of the Companies Act 2006—something that we speak about so frequently in the clubs and bars of Market Harborough. As regards the substantive criminal law and the making of a substantive criminal offence, my hon. Friend is right to say that this is a rare and wholly unusual distinction, and I quietly urge the Government to think again.

As drafted, this provision abandons the principle that it is the defendant’s state of mind that must be “criminal”, whether defined in terms of belief or even suspicion, for an objective test: whether he had reason to suspect. What may arise from an offence defined in that way can be quickly described. The defendant may be offered property which, because of the circumstances, he may have reason to suspect may be prohibited. Just because he wishes to proceed with caution, and to avoid committing a criminal offence, after sensible inquiry and investigation he may in good faith decide that his suspicions have been allayed and proceed to deal in the property. For a defendant acting in good faith to be convicted of an offence of dishonesty is a novel proposition. It may be suggested that the offence is not intending to apply to such an individual, but only to the individual who, notwithstanding any investigations he may make, turns a blind eye to reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that is not what the clause says. The offence can and should be defined in terms of the defendant’s belief or suspicion, and currently it is not.

Surely the question to ask is whether the defendant did or did not believe, or did or did not suspect. The more powerful the evidence that he had reason to suspect, the more likely it is that the jury would conclude that he did indeed believe or suspect, and that the offence is proved. In short, where the defendant did indeed have “reason to suspect”, that would provide the evidence to establish that he did indeed believe or suspect that he was dealing in prohibited property. That however goes to the evidence available to prove guilt; it should not define the offence.

It would be unusual for an offence of dishonesty to be created that did not focus on the defendant’s personal state of mind. It would also be unusual to create two offences in a single provision which make provision for separate and distinctive forms of criminal intent: knowledge, which is entirely subjective; and reason to suspect, which is not. Any summing up in an indictment which alleges the two offences as alternatives would not be straightforward. Worse still, it would be unwise, and it would make for significant complexity in any trial for two statutes with the same objective—the protection of the cultural heritage of every nation—not to define criminal intent in exactly the same way.

Section 1 of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 states—