Eleventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Thursday 25 March 1999
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999
10 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move.
That the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999.
The order was laid before the House on 8 March 1999. The background is that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 8 April 1998, amended the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 to make provision for police interviews to be audio recorded and for the audio recording arrangements to be governed by a code of practice.
Audio recording will add to the range of existing safeguards. For example, a statutory code of practice is already in place governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody. It requires, amongst other things, continued detention of suspects to be reviewed at 12-hourly intervals; the maintenance of detailed custody records; and breaks for all normal meal times.
It also provides for regular visits and examinations by a medical practitioner, and a right for the detained person to have a continuous period of eight hours in any period of 24 hours free from questioning, travel or interruption. Audio recording will run alongside the existing system of silent video recording. That, too, is governed by a statutory code of practice and has been mandatory since 10 March 1998.
The posts of independent commissioner and deputy commissioner for the holding centres provide valuable assurances that the range of safeguards is being fully and properly applied. These safeguards demonstrate that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the protection of the rights of those held in police custody.
The draft order before the Committee today will bring into operation a code of practice governing audio recording, which was laid in draft before this House on 23 February 1999. It was drawn up to mirror as closely as possible the equivalent Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 code of practice on tape recording of interviews with suspects.
The draft code sets out a range of requirements that must apply when interviews with terrorist suspects are audio recorded; it also gives guidance for police officers and others on the application and interpretation of the code.
Section 1 of the code describes to whom it applies; defines some of the terms that appear in it; and requires that it be readily available at all police offices that are designated for the detention of terrorist suspects. Section 2 is concerned with the integrity of the system and requires that a twin deck tape recorder be used, with one tape—chosen by the detained person—serving as the master tape.
Section 3 specifies when audio recording shall apply. Section 4 deals with the interview from prior to commencement: the loading of the tape recorder, through to cautioning; dealing with objections or complaints; changing tapes; breaks in the interviewing process; and the conclusion of the interview, including the removal of the tapes from the recorder.
Section 5 describes what happens after the interview in terms of the preparation of written records of the interview; and sections 6 and 7 deal respectively with tape security and the destruction of tapes.
The laying of the draft code of practice followed a public consultation exercise last autumn, when all interested parties were invited to comment. Of the 70 or so individuals and bodies who received a copy of the draft code, 12 made comments. Apart from the legal agencies, these included the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the independent Commission for police complaints.
Most respondents expressed support for the move to introduce audio recording of terrorist interviews. It is a constructive measure, which will do much to build confidence in the police interviewing system. In the interests of maintaining parity with the equivalent provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, only minor amendments were made to the code in light of the detailed comments received.
Once the draft order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and is made, the Secretary of State will make a further order. That order, which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, will require from 24 May the audio recording of police interviews with persons detained under section 14(1)(a) and section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The second order will also specify additional circumstances in which police interviews will be audio recorded in accordance with the code. I shall explain what those additional circumstances will be.
Occasionally, a person is brought before a magistrates court after being charged with one offence, and the police need to interview him further at a holding centre about other offences. In such circumstances, the police are not required to make a section 14 PTA arrest, or a further section 14 PTA arrest, as the case may be. Instead, they will apply under article 47(4B) of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to have the accused remanded into custody of a police officer for the purposes of further inquiries into other, terrorism-related offences. It is proposed that interviews that take place in those circumstances will be required to be conducted in accordance with the code.
I am sure that the Committee will welcome the step that the Government have taken to bring the draft code of practice into operation on 24 May. Keeping it closely in line with PACE provisions is consistent with the Government's declared aim of aligning holding centre procedures with those applicable under ordinary criminal law.
The Government have consistently taken the view that the many benefits of audio recording make the measure a worthwhile step. Audio recordings will provide the best available evidence in court proceedings. Their disclosure to the courts should reduce the length of contested trials arising from confessions. Tape recordings will provide the best available evidence to prove or disprove allegations of psychological abuse or harassment.
I am happy to say that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—RUC—fully supports the move. On his authority, the audio recording system has been operating in the holding centres since midnight on 10 January 1999. That has provided a useful opportunity to test the system. I am sure that the Committee will wish to note that, since then, the police have experienced no procedural difficulties conducting the numerous audio recorded interviews.
10.7 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): As we said during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, we welcome the introduction of audio recording of interviews. We therefore welcome this order, which sets out the code of practice and the implementation date of 24 May.
Why has it taken so long to establish the procedure? Reasons were given last year, and the delays may be due to the cost of equipment and training, and to the consultation process. Nevertheless, a year has passed, which seems an inordinately long time. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee why it has taken so long to achieve implementation. I presume that the equipment will be available in the three holding centres, and that it will be the same in each of them.
There has been consultation, to which the Minister alluded, but has the system been monitored in trials? Are we sure that the code of practice is set out in a way that offers the RUC a workable and practical system? Is the system replicated elsewhere? Is the system—and its procedures—used on the United Kingdom mainland, elsewhere in Europe, or in the United States? Is it a bespoke system devised and brought together by the RUC and the Northern Ireland Office, albeit after consultation with outside bodies?
If the system begins in May but, after some time, does not seem to be working as well as it should, what are the procedures for making changes to the code of practice? Are they already built into the order, will further legislation have to be introduced or can changes be made simply by the RUC in consultation with the Northern Ireland Office or the Assembly, if the latter has any influence on these matters in future?
We welcome the introduction of audio recording. I am puzzled as to why we still have silent video recording. I accept that a separate audio recording is necessary, but why can there not be two sets of audio recordings, one alongside the video with the tape, so that, as people speak, the words fit their mouth movements and one can see what they said and when? That will assist the judicial process, as the Minister said. I hope that it will ensure that justice is done, that time wasting in the courts is a thing of the past and that the real criminals are brought to book as speedily as possible. We support the order wholeheartedly.
Julie Dansie
10.11 am
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): This is a good code of practice and I support it, but I seek some clarification. At the end of the code of practice, section 7, headed ``Tape Destruction'', says:
``At the conclusion of criminal proceedings, or in the event of a direction not to prosecute, the contents of a working copy of the tape shall be completely erased.''
It goes on:
``Unless the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Code of Practice, apply, or unless civil proceedings have been instigated or it is clear that none will be, master tapes will be destroyed six years after the date of the interview.''
My concern is that miscarriage of justice cases can come to light after six years. How do the provisions of the code relate to that? If a person is found guilty on the basis of the tape evidence and the case comes up subsequently as a possible miscarriage of justice, it might be necessary to return to the original interview. Will the master tape be destroyed after six years?
10.12 am
| 
