Criminal Justice Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): The hon. and learned Lady is being critical of the judiciary, and in some respects I understand that. However, is she aware that at the most recent judicial seminars for all practising and part-time judges in London, there have been lectures on the issue of domestic violence at which it has been explained to the judiciary that domestic violence is almost more aggravating than common or garden violence? The judiciary are taking that point on board now, even if they once did not. Vera Baird: It is nothing but to the credit of the Judicial Studies Board that it has at last started to take such issues on board. The issue of domestic violence has been at the forefront of gender issues, to the disadvantage of the issue of rape. The quotations to which I referred are quite recent. I have asked a raft of questions about the education that judges receive in order to try rape cases. Although the Lord Chancellor replies that only the most sympathetic are able to do try such cases, he cannot point to any criteria. Furthermore, High Court judges do not have any compulsory training at all. The Judicial Studies Board does not apply to High Court judges—they can opt for it—but by and large they go on to the Court of Appeal and set the precedents that guide those beneath them. Such a system is next to useless, as it educates those at the bottom but not those whose findings they have to follow. I could go on for hours on the iniquities of the judiciary, but it is not only I who say that. It is a real complaint and a real danger. I urge the Minister to think again. 2.45 pm Mr. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness): It is a pleasure to make my first proper contribution to the Committee, and I do so with some trepidation, having seen the tremendous experience and expertise ranged on both sides. I have not practised or studied law in any detail, so I hope that the Committee will be gentle with me. Some serious issues are at stake in the clause. I agree with other hon. Members that it will undermine the criminal justice system and the public's confidence in it—and it may at times bring it into severe and Column Number: 303 serious disrepute. As an outsider, I take note of what the experts say. It is pertinent that the Law Society and the Bar Council are unequivocally opposed to the clause. I do not wish to repeat what has been said, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) both said that it is potentially a slippery slope and that we are only one small step away from the rights of the defendant being taken away. It will be much more difficult to explain what I would call bizarre, unusual and unexpected decisions. The public accept that such decisions occur occasionally—there are 12 minds working on a case in a jury trial—but if there is only one judge, he could appear tainted. At best, it could seem that the old boy network was at work; at worst, there could be a perception of corruption. I do not suggest that our judiciary are susceptible to corruption: I am talking about the public's perception. We shall deal with that in a little more detail when we come to clauses 38 to 40, on jury tampering, but I suspect that one individual is far more easily got at than 12. I reiterate what I said when intervening on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The public have tremendous confidence in the split between the Executive and the judiciary. There have been times when ''pressure'' has been brought to bear—I am going back a long way, for example to the train robbers, when political influence was supposedly brought to bear to ensure a conviction. I would not want the public to have the perception that judges could be politically influenced, but there is no chance of that happening with the jury system. I am afraid that it might happen if we go down this route. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that jurors have a far greater breadth of experience and knowledge of life and come from a far greater spectrum of the community than one judge could. Judges inevitably come from a white, male, middle-class background; jurors obviously do not. There is also a greater propensity for jurors to come from a wider area of the community, and they will have a greater dispersal of prejudice. Again, a judge is inevitably going to have some prejudices, and that may influence some decisions. I have great fears—I shall go into them in more depth when we reach clause 37—about the pressure applied to judges, particularly by the media in high-profile cases because a celebrity has been mentioned. The judge could end up being the person on trial: his background and that of his family could be explored. That might also touch on the point about the judge having prejudicial views that might influence his decision. Those are my fundamental concerns about the clause. Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): I want to make a few short points in support of the clause. I have listened carefully to the opposition from a number of quarters on both sides of the Committee—it is important in these matters for there to be a measure Column Number: 304 of agreement, so it is incumbent on those of us who are not of the same mind to listen to one another. I am sure that the Minister has done so. It is telling that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar used the same example, in order to make exactly opposite points. I see the hon. Member for Beaconsfield nodding. He mentioned that a paedophile would want to use the system to avoid a jury trial because the jury would not like to hear the circumstances of his activity, whereas my hon. and learned Friend used the argument the opposite way round. That cannot be right— Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The hon. and learned Lady and I approached the issue from opposite directions, but both approaches were legitimate. Her example was as valid as mine—people will play the system and will be perceived to be trying to do so for a particular benefit, whereas the present system does not allow anyone to contemplate such a strategy. That illustrates how the justice system is in danger of being brought into disrepute and question. Stephen Hesford: I am quite unprepared to accept that. Under one of the arguments, the paedophile will be in front of a jury, which one or other of those arguments tries to avoid. I do not see that there is not a logical fallacy—there is. I submit that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is being perverse in his argument. He does not like the clause because he favours jury trial. That is a perfectly proper position for him to take, although I do not agree with it. However, he goes on to try to undermine the clause by getting rid of the safeguards within it. Again, that is an illogical position. Mr. Grieve: I do not think that it is illogical. Even if we got rid of the so-called safeguard measures, I would be very uneasy, but at least the clause would have a consistency to it that made it less likely to be called into public question. I accept that, even with the safeguards removed, it would still enable people to play the system. There is a double mischief involved: first, the manipulation of the system, and secondly the public perception of the system being manipulated. By including the exceptions provisions, we shall make the situation much more difficult, even though I understand why they have been put in. The flaw in the Minister's argument is that he includes them, having said that he thinks that trial by judge alone is equally good. He cannot mean that, because he has included the exceptions. Stephen Hesford: I do not accept that. I hear the hon. Gentleman, but there is a lack of logic at the heart of his position. He can hold one view, but not both; the fact that he is prepared to argue both undermines his position of principle that there should not be a move away from jury trial. One has to look at this part of the Bill as a whole. I was not privy to the drafting or to the discussions about why it might be presented in this particular form, but it seems unlikely that those drafting the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Minister, would not have had in mind the need for balance. Clause 38 might be Column Number: 305 seen as the nub of this part of the Bill, and it must have crossed people's minds that clause 37 is an attempt to achieve balance. The Minister will no doubt tell me whether I have understood the Bill's logic—he is not nodding at the moment—but it seems right to provide balance by including clause 37. Clause 38 essentially withdraws one of the defendant's rights, and he should have an equal opportunity to explore his possibilities. To wrap up the point, no one has consistently argued how clause 36 can be fundamentally prejudicial to a defendant's interests if it is the defendant who elects trial by judge. The issue has been skirted round, but I do not follow that line of argument. Non-jury trials—judge only trials, involving lay magistrates or what were formerly known as stipendiary magistrates—take place in different courts at different times, and the principle is long established. Mr. Grieve: The principle that a defendant may elect trial by judge alone is clearly not unfair to him. The unfairness in the clause creeps in through the exceptions, which may prejudice the interests of those who want to opt for trial by judge alone but cannot do so. However, we must consider the wider interest, which goes beyond that of the defendant. Is it fair or good for the criminal justice system to include the mechanism in the clause? As I hoped I had explained, the clause is in danger of causing serious injustice. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar highlighted the injustice that may be done to victims, and we should consider that. Stephen Hesford: Again, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. To conclude, however, I am not at all persuaded by the arguments that have been arrayed against the clause. If it is pushed to a vote, I will support it.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 14 January 2003