|
Column Number: 907
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 11 February 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
8.55 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
(1) the Committee recommends that the programme order [16th December] in relation to the Hunting Bill be amended as follows
In paragraph (2) of the order, for '13th February' substitute '27th February';
(2) the Order of the Committee [7th January] be amended as follows—
In paragraph (1), at the end, add '(except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February)';
In paragraph (3), leave out '13th' and insert '27th'.
During previous sittings, hon. Members made it clear that they wanted further time to consider all aspects of the Bill. We discussed that in the Programming Sub-Committee following the adjournment of our previous sitting and it was felt sensible to make provision for the Committee to sit on Tuesday and Thursday following the short recess. Clearly, no one wants to encourage the Committee to sit beyond the necessary time to engage fully with all the issues that hon. Members wish to raise, but the proposal allows a considerable degree of flexibility to the Committee that I believe is welcomed by all those involved.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): We very much welcome the Government's understanding. A great deal in the Bill remains to be discussed and we would not be able to do that today and on Thursday. We welcome the Minister's proposed two extra days in Committee and look forward to making good use of them.
Andrew George (St. Ives): I am grateful to the Minister for providing additional time and I hope that we shall focus on using the extra time efficiently. Some important debates remain and I am sure that with your guidance, Mr. Stevenson, we shall avoid unnecessary repetition of our debates. I look forward to using the extra available time.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): I welcome the motion and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm my recollection that with the two extra days, the Committee stage will be substantially longer than any previous hunting Bill. Alun Michael: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Column Number: 908
Clause 4
HUNTING: ASSISTANCE
Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out 'knowingly' and insert 'expressly'.
The amendment may sound a little on the dry side to Labour Members but Opposition Members believe that it is important. It would change the offence of knowingly permitting land to be used for hunting to expressly permitting land to be used for hunting. The amendment is important because it would protect landowners from unjustified prosecution. For an offence to be committed, express permission would have to have been given by the landowner to the people hunting. The usual common law rules on secondary liability would still apply.
Under clause 4 as drafted, it would be a criminal offence for a person knowingly to permit his land to be entered or used in the course or commission of an offence under clause 1. However, there are well-established common law rules concerning secondary parties and it is draconian to go beyond them. Like all trainee barristers, I can do no better than to quote Archbold's ''Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice''; a work that is, I am sure, familiar to many Committee members, particular the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Chapter 18 states:
''Someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'.
The distinction between joint principals and principals/secondary parties can be hard to draw.
The words 'aid, abet, counsel or procure' should be given their ordinary meaning if possible.''
I am delighted to hear that they should be given their ordinary meaning if possible. To the lawyers, that is apparently an extraordinarily important point. Archbold goes on to make the point that
''Participation by helping in a crime can take many forms, including keeping watch (tacit) encouragement, providing the means (dogs, the use of land, vehicles etc.) It is important to appreciate that voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is a fact from which guilt can (but not necessarily) be inferred.
Clause 4 spreads the net wider than the usual principles since it might involve people who—entirely unintentionally—may be allowing the crime to occur on their land. We want to know the purpose of creating the crime in clause 4, and what it is about hunting that justifies a wider net being cast in this case than is normal in the law. That is particularly true because the supporters of clause 4 have apparently decided that the offence is not so serious as to justify imprisonment. Therefore, something that is a less serious offence in the broad scheme of things nonetheless involves people who are unintentionally involved in the offence being criminally liable.
It is not clear what one has to know for the offence to be committed. Let us suppose that a landowner thinks that he is letting people use his land for lawful activities, but it turns out that the activities are
Column Number: 909
unlawful. We must bear in mind that we are talking about whether people are registered for a particular area or mammal. It might be quite difficult for the landowner to know whether the hunt in question is carrying out a crime on his land.
Clause 4 may make a landowner a criminal for permitting another person to use his land even if, unbeknownst to him, that other person intends to hunt in contravention of the legislation. That seems draconian and quite unnecessary. It goes against the principle of the multi-option Bill that we considered in 2001, which contained the words ''knowingly permits.'' It was clear in that Bill that an owner or occupier would be criminally liable for merely permitting parties on to his land, but only if he knew what they were doing. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined, and it is not at all clear in the Bill what is meant by ''knowingly''.
Our amendment proposes that the word ''knowingly'' should be removed and replaced by the word ''expressly''. It is not a question of the landowner merely knowing that people are on his land; he must have expressly given them permission to break the law. The amendment is important in the context of English law, and uncontroversial. I hope that both sides will give it a fair wind.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): I should rather respond to what the Minister says. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of hunting, it seems reasonable to ensure that innocent people acting in good faith and in the spirit of the law are not dragged to court on the basis of their crumbling in the face of intimidation by unscrupulous individuals. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before I say anything else. Alun Michael: I resist the amendment because the Bill provides the necessary clarity. What are people expected to do in such circumstances? Under the Bill, a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1. The amendment would change the wording from knowingly permitting to expressly permitting. I recall similar discussions on this point the last time that a hunting Bill was considered in Committee.
Consent or permission can be given in a number of ways. Someone may allow somebody to do things on their land and even indicate that consent, although not expressly given, has been implicitly given. The drafting of the Bill is correct, because it makes it clear that a person cannot evade the intentions of the Bill in that way and it avoids any possible grounds for confusion. If a person or a body knowingly allows their land to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under clause 1, they would be committing an offence. That seems clear and reasonable.
Mr. Gray: Would the offence be clear and reasonable if the landowner suspected that an offence would be committed, but did not know that one would be?
Column Number: 910
Alun Michael: It would depend on what the landowner did. If the landowner knew full well that an offence would take place and failed to take steps to prevent it or to make it clear that he was not giving permission, he could be committing an offence. Clause 4 makes it clear that a person will commit an offence when they permit their land or dogs to be used for what they know will be unlawful hunting. Knowledge is the essence of the clause.
Mr. Gray: That is precisely my point. If the landowner does not know that an offence will be committed but merely suspects that one will be, the clause will not cover that. The use of the word ''knowingly'' indicates that the landowner knows for sure that an offence will be carried out. Surely the word ''suspects'' is better. That is why ''expressly'' is a better word in this context.
Alun Michael: I am not sure that it does have that effect. The explicit offence of assisting someone else to commit a crime is much clearer than relying on the common law offences of aiding and abetting. If somebody suspects that an event will take place on their land and they do not check, that rapidly becomes ''knowing''. If a person were aware that an offence would take place, it would be their responsibility to make sure that it did not.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I implicitly respect the advice that the Minister is receiving from his officials, but he is moving the criminal law a long way forward. There is no duty to prevent crime; there is not even a duty to report crime. If the Minister is suggesting that ''knowingly'' requires a person to do something positive to prevent crime, he is moving the criminal law vastly forward. He must be clear about what he is saying. Otherwise, he will create criminal law on the hoof.
| 
