Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.

I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.

I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.

I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.

I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.

Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.

Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.

This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience in this area. I declare an interest as a duty solicitor still on the books for doing my duty at police stations. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the practical application of a clause that I understand the Government have indicated they have no immediate plans to implement. Will he expand on the details about the interests of justice test? Does he agree that there is specific interest of justice in respect of the advice and assistance at the police station given to a detainee who has already lost his liberty? The issue of stating his case is different from what it would be in court, and he might need specific, independent advice.

[Karl Turner]

I would need more time to think about that, but I am tempted to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point. On the first point, however, am I supposed to believe the Minister when he says, “Well, we want this on the face of the Bill, but we are never going to use it.”? That is absolute, utter and complete nonsense. I asked my researcher to make inquiries with the Library and find out on how many occasions the previous Government—of whom I am entirely proud—may have used this provision as a tool. My researcher came back to me to say, “As far as the Library is concerned, there is no example whatever of a Government building provisions into an Act of Parliament that they never have any intention of using.” It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.

We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.

[Mr Burrowes]

All Members want there to be proper access to justice for all, and informed legal advice that can address miscarriages of justice and uphold people’s basic human rights in police stations. Might those charges be best recovered at the point of conviction? That would not create risks in respect of access to justice. Also, in prosecutions by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, applications are made that cover the costs for the whole of the investigation as well as the court costs.

[Ben Gummer]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior experience of such matters. There might be a mechanism under which retrospective charging would be possible. We could debate that, and Members on both sides of the House would make reasonable arguments. Given the phrasing of the provision currently under discussion however, such a debate is not possible now.

I hope the Government will be able to provide assurances on another problem. In principle, I am against contingent legislation. I remember sitting up in the Public Gallery when I was very small, watching others in this Chamber discuss prevention of terrorism legislation. The then Opposition, headed by Neil Kinnock, were arguing passionately against that legislation for precisely the reason I am discussing. I do not think that they were right in that circumstance, but I find troubling the idea of putting contingent legislation on the statute book that could be re-enacted by order later without reference to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will either flesh out their proposals for the retrospective charging of defendants should they be convicted or decide to approach this matter in a different way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

As we look forward to Christmas and see today the Third Reading of a criminal justice Bill, I am reminded of previous Government Bills that ended up as Christmas tree Bills with baubles being hung on them at any given opportunity as they went through Parliament. I am sure that as this Bill goes to the other place, Ministers will want to ensure that further baubles are not hung on it in the form of extra pieces of law that take the fancy of noble Lords, as well as any little elves.

I am particularly grateful for two important baubles in clauses 113 and 114—the significant victory for victims of crime concerning knife crime and serious injury by dangerous driving. One could look at the bottom of those provisions and see “Made in Enfield” on them. Six years ago, the Galli-Atkinson family in my constituency came to me after the sad loss of their daughter, who was the victim of a road crash in 1997. They told me about the impact on them of losing their loved one through the actions of a dangerous driver. They had campaigned vigorously for changes in dangerous driving legislation and increases in penalties, but when they came to me there was unfinished business with a gap in legislation. That led to my tabling an amendment in 2006 to try to plug that gap by ensuring that there is a specific offence of serious injury by dangerous driving, and that is now in the Bill.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that we now have a maximum sentence of five years for such offences. That deals with issues such as the very recent incident involving Rachel Jones, who is aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously at 98 mph by Carl Smith, who was unlicensed and drunk—an all too familiar story, sadly, across this country. Rachel was left with severe brain damage, and she will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith’s two-year jail sentence as “a joke”. Thanks to the Bill, there need be no more jokes like that; such offences will be taken seriously and will attract a five-year sentence.

Clause 114 deals with knife crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for championing this issue locally and nationally, and raising awareness in Enfield and elsewhere of the prevalence of knife crime—

[Karl Turner]

What about me?

[Mr Burrowes]

I was talking about knife crime, but I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on injury caused by dangerous driving. He made his case very well in Committee, and I recognise my omission.

Knife crime is a real issue; I have seen many cases going through the youth courts. Sadly, there seems to have been a blind spot when it comes to sentencing, however. There has not been uniform enforcement of the law in this area, and there is a need to plug that gap. Under clause 114, anyone carrying a knife who is threatening and endangering life is likely to go to prison. If they are 16 or over, they will have to go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, we must pay due regard to the circumstances of young people, but the intention of the clause is that a custody threshold will have been reached. That has been welcomed in Enfield and across the country.

The Bill is good news for the victims of knife crime and of dangerous driving. The duties in the Bill relating to compensation are now going to be systemic, and that is important to the victims of crime. Prisoners will need to consider their victims as they serve their sentences; when they earn money, it will go into a victims’ fund. We will also at last see an open door to businesses, ensuring that prisons will work. The prisons Minister joined me in celebrating the 2,000th graduate from the National Grid young offender programme. Those people are now getting into real work and getting out of crime. Their reoffending rate is a very low percentage, compared with the national average. The Bill opens up the way for projects such as those, and many more. On prisons, we want to say that we are not locking out the community; we are open for business.

This is a reforming Bill; it does not simply seek to introduce more legislation without due regard. As we look to the new year, I want there to be a resolution that we shall not be coming back to the House next year with another piece of criminal justice legislation. I commend the sentencing part of the Bill to the House.