Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I rise to speak principally about new clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).

Before I do so, I should like to comment on amendment 116. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made a cogent case for deleting clause 12. The Minister rightly said in Committee that

“the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]

My hon. Friend underlined that that had been the experience in Scotland. It is therefore clear what the Government’s response should be. For the sake of clarity and succinctness, the Bill could appropriately lose clause 12.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment that would effectively get rid of the idea of means-testing in police stations. I agree that this is an issue of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I am surprised, however, that when he sat on the Bill Committee he did absolutely nothing about it when he could have supported my amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure whether he is saying that I should not be raising the point now, but that is what I am doing.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I am not going to give way. The point has been raised, it is on the record. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will speak about this in relation to amendment 148, and I am sure that he will echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the telephone gateway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the tradition of his speeches—lengthy. He should perhaps have waited until I had finished my comments before jumping to any conclusions.

[Karl Turner]

Will you be supporting it?

[Tom Brake]

We have rightly highlighted issues such as criminal negligence in earlier debates, and this afternoon we will focus on libel and slander cases that affect a relatively small number of people.

[Karl Turner]

Give us a clue Tom!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

Absolutely. We have talked about the evidence, but it is almost so overwhelming that we must begin to wonder what is behind this. What on earth is going on here?

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

An answer that I have been given is that this is all in the coalition agreement.

[Karl Turner]

Come over!

[Mr Ward]

Hang on.

Occasionally I try to abide by the coalition agreement, but this is not in there. There is in the coalition agreement something about the deficit reduction, and I am up for that—we do desperately need to reduce it—but I am not convinced that this will contribute to that. It is a very dangerous thing if we are going to use deficit reduction as a justification for almost anything that we might do. We have to question what we are doing.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

I need to bring my speech to an end. Others need to speak.

One thing that the coalition agreement does say is that we should have a fundamental review of legal aid. I am up for that. Absolutely. Where is it? Why on earth are we taking these measures? The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is due to undertake a debt management review, and there are a series of other reviews looking at advice centres and the work that they do. We should do that first.

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Mr Ward]

Oh, go on then.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he is also speaking for many Opposition Members. Has he thought about crossing the Floor and joining us?

[Mr Ward]

I tell you what: I promise to do so once we have sorted out the mess you left us in. I shall come across then, because it will just be so much easier—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.

[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.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Karl Turner]

I will not give way, because many other Members are keen to speak in this important debate.

It worries me that the Government are ignoring expert advice on a proposal which, in my view, would remove a fundamental right from citizens, and that there has been no consultation whatsoever. The Bar Council and the Law Society have expressed honest concerns about the legislation, but the Government have completely ignored them, which is outrageous. Many members of the Bill Committee took that point on board, but in an article one of them, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), described the Bar Council as bewigged Scargillites. I assure the House that my colleagues at the Bar are far from being bewigged Scargillites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is always a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). His speech was passionate, well informed and full of some good sense. I was unable to support a similar amendment of his in Committee, because on one rather important issue I disagree with him. I do not think it is wrong in principle for a millionaire who has been convicted of murder to be charged for the legal defence they received at the police station. However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that what is important is the point at which that charging happens.

[Karl Turner]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, too. I mean that sincerely.

I recall attending a police station to represent a doctor who had an NHS practice as well as a private practice. If he had said to me, “Listen, I’ll pay you,” I would not have continued to advise him in what was a very important case. When a solicitor turns up at a police station in such circumstances, they cannot be sure they will be paid. Even if the doctor had given me an absolute, cast-iron assurance that I would get that money, the firm of solicitors that employed me would not have allowed me to stay there. That is why I disagreed with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in Committee. He suggested that two hours should be free, and then there could be charging. I disagree; I think anybody in a police-station scenario should be entitled to free and independent legal advice.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

This is not filibustering. I will explain why. [Interruption.] I got the impression that a promethean career had been cut short by the principles of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but at no point—

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you offer some guidance? When time is short and we are keen to debate the important issues in the Bill, is it right for hon. Members to go off the point so widely?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am allowing a little latitude, and I mean a little. I am sure Mr Gummer will wish to get his remarks straight back on to the business before us.

--- Later in debate ---

This will be a terrible disaster for my constituents. The constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) may be more privileged than mine are. They may not need this kind of assistance, and he may not have surgeries bursting with constituents with problems. He may not receive the same number of e-mails, telephone calls and letters—[Interruption.] He smiles. Perhaps he would like to say—

[Karl Turner]

He thinks it’s funny. It’s disgusting. It’s a disgrace.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

I too should declare an interest, in that I have practised at the criminal Bar since 1990.

I congratulate the Minister on at least having the decency to bring in clause 12 through primary legislation, unlike the previous Government, who sought to bring in such a measure through secondary legislation until they were prevented from doing so by the High Court. I am afraid, however, that that is the limit of my congratulations, because—

[Karl Turner]

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the previous Government had no plans to bring in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

[Simon Reevell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him a copy of the case.

The clause reveals a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, and especially of the importance of the timing and purpose of police interviews. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has spoken—perhaps until just recently—with passion about police interviews from a defence perspective, and what he said was right. Just in case the Minister is not swayed by the defence, however, I would ask him also to pause and consider this matter from the perspective of the prosecution.

Police interviews always take place at a time chosen by the prosecuting authorities, and the time is chosen because it is advantageous to them. In complex cases, perhaps involving drugs or organised violence, the police may arrange for simultaneous arrests, not least so that they can try to put the account of one arrested person against that of another, and try to break up those whom they believe to be part of a complicated conspiracy. The timing of the arrest might also be brought forward for the purpose of arranging the interview, in order to prevent a crime, or to protect a witness or a police source.

All that will fail if the arrest has taken place and the person has been brought to the police station for interview, yet nothing happens while their means are picked over and the interviewing officer drinks tea. Evidence could be lost, co-accused could flee, and witnesses could be harmed. All that will take place in the period allowed for detention, which is slowly being eaten away. The accused will not have details of his means on him. Surely we are not seriously suggesting that armed police who are looking for drugs, blood-stained clothing or weapons will be asked to look for three years’ accounts or 12 months’ pay slips.

There is a serious point to that. The rapist whom I prosecuted in the summer, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, was interviewed at a time that the police chose because it was appropriate for the purposes of their investigation. If they had had to wait while his means were established in order for his legal representation to be provided, it would not have been helpful to their inquiry—it would not have been what they wanted to do, and I am sure it would not have been what the victim of that offence would have wanted them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

Many right hon. and hon. Members made serious and appropriate points. Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said. I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) referred in his remarks to claims that the previous Government planned to legislate for means-testing in police stations. The Lord Chancellor wrote to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 2 August. Will the Government confirm that he wrote to apologise and that the letter will appear in the Library?

--- 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.