Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Simon Reevell and Karl Turner

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I declare an interest, in that I still practise at the Bar, so to a certain extent I comment on this Bill as someone who may have to make its provisions actually work. In that context, I think the Bill contains some very positive measures, especially on sentencing and cautions.

I had not appreciated that the entire Labour party was against the policy of cautioning that it introduced or that one consequence of the general election of 2010 was that the use of cautioning suddenly escalated. I had understood that this policy was introduced and promoted by the previous Government, and that it has been absolutely corrosive to the criminal justice system. It has undermined the public’s confidence in the police, who are perceived to use cautioning as an easy solution; and it has caused problems in the criminal justice system, where co-accused are separated, with one being cautioned and the other being prosecuted. I am glad that this Government are doing what they can to start to turn around that ship, but let us not forget who launched it and pushed it on its course.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman speaks on these issues with real knowledge as a member of the Bar—he is a member of my old circuit, so I know him well. Does he not accept that when budgets are constrained and the police have had something like a 30% cut to their budget, there is a temptation for them just to go for a caution without a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on charging? Is that not possible?

[Simon Reevell]

My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman was a member of my circuit, but I will have a think about that. Cautioning has been utterly corrosive, and even when people have been prosecuted the sentencing procedures that have been put in place have been difficult for lawyers, and impossible for non-lawyers, to understand. The point has been well made that the idea of someone serving no more than half a sentence is difficult for people to take on board, but when somebody reappears after a few days or a few weeks the public simply cannot comprehend it. A good start is linking the release of serious offenders to the scrutiny of the Parole Board. It is an important link and I am glad that it is being reintroduced. I say “reintroduced” because it worked very well in the 1990s, but since then we have had indeterminate sentences for public protection, and judging by some of the comments today it is clear that the party that introduced them still does not understand the problems they caused.

The Bill has the advantage of introducing a system that imposes a period of imprisonment that will be served unless, after a substantial time, the Parole Board approves early release. The Bill retains the incentive for the prisoner and provides a valuable safeguard for the rest of us—that is a good piece of legislation. What a pity that we had to have those years of messing around with alternatives before going back to something that worked well in the 1990s.

When someone is released, is it wrong to use technology to monitor them? I understand that some people will be uncomfortable with the idea of tracking humans with a global positioning system, but is it any different from putting a tag on someone and using different technology to monitor whether or not they enter or leave a building? Surely when people are precluded by court order from going to certain locations, there is nothing wrong in monitoring that with technology. There is always a line with technology that we should not cross, but this Bill falls far short of it.

If someone on licence breaches the terms of that licence and will do so again, why should they not have to serve the remainder of their sentence? Most people probably assume that that is what happens anyway, and would be surprised to learn that the system provided for anything else. People have the licence terms explained to them: if they breach the licence and it looks as though they will do it again, they should serve their sentence, and there cannot be anything wrong with that.

One aspect of the Bill that has received media attention relates to proceedings for judicial review. Is it really controversial that those who wish to be involved in someone else’s case may have to pay towards the cost of those proceedings? Those who appear as interveners are free to provide their assistance, knowledge and experience to any party in any case, but if they want to appear themselves, why should it be assumed that one of the parties will automatically pick up their costs or that they will have no responsibility for the costs that they incur on behalf of others? They are free to pass on their expertise and knowledge, but if they want to take part in the litigation, some responsibility may come with that.

Legal Aid Reform

Debate between Simon Reevell and Karl Turner

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Reevell]

My hon. Friend makes the same point very well.

Secondly, as a Conservative, I do not like the removal of choice from the market. It does not really matter that the individual concerned happens to be a defendant in criminal proceedings; after all, at that stage he or she is presumed innocent until proven guilty—we do still have that. The removal of choice in the selection of representation concerns me. The idea that the state will prosecute, that it will contract those who defend, and that those contractors are likely, under these proposals, to employ the defence advocate, is worrying. I have dealt with cases that have involved issues of security and of taking on the Government, for example in relation to what the previous Government did in Iraq. I wonder whether someone working for an organisation that had a contract with the Government would feel as able as I did to take on those issues and seek to expose them in the course of a trial, regardless of consequences, as a member of the independent Bar.

There are smaller difficulties. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) referred to the proposed fee structure. In fact, that already exists elsewhere. Some military cases in Germany are paid for on that principle, but with an escape clause, as it were, that recognises that it is not suitable for the more serious cases. That suggests that it is therefore not suitable to be rolled out across the Crown court system for the vast majority of criminal cases.

The expression of support for an independent Bar in the consultation document is inconsistent with the model that is proposed, under which advocacy would be kept in-house to offset the reductions necessary to take part in the tendering process. That has implications not only for members of the independent Bar but for judicial recruitment and for the availability of experienced prosecutors. The Ministry of Justice might want to think about what it is doing not only in relation to those who defend in the Crown court but to where it will get those to whom it looks to prosecute serious cases—the murders, the rapes, the woundings, and matters of that sort.

Having criticised the consultation document, it does contain something that has not been offered to any other group of people. I used to be a soldier. Soldiers were not told, “These are the proposals—if you’ve got some of your own we’ll look at them”; they were simply told, “These are the proposals.” It is the same for teachers, firemen and everybody else. Lawyers are being told, “These are the proposals—if you’ve got alternatives and they achieve the same result, then the Department will go with them.” Anybody who works in the criminal justice system knows that savings can be made.

[Karl Turner]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the consultation document is really about considering alternatives, the Justice Secretary should meet the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association? He has made himself available on numerous occasions, and the Justice Secretary has refused to see him. Would it not be sensible for the Justice Secretary to agree immediately to that meeting?

[Simon Reevell]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well why that discussion has not taken place and that the prelude to it did not involve a method that was taught at the Bar school course that he did. I hope that those difficulties can be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

rose—

[Simon Reevell]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had one go and that is quite enough.

The consultation has a blunt instrument to deal with the expense of long trials which impacts on the majority of Crown court work, but there is a simpler solution—the abolition of very high-cost cases. Nobody needs them, nobody wants them, and they can be got rid of. That would save money at a stroke.

Allowing choice but banning the practice of client poaching is another effective way of saving money. There are simple measures such as making prisons provide video links so that solicitors can have video conferences and therefore not have to be paid to travel to prisons. The majority of prisons will not allow solicitors to have such facilities. Other options would be controlling who within defence teams is paid to read and use material, thinking about whether those with frozen assets can be asked to pay for their own defence, and looking at how those who are convicted can be asked to contribute towards the cost of their representation. There are all sorts of ways of doing this.

If those making these proposals and those opposing them on the grounds of the consultation document, while recognising in principle that savings have to be made, were opposing litigants, a sensible judge would tell them to go outside and settle the case. The flaws in the consultation document are apparent, and the alternatives are there for consideration. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that we are getting to the time when this needs to be sorted out and resolved, because that can obviously be done with the acceptance of all.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Simon Reevell and Karl Turner

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.