§ 2.49 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Committee on Identification Procedures has considered cases where convicted black people have been granted free pardons or where their conviction has been quashed on appeal and where the evidence against them depended, to a substantial degree, on identification by witnesses; and whether on the basis of such cases there is any evidence to show that black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted than white people as a result of the current identification procedures.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I would ask the noble Lord and the House to await publication of the report.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, but surely the noble Lord must be aware whether or not the Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, has looked at this matter? Has the noble Lord studied the reports appearing in Psychology Today, and the research conducted by Bristol University using 28 police volunteers which showed that the police officers concerned were more than twice as likely to mis-identify black people as white people? Does the noble Lord think that this evidence suggests that there is a much greater degree of danger of black people being wrongly convicted on the basis of identification evidence? Does he think that this will tend to reinforce the opinion held in some sections of the black community that they are less likely to receive justice from a British court than white people?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I have read the article in Psychology Today as well as the brief article which appeared in The Times on 21st January last. I have also read The New Law Journal of 6th July 1972. It is true that a recent article in Psychology Today referred to the difficulty people had in recognising others who were of a different ethnic origin. It reinforces earlier studies which the Devlin Committee considered and the lessons to be learned from it will be studied by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office; but I do not think it would be right to decide now on firm conclusions regarding actions to be taken before the report has been printed and considered.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two very short questions? First, when does he expect the report of the Devlin Committee? Secondly, assuming that there is a difficulty in differentiating between people of a different ethnic origin, does not that simply underline the necessity for proper procedures for identification rather than give rise to the suggestion for different people to get different treatment from the courts?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, in reply to the first question put by the noble and learned Lord, I understand that the Home Secretary hopes that the report will be published before the Easter Recess. As I understand it, the report was received by him at the end of last week and he is considering it at the present moment. The second point raised by the noble and learned Lord concerns a good many people, not least my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office, because of the particular difficulties which have been set out. I can only say that at the moment the Home Office have no evidence to suggest that procedures relating to identification are inherently biased against any racial group, but I do not know what the report says. This is a matter which has been considered by the Committee and one we shall have to look at when the report is available.