HC Deb 14 May 1964 vol 695 cc709-13

(1) Where in any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle it is proved—

  1. (a) that the vehicle was let under a hire-purchase agreement, or was agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and
  2. (b) that a person (whether a party to the proceedings or not) became a private purchaser of the vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement,
the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles) of this Act in relation to those proceedings.

(2) It shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved, that the disposition of the vehicle to the person referred to in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection (in this section referred to as "the relevant purchaser") was made by the hirer or buyer.

(3) If it is proved that that disposition was not made by the hirer or buyer, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved,—

  1. (a) that the hirer or buyer disposed of the vehicle to a private purchaser who was a purchaser of the vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, and
  2. (b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the person to whom the hirer or buyer so disposed of the vehicle.

(4) If it is proved that the disposition of the vehicle to the relevant purchaser was not made by the hirer or buyer, and that the person to whom the hirer or buyer disposed of the vehicle (in this subsection referred to as "the original purchaser") was a trade or finance purchaser, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved,—

  1. (a) that the person who, after the disposition of the vehicle to the original purchaser, first became a private purchaser of the vehicle was a purchaser in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, and
  2. (b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the original purchaser.

(5) Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, where in any proceedings a party thereto admits a fact, that fact shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken as against him to be proved in relation to those proceedings.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. D. Price.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bingham

There are two matters which I wish to raise. I fear that both are technical and relate to the criminal law. The new Clause starts with the words: Where in any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle it is proved—

  1. (a) that the vehicle was let under a hire-purchase agreement…and
  2. (b) that a person…became a private purchaser…in good faith and without notice…"
I am not quite clear what the position in criminal law is if a vehicle on hire purchase is stolen from the hirer and finds its way into the motor market and eventually ends up in the hands of a person who thinks that he is a bona fide purchaser.

It seems to me that anyone who wishes to prosecute the hirer is in possession of, enough facts to do so. First, the vehicle is let under a hire-purchase agreement, and, secondly, someone, that is, "a person", has become a private purchaser of the vehicle in good faith. These presumptions hold good in criminal as well as civil law and on proof of these two facts the hirer might then be prosecuted for having sold a car which did not belong to him; in other words, for having stolen it from the hire-purchase company. In these circumstances, the hirer, although, in fact, the car would have been stolen from him, would be in the unique position in criminal law of having to prove his innocence. As they apply to criminal law, these presumptions should be reconsidered.

Subsection (5) of the new Clause says: Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, where in any proceedings a party thereto admits a fact, that fact shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken as against him to be proved in relation to those proceedings. I have no objection to that so far as it relates to civil proceedings, but the same point is valid in this connection if it applies to criminal proceedings. It seems to lead to a novelty which is undesirable, for although there is, I believe, some very tenuous authority for saying that a party to criminal proceedings can make an admission, so far as I know it is certainly not the practice in criminal courts for that to take place. If it is to be made competent for a defendant to criminal proceedings to make admissions, one wants to study the effects of a novelty like that and not have it come in, as it were, on the side-wind of a subsection of a hire-purchase Bill.

Secondly, some method of safeguarding the making of admissions should be found. For instance, I do not know whether it is envisaged that if the man makes a voluntary statement in writing at the instance of a police constable, that therein makes something which begins to be an admission and which would be taken to be an admission. I do not know at what stage of the proceedings the admission could be made. No man can be asked to explain his case or defend himself until the prosecution has put forward its case. At what stage would the admission fall to be made?

It may be said that an admission here is purely voluntary and that, if a man wants to make an admission, he should be able to do so, but, for the reasons which I have tried shortly to outline, that proposal should be viewed with caution and I hope that it will be reconsidered. This seems to be a somewhat major novelty for a hire-purchase Bill.

Mr. Weitzman

I think that the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) has raised an extremely important point with regard to subsection (5), and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that it is looked into because, from the point of view of criminal law, it is most important that we should not depart from the present adopted procedure that admissions should not be accepted. In criminal law strict proof has to be given of any facts sought to be proved against an accused person, but subsection (5) appears to give power to allow admissions to be made in criminal proceedings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the seriousness of this point.

Sir E. Errington

I referred to this originally because I did not understand the full effect of it. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham). There seems to be no need for this. If a person makes an admission, I should have thought that that would be sufficient.

This raises the question of the stage at which, in the course of criminal proceedings, an admission can be made, and under what circumstances, bearing in mind that a criminal prosecution is in the offing. This illustrates the difficulty into which one gets when dealing with a long Clause like this new one, without having the advantage of being able to discuss in Committee.

Mr. D. Price

I am advised that the new Clause does not go as far as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham). These presumptions are only for the purposes of the operation of the preceding new Clause which we have just passed—"Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles".

My hon. and learned Friend put subsection (5) into a rather wide context, and suggested that it was altering the laws of evidence in criminal proceedings by, as it were, the back door. I am advised that that is not so, and that these provisions are limited to the circumstances envisaged in new Clause 1, which will be the preceding Section in the Act.

Mr. Weitzman

If that is so, what is the necessity for the words "whether criminal or civil"?

Mr. Price

I understand that there can be criminal proceedings arising out of the provisions of the previous new Clause.

Mr. Bingham

I am not altogether with my hon. Friend at the moment. Will he consider saying "whether in any proceedings arising out of this section"? At the moment it says any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle…

Mr. Price

With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, if he reads on a little further, it says that the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles) of this Act in relation to those proceedings. That is my authority.

Mr. Bingham

I apologise to my hon. Friend. That kills that point, but it leaves open the wider point about the application of admission in criminal proceedings, and also the other point which I made about opening the door to the prosecution of any hirer whose vehicle might be stolen, and then putting him on his defence.

Mr. Weitzman

The hon. Gentleman referred to the words: the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles)… That is the first new Clause, which deals only with the arrangements that we are making for civil proceedings with regard to the transfer of a good title. It is not a question of contemplating criminal proceedings. What is the necessity for the words "whether criminal or civil"? May they not be interpreted as giving the prosecution the right to put in an admission of a fact? The law today is that the prosecution must prove that fact.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

Surely, if the effect of the provision is to give to the wrong-doer a notional title for the purpose of the Bill, it is desirable to make it clear that that would not affect criminal liability?

Mr. Price

I am advised that, with regard to subsection (5), the admission to prove something must be made in the course of proceedings. The question was whether the admission could be made to a policeman or in the witness box.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.

Sir E. Errington

I still do not understand subsection (5) and I should like an explanation of why it is there. I can understand the difficulties which arise from it, but why is it there? What purpose does it serve?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.