HC Deb 26 April 1967 vol 745 cc1705-8
Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 30, at the end to insert: (3) The following provisions shall also have effect in relation to any written statement tendered in evidence under this section, that is to say—

  1. (a) if the statement is made by a person under the age of twenty-one, it shall give his age;
  2. (b) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it shall be read to him before he signs it and shall be accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read; and
  3. (c) if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall be accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary in order to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

We can take at the same time Amendment No. 13—in page 6, line 19.

Mr. Taverne

These Amendments are partly the result of an Amendment which was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and partly the result of an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve).

Paragraph (a) in each Amendment provides that a statement made by a person under the age of 21 shall give his age. It is right that the recipient of a copy of a statement proposed to be offered in evidence should be able to assess its value by reference to the age of the person who made it if that person is young. It was suggested at one stage that the age should be 17, but we thought that 21 was marginally better.

Paragraph (b) in each Amendment provides that a statement made by someone who cannot read should be read to him by the person taking the statement, who should also complete a declaration himself.

Paragraph (c) in each Amendment provides that when a statement refers to any other document which is to be exhibited in the proceedings it is to be accompanied by a copy of the other document or the information necessary to enable the recipient of the statements to inspect it. It is the intention wherever practicable that copies should be served, but in some cases the exhibits may be extremely bulky ledgers, and this will not be practicable, and the requirement is then restricted to providing the opportunity for inspection. We are grateful to the hon. Member for North Fylde and the hon. and learned Member for Solihull for drawing this omission to our attention.

It was also suggested that we should deal with the statements of people who could not understand English. But on further consideration we thought that an Amendment to provide for this was not really necessary. It is obviously in the interests of the prosecution to ensure that it gets written statements accepted rather than oral evidence. Clearly, if somebody made a statement in a foreign language, a translation would be provided together with a copy of the original. Obviously, the prosecution would be interested in seeing that this was done, because if the defence offered a written statement in Chinese, not many people would accept it.

Mr. Clegg

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for moving the Amendment. It meets the points which were raised in Committee and it will help enormously both the defence and the prosecution.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment 3, in page 2, line 38, to leave out 'has power to commit' and to insert 'commits'.

This is a drafting Amendment to deal with a mistake in the original Bill which was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer). It is to restrict the cases in which normally written statements under the Clause are not to be read aloud to those in which the court commits the defendant for trial under Clause 1 without consideration of the evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 41, at the end to insert: 'and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment, we can discuss also Amendment No. 14, in Clause 7, page 6, line 40.

Mr. Taverne

Subsection (4) of Clause 2 and subsection (5) of Clause 7, with which Amendment 14 is concerned, require written statements tendered in evidence under the Clause to be read aloud in court. A discretion is given, however, to the courts to direct that the statement should not be read aloud. This implements a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee at paragraph 15 of its Report that where long, formal and repetitious evidence is to be given, time need not be wasted in oral recitation. It is, however, recognised that there should be no suggestion of secrecy being given to parts of statements which are not read aloud.

The Amendments, therefore, require an oral account to be given in court of any statement or part of a statement which is not read aloud in accordance with the provisions of those subsections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 7, at the end to insert: (7) In section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedure for preferring bills of indictment) the reference in proviso (i) to facts disclosed in any deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the defendant shall be construed as including a reference to facts disclosed in any such written statement as aforesaid. The Amendment provides for written statements admitted in evidence in committal proceedings to have the status of depositions for the purpose of founding indictments according to Section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933. Under that Section, indictment may contain counts founded on evidence disclosed in the depositions as well as, or instead of, those based on the charges on which the defendant was committed for trial.

In Committee, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) asked whether the status of depositions or written statements tendered under these Clauses should be covered by a general provision in the Bill. We have carefully reviewed all the references to depositions and we believe that such a general provision is not necessary and is not advantageous, because in some cases it would be wrong to equate statements with depositions.

A large number of Amendments will be required to the magistrates' courts' rules and these will be enacted in due course.

Amendment agreed to.