SEIZED ARTICLES: ACCESS AND COPYING (Hansard, 14 May 1984)

§ Mr. Hurd
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this motion it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 5 — Retention of seized articles.
Government amendments Nos. 50 to 52, Government amendments Nos. 79 to 82, Government amendments 26 Nos. 136 to 138, Government amendment No. 145, Government amendment No. 146 and Government amendment No. 235.

§ Mr. Hurd
These new clauses and amendments are concerned with a number of matters relating to property, both the limits within which the police are able to retain property which they have seized and the facility of access to such property when it has been seized.
New clause 4 clarifies and standardises the rights of owners to access to and copies of seized material and responds to an undertaking that I gave in Committee. It largely replaces subsections (3) to (7) of clause 19, the purpose being to provide a new clause of general application which, although it refers specifically to articles seized under clause 19, will apply also to articles seized under clauses 29, 48 and 49 and schedule 1 as a result of consequential amendments.
The main practical point corresponds to one raised in Committee. The main difference is that we shall now, under the new clause, ensure that unless the officer in charge of the investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that it would prejudice the investigation the person who has had custody or control of a seized article must be permitted access to it on request. As at present drafted, access is provided for only if the making of a copy is impracticable. Someone whose business papers have been seized may not want a copy but may simply want to remind himself of them. The new clause introduces that flexibility.
The purpose of new clause 5 is to simplify the drafting of the Bill. It reproduces the effect of what are at present subsections (8) and (9) of clause 19, which set out the circumstances in which the police retain articles seized in the course of a search of premises. There is now to be a single code governing the retention of property as a result of the new clause and the consequential amendments.
Briefly, seized articles may be retained only so long as is necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. In particular, they may be retained for use as evidence in a trial, for forensic examination or to find out who the lawful owner is. Articles may not be retained if a photograph or copy would suffice for police purposes.
Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52 are essentially drafting amendments or consequential on the changes that I have already outlined. I hope that they will be acceptable to the House.
Amendment No. 79 corrects a drafting error in clause 29(8). Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 are consequential on new clauses 4 and 5 which I have already moved. The amendments apply the provisions of the new clauses to articles found in the course of a search under clause 29 which are thought to be evidence of an offence. I hope that the House will find that a satisfactory simplification.
Amendment No. 136 fulfils an undertaking which we gave in Committee. It removes two subparagraphs from clause 48 which on examination are not needed.
Clause 48(7) provides that the police do not have to explain the reason for the seizure of property to a person who has been searched at a police station and who is incapable of understanding what is said to him. Through an oversight, there was not a similar saving in the case when a detained person is violent or likely to become violent, although that saving appears in the parallel situations covered in clauses 33(6) and 34(6). We do not think it sensible to require the custody officer to go through 27 the motions of giving an explanation to a violent or struggling person. Amendment No. 137 deals with that point.
Amendment No. 138 brings clauses 29 and 48 into line. That also meets a point which was made in Committee.
Amendment No. 145 is similar to the amendment to clause 48(6) to which I have already spoken. The purpose is to empower the custody officer to seize and retain articles found in the course of an intimate search which constitute evidence of an offence. That is all that is needed and the amendment accordingly deletes subparagraphs (i) and (ii), which serve no useful purpose.
Amendment No. 146, together with an earlier amendment to clause 48, remedies a defect inasmuch as it ensures that the powers to retain property seized as a result of a search of an arrested person are in a standard form.
Amendment No. 235 inserts a new paragraph 5A, which applies the safeguards of subsection (12) and (13) of clause 19 and new clauses 4 and 5 to material which is produced to the police as required by an order under paragraph 4, schedule 1 and retained by them. Thus the person concerned will be entitled to a record of anything retained within a reasonable time of requesting one.
The amendments may appear to be complicated, but I am sure that those hon. Members who have followed these matters will see that they are an attempt to tidy and simplify the Bill, which attracted some criticism in Committee.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
The right hon. Gentleman has, as he pointed out, responded to some of the matters that were raised in Committee. Therefore, we find the new clauses and amendments acceptable.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
If under new clause 4(3) a request is made for a photograph or a copy, the request in the first instance would come from the person who had that material in his possession before the seizure took place, or by someone acting on behalf of such a person. I understand the need for that. It may well be a solicitor or somebody else. My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the argument that I have put before, that where someone else, purporting to act for the original person, wishes to make such a request, in this part, or in other parts, of the Bill, the police must have some means of identifying the propriety of that request. Generally speaking, it ought to be authorised in writing by the owner from whom the matter concerned has been seized.
I do not ask my right hon. Friend to undertake that change now. I simply put it to him that the police could be put in difficulty if any Tom, Dick or Harry came in and said that he had authority to make a request and there was no means of establishing that he was genuinely entitled to do so. Thus it may be that written consent is appropriate, or that some other wording is required. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter before the Bill reaches another place.

§ Mr. Hurd
I should have thought that the police would have to be satisfied that the person making the request was acting on behalf of the person whose papers or property were under consideration, but let me look at it.