SUPERVISION OF COMPLAINTS BY AUTHORITY (Hansard, 15 May 1984)

§ Mr. Mellor
I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 34, leave out 'the offence for which he has been arrested' and insert 'an offence'.
This amendment makes material change to clause 29, which deals with searches of a person and the vehicle and premises that he is in at the time of his arrest. As presently drafted, the clause permits an arrested person to be searched for evidence relating to the offence for which he 282 has been arrested. The amendment will permit such a search for evidence of an offence not necessarily the offence for which the person has been arrested. The original thinking behind that part of clause 29 was to permit the police to search before the defendant arrives at the police station, so that evidence of the offence is not secreted, destroyed or otherwise hidden during the journey to the police station. On reflection, it seemed that if an officer believed that the individual concerned had upon him material pertaining to another offence, it was somewhat artificial to give him the opportunity to dispose of that evidence on his way to the station. There could be no material disadvantage to the defendant and considerable advantage to the rest of us if the amendment were made.

§ Mr. Kaufman
The hon. Gentleman has said that this is a material change. It is, indeed, and a highly disagreeable and unacceptable one. I cannot understand why the Government have decided to make the change. There was no discussion along these lines in Standing Committee. The Government have given no sign in advance that they wanted to do this, and it is difficult to understand their reasons.
The amendment states that the words "an offence" should be inserted in the clause. Instead, the amendment should insert the words "any offence", because the Government seek to turn this power of search into a type of fishing expedition in which someone can be examined in case he has committed any kind of offence and the police find any kind of evidence for any kind of offence. That will not do. I hope that the Government are not set on this approach. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary of State were to withdraw the amendment. Clearly, we are not in a position to defeat the measure, but I hope that the extremely strong exception taken by the Opposition to the proposed change will be noted in the other place and it will be defeated there. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman thought about this matter between now and when the Bill goes before the other place, and did not proceed with it.

§ Mr. Mellor
The amendment is in no sense an attempt to bounce the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on this matter. As he knows, we had a full discussion on all these issues in Standing Committee. When problems with the Bill were discovered and acknowledged as such, undertakings were given. A possible logical inconsistency occurs where an officer has arrested a person for one specific offence and believes that he is carrying items that would provide grounds to arrest him or charge him with another offence, but he cannot search him on the spot. That seems to be artificial.

§ Ms. Clare Short
He could do so at the police station.

§ Mr. Mellor
The hon. Lady rightly says that the search could be done at the police station. If there is legitimate ground in the provision, as it stands, to search the person at the time for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested—[Interruption.] At this hour of the night it is difficult to answer one point when another is being put to me. If it is proper for the officer to have the power to search on the spot to avoid the evidence being discarded, the same logic would surely suggest that, if the 283 officer equally reasonably believes that the person has on him evidence of another offence, he should be able to search him for that evidence.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree not to press the amendment, but the matter will be fully considered in the other place. The noble Lords will examine the matter. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, although this is a material change—I acknowledge it to be such; it is not in any sense a drafting amendment—it was not intended to take the Opposition by surprise. The measure is not sinister in its overall impact.