§ Lords amendment: No. 210, in page 66, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is that we shall not be pressing ahead with the abolition of the rule that the out-of-court admission of a co-defendant be not admissible against his co-accused.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsThe House is entitled to a little more explanation than we have received. We are, I believe, dealing with amendment No. 210. I hope that I am right. The whole subsection is to be left out. I am not at all sure why. The subsection says:
(4) Where in any proceedings a confession is received in evidence by virtue of this section, it shall be admissible as evidence of any matter with which it deals, including any matter favourable to the person who made it.I should have thought—I put this to the Opposition—that to drop the admissibility of evidence that is favourable to the person who made the confession from the confession clause is important, unless my hon. Friend the Minister can show that it is covered elsewhere in the clause. By dropping subsection (4) we appear to be leaving out of a trial confessional matter which may be favourable to the accused.
§ Mr. MellorThe removal of subsection (4) relates to the rule that the Criminal Law Revision Committee advised might be abrogated—our present rule that the out-of-court admission of a co-defendant is not admissible against his fellow accused. The fact is that the remainder of the subsection means that the present law is not changed by its removal.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 211, in page 66, line 37, leave out from beginning to "was" in line 39 and insert—
(6) Evidence that a fact to which this subsection applies
§ Mr. MellorI beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 212.
§ Mr. MellorThis amendment, which was agreed to in another place, prevents a loophole from being exploited in the law on confessions. Before the passing of the amendment, if facts were discovered following a confession which was itself bad in part, the effect of subsection (6) ruled out any reference to the link between the confession and the discovery of those facts, even if such facts were discovered as a result of the good parts of a confession which otherwise would be admissible.
It is to correct that unintended fault in the original drafting that this amendment is preferred.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsAgain, I rise briefly to gain elucidation for those who will have to give effect to these provisions.
Could my hon. Friend confirm that I understood him correctly to mean that a confession which had been obtained might be excluded in part or in whole? If it is 1034 excluded only in part, will matters in the remaining part —the good part—still be able to be used by the police and the judge for the purpose of obtaining a conviction?
§ Mr. MellorWith the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer is yes.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 212 and 213 agreed to.