Remands in Custody (Compensation) (Hansard, 17 June 1986)

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the right to compensation for time spent in custody prior to an acquittal; and for connected purposes. The Bill is designed to overcome some injusticies which we may have in our system. Reaction to the Bill during the past few days from various journalists and members of the public has been one of surprise that in English law a person accused of a crime where there is a presumption of innocence who is then brought to court and remanded in custody—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will those hon. Members who do not want to remain in the Chamber please leave quietly?

§ Mr. Bermingham
It seems surprising to many that those who are remanded in custody and refused bail in respect of a matter which is denied by them, when they come to trial and are subsequently acquitted, are merely handed back their personal possessions and shown the door. There is no way in which the months, weeks and sometimes years in custody, sometimes with the loss of jobs, homes and livelihoods, and sometimes the break-up of the family, are compensated for by our society. That must surely be a blot on the fairness of our society. After all, a person who is remanded in custody before trial and found guilty has that time spent in custody before trial taken into account when the sentence is assessed. Therefore, the time that a person serves in custody stands to his credit when he is found guilty. A person who is found to be innocent, as many are in any one year, receives no credit for that time; it is simply ignored. The number of persons involved in such matters in a year is sometimes as many as 2,000.
Of course, it is easy for all of us to say that a person should not have got himself charged, but people are charged in respect of crimes that they do not commit. Cases which on the face of the papers appear to be so strong, the allegations so tough, crumble and fall under questioning.
A prosecuting counsel whom I know told me a lovely story about a case which on the face of it was perfect. He asked the complainant the first question and the case began to trundle, but by the third question he had thrown in his hand. First, he asked the complainant if he was Mr. So-and-So and the reply was, "Sometimes." The second question was, "Is that the man who is supposed to have hit you?" The complainant said, "No." In reply to the third question, "Who did hit your, he pointed to somebody sitting in the gallery and the case was over.
912 The defendant in that case had spent 11 months in prison because the allegation was an extremely serious one. It was not the fault of the police officers or of the courts, but that man lost his job and his livelihood and has suffered many other personal hardships. At the end of the case he was simply handed his small change and other personal property and sent on his way.
Some years ago I sought to introduce a 10-minute Bill to limit the time that a person could be held in custody before trial. People asked me why I was doing it and I said that the Scots do it. They also asked me what benefit it would be. Two years later it is beginning to become part of our law. If there are limits on the time people can be held in custody, we will cut back on the 2,000 people I am talking about, because fewer people will be in custody.
If this Bill were to be given serious consideration by the House, it might prompt the courts to look again at the findings a couple of years ago of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about bail. That again would reduce the number of people to whom this Bill refers. No system is perfect, but eventually only a small number of people each year will be remanded in custody. They are denied bail, despite making all the applications, because of such factors as evidence that appears to be very strong but who, when they come to trial and justice begins to emerge, are found not guilty.
If we are to have a fair and balanced society, occasionally we have to look at matters like this which affect small numbers of people who, because of our system, will always escape whatever safety net we seek to put in place. Those people suffer real injustice. As I say, it is ironic that if one pleads guilty or is found guilty the time spent in custody stands to one's credit. However, if a person is found not guilty, time spent in custody stands to his loss. That is not fair. We can effect a remedy. I hope that the House will support the Bill, and will give it a Second Reading.