Criminal Cases (Right to Silence) (Hansard, 19 May 1988)

§ 8. Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to alter the present right to silence of suspects and defendants in criminal cases.

§ Mr. John Patten
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) yesterday.

§ Mr. Flynn
Does the Minister agree that, while the mass of police interrogations are carried out in an exemplary manner, there have been worrying cases of alleged confessions that have afterwards been found to he false? This can be seen in the conclusions of the Mars-Jones inquiry. Examples are the Timothy Evans case and the Confait case, in which several youths, one mentally retarded, were alleged to have made confessions which were afterwards found to be false. Does the Minister not consider that any decision on ending the right to silence is premature, and that in attempting to create a law to deal with hardened criminals he is putting at grave peril the interests of the weak, the inadequate and the innocent?

§ Mr. Patten
The weak, the inadequate and the innocent are well covered by the codes of practice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a complex subject, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced an inquiry yesterday.

§ Mr. Hind
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the comprehensive answer that he gave to my written question yesterday. When my hon. Friend assesses this problem, will he look very carefully at the Criminal Law Revision Committee report of 1972, bearing in mind that when the right to silence was introduced there were no solicitors in police stations or at interviews, or any tape recordings? We must keep pace with the new advances in technology and the changes in the laws of evidence.

§ Mr. Patten
My hon. Friend is right. Since the CLRC reported in 1972 many changes have taken place, both in legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and in technology, such as the universal introduction of tape recording in police stations, which we hope to have in place by 1991. These are complex issues, however, and that is why my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend's question yesterday that he would look into the matter as soon as possible.

Mrs. Taylor
Does the Minister not realise that there is widespread concern about the proposed erosion of the principle that someone is innocent until proved guilty? Why is the Home Secretary going ahead with the abolition of the right to silence before the results of the Government-funded research are published? Is it not irresponsible to make such a fundamental change to our criminal procedures without first obtaining all the evidence that is available? If the Government are willing to spend money on research, why are they not willing to wait until the findings of that research are forthcoming?

§ Mr. Patten
The hon. Lady is a little confused about the issues. My right hon. and learned Friend is not proposing to abolish the right to silence. He is proposing to set up a committee to look into the possibilities of abolishing the "right to ambush", by which I mean a defendant introducing into a trial at the last minute a line of defence that has not been previously disclosed. This often means that a prosecution case collapses, and sometimes people with a case to answer go free.