HC Deb 26 April 1995 vol 258 cc927-32

'In section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against conviction) after subsection 2 (requirement of leave to appeal or certificate of trial judge) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (2A) The Court of Appeal may, if they think it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, grant leave to appeal against conviction notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined (either by refusal for leave or after a substantive hearing) in respect of the same conviction".'.—[Mr. Corbyn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

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

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 18—Leave to appeal: Northern Ireland—

'In section 1 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (appeal against conviction) subject to the requirement of leave to appeal or certificate of trial judge) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1A) The Court of Appeal may, if they think it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, grant leave to appeal against conviction notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined (either by a refusal for leave or after a substantive hearing) in respect of the same conviction.".'.

Mr. Corbyn

I feel a bit like an intruder in a private conversation, as hon. Members have clearly had many debates in Committee to which I was not privy, although I have access to the Committee Hansard.

New clauses 17 and 18 are designed to give direct access to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) tabled new clause 4, which was not selected but which would have allowed direct access to the Court of Appeal to appeal against sentence. New clauses 17 and 18 are extensions of that new clause's provisions.

It is common sense that a wrongful conviction is a cause of deep concern. Many of us have been involved in campaigns against miscarriages of justice. Clearly, we feel that there should be access directly to the Court of Appeal for people who believe that, despite having lost a previous appeal, their cases should be heard again.

In his report into the investigation of the Preece case, the ombudsman said: A miscarriage of justice by which a man or woman loses his or her liberty is one of the gravest matters which can occupy the attention of a civilised society. And it seems to me that when an unprecedented pollution of justice at its source is discovered, quite an exceptional effort to identify and remedy its consequences is called for. Surely, such views are generally held.

I hope that the new clauses will extend the idea behind, and the provisions in, the Bill because the opportunity to put right what has caused the growing concern about miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not often occur. I shall deal later with Northern Ireland but I hope that we are well into a peaceful and healing process there. I believe that new clause 18 would assist in that respect.

8.15 pm

The proposed reforms to the criminal justice system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland fall a long way short of the changes introduced recently in the Republic of Ireland's Criminal Appeal Act 1993. In particular, a prospective appellant in the Republic who alleges that a new or newly discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice now has the statutory right to appeal directly to the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal for an order quashing the conviction.

The rationale behind that new statutory method is simple. If the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is a matter of serious concern in a civilised society, which it is, every prospective appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case properly. At the moment, he does not necessarily have that right. There are a number of reasons for that.

First, there have been serious problems with the sharing of evidence, as was mentioned in earlier debates. Secondly, until the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary would be the only route to the Court of Appeal after an appeal had been lost.

In our adversarial system, those in the best position to judge whether prospective appellants have an arguable case to overturn their convictions are their lawyers. That must be borne in mind because lawyers have a duty to defend the best interests of their clients and obviously work to get them released if they have a strong case. The new clause is therefore a means of enabling us to examine the issue further and giving that direct access to the courts.

I do not think that any useful purpose is served by the introduction of a quasi-judicial intermediary stage in the process. If the necessary evidence or arguments exist, it would serve only to increase costs and delay proper resolution of the case.

One could cite a large number of large cases involving a miscarriage of justice—I have been involved with some—where the present system of lack of access to the Court of Appeal other than through the Home Secretary or, in future, through the commission, has been found deeply wanting. For example, I recall the case of Sivalingham and Kulasingham, which I took to the Home Office several times. They were wrongly convicted of fire-bombing some property in east London and were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A death had occurred and the spectre of murder charges haunted them. Eventually, the Home Secretary agreed that the synthesis of argument put forward by myself and others had merit. There was a police investigation, the case was ultimately referred to the Court of Appeal and the people were released. There have been a number of similar cases.

What I find depressing is the hit-and-miss approach in examining miscarriages of justice. If one has influential friends or people who are prepared to campaign on one's behalf, there is a possibility of getting the case heard, of getting it before the Home Secretary and, ultimately, into the Court of Appeal. I do not want the new system to end up like the old one, in which getting a case before the Court of Appeal depended on the strength and ability of one's campaign. Therefore, I believe that there should be a statutory right of access to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that one of the difficulties with the system that he proposes is that it would open up the possibility of multiple applications being made to the Court of Appeal, time after time, by appellants who were in person without the advice of lawyers, which could result in the Court of Appeal being clogged up with cases that really have no great merit? Is it not better to have a filter of the sort that the Government suggest?

Mr. Corbyn

Clearly, a number of people would put cases forward repeatedly. I understand that problem and see that particular danger, although I think that it is possibly slightly exaggerated. What I am concerned about is the large number of cases that C3 has dealt with over the years, the delays involved in them, and, as I said earlier, the hit-and-miss approach on how a case gets to the Court of Appeal. Although some cases will not get very far, surely it is better that cases come before the court—they may well be re-examined by the court and dismissed, but new evidence would have to be produced to have the case re-examined, or there would have to be some argument in support of it—than to have a system in which there is a serious danger that there would be a continuation of miscarriages of justice in this country.

The people who were released fairly recently, following miscarriages of justice, are not the only ones, given the quality of legal representation in the first place, the quality of the evidence that was collected, the lack of sharing of that evidence and all the problems that go with it. That cannot be right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has chronicled in the House on a number of occasions, and did so again earlier today, the case of the Bridgewater Three.

New clause 18 gives the same powers to the Appeal Court in Northern Ireland, and would allow it to receive applications and to have access to them. That could be seen very much as part of a healing process and part of a peace process. Those who often have a significant mistrust of the judicial system in Northern Ireland, with the Diplock courts, would at least have direct access to a Court of Appeal to have their cases examined in some detail.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Bridgewater case. I represented evidence to the Minister on 8 June 1993 with the solicitor representing the accused. We were promised a rapid investigation and a rapid answer. It is now 1995. It is coming up to two years since I personally deposited a substantial dossier of 1,100 pages and 100 new items of evidence on his desk. We are on to the eighth police inquiry. That case cannot go on for ever being batted back and forth, with huge amounts of new evidence being produced. Indeed, evidence suggests that there was a lack of disclosure of evidence in the first place. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will reiterate what he said earlier or at least give me some hope that that case will be referred as soon as possible.

Those essentially are my main points. There is a fundamental weakness in the Bill in that it does not allow direct access to the Court of Appeal. Anyone who has been involved in the misery and horrors of long-term campaigning on miscarriages of justice will recognise that the new clause would be an important step forward. It cannot be right that there is limited access to justice, that it is limited to those who can afford it or who have friends who are prepared to campaign for it. That is why I tabled my new clauses, which would strengthen, not weaken, the Bill. I believe that they would strengthen the judicial system and give much greater equality of access to the law for everyone, not just the rich and the famous or those who have such friends. It should be available to everybody. I think that this will be a major step toward.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

I wish to give the Labour party's blessing to the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in so far as we understand their purpose, which he outlined, and their effect. If the Government feel that the effects of the new clauses go too far and if they wish to limit them in some way or to protect access to the Court of Appeal, they can, of course, do so by tabling amendments.

Essentially, we agree with my hon. Friend that the Court of Appeal should not shut the door. There is a case for access other than through the section 17 procedure. The history of the cases that form the background to the royal commission and the public concern on the matter only add weight to that. Therefore, we believe that the principle is worthy of support. The Court of Appeal already has its sifting mechanisms and sanctions, which are available. They include a single judge, at which some two thirds of applications fail. If the applications so fail, legal aid will not be available for the case thereafter. There is also the possibility of losing time.

We have only one hesitation in principle: what mechanism can one devise to deter repeated applications that are without merit? Having said that, we are inclined to support the principle of my hon. Friend's new clauses. We look forward to the Minister's reply, which we hope will be as forthcoming as that in the previous new clauses.

Mr. Nicholas Baker

I welcome the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to the discussions. I certainly respect the reasons that prompted him to table his new clauses. I confess, however, to being slightly puzzled when I first saw them, because they appear to call into question the very purpose for which the commission was created. I think that the hesitation expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in that respect was entirely understandable and right.

The commission will be tasked with investigating possible miscarriages of justice and given power to refer cases, whether in relation to a conviction or sentence—or both—to the courts for them to consider at the resulting appeal. It will, essentially, be a body of last resort, whose role will begin—save in exceptional circumstances, such as when a court uses the powers introduced by clause 5 to order an investigation—when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. I emphasise that anyone may approach the commission, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another. If the commission believes that the case meets the criteria for reference in the Bill, I know of nothing to suggest that the case will not be referred. That is the commission's role. Therefore, I have to ask what need there is to provide for the Court of Appeal to hear second, third—or more—appeals on the same conviction.

The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about the Carl Bridgewater case. I can tell him that the police report is expected very shortly. One reason why the inquiry has been extended has been the need to consider further matters raised by the solicitors on several occasions since June 1993. We shall give a very high priority to considering that report.

I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that low-profile cases—which, I know, are the ones that he has in mind—are not ignored. No case is ignored by the Secretary of State. I know of nothing to suggest that any case will be ignored by the commission. The Secretary of State refers cases on their merits, and so will the commission. If any case meets, in the commission's view, the criteria for a reference set out in the Bill, it will be referred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) was right. The new clauses would allow those who were tried originally on indictment, who had already exhausted the usual appeal procedures, to bypass the commission and to appeal again to the Court of Appeal in relation to their conviction and, subject to leave being granted, to have their appeal heard.

8.30 pm

Aside from the fact that that is unnecessary in view of the Government's decision to create the new commission, I can see other real difficulties with what the hon. Gentleman proposes. First, the new clauses would remove the concept of finality in criminal proceedings. It is essential that all cases are considered fairly, but it is also important that there is finality. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the important case of Pinfold, which established the principle that the Court of Appeal may not entertain a second application for leave to appeal in the same case. Providing what would effectively be extended rights of appeal on conviction would breach that principle.

My second concern about the new clauses is that they relate to the need for investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice, and who would be responsible for that? That is a real difficulty. Thirdly, the proposals would be bound to create confusion. Under them, applicants would be able to make representations to the court and to the commission.

We have put in the Bill a strong and effective last resort procedure in place of the powers of the Secretary of State to investigate and refer cases to the courts. A last resort procedure will be precisely that. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot support the new clauses and I invite—

Mr. Corbyn

I thank the Minister for giving way just before completing his reply. I referred to the anomaly that in the Republic of Ireland there is a wider right of access to the Court of Appeal than there is at the moment in Northern Ireland or would be should the Bill become law. Does the Minister recognise that an obvious lesson will be drawn from that by people in Northern Ireland concerned about miscarriages of justice, possible delays by the commission or the commission not supporting or being willing to refer a case? They would have an unfettered right of access south of the border, but not north of the border.

Mr. Baker

People south of the border in Ireland would not have a commission operating in the same way that this commission will operate, which will be a real advantage for all the reasons that I have given.

Therefore, I regret again to have to ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to