§ 26. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about reforming the law on disclosure in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement. [87904]
§ The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris)I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions routinely to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. At those meetings, we have discussed the application of law of disclosure. The director recently initiated a programme of work to ensure that the law is applied properly.
Our discussions have not covered reform of the law, policy responsibility for which rests with the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. MullinDoes my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, when he and I were on the Standing
427 Committee that considered the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, we both took the view that it was not sensible to allow the police and prosecution to decide what material should be made available to the defence? That is still my view. Is it his?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not think that my hon. Friend is reminding the House precisely of what I said. I think that I said that the proposal was a distinct improvement in that both prosecution and defence would be able to focus on relevant material. The director and I share the concern that justice be done, and justice demands proper disclosure.
Although 100,000 persons, in both the CPS and the police, were trained initially, there is need for more training. The director has begun a programme of work and emphasised the importance of the issue to the new chief Crown prosecutors. As regards the police, some of the work may be done together. That is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, but I reiterate the director's words:
Innocent people may be convicted and guilty defendants acquitted if the CPS fails to properly disclose material to the defence in criminal trials.I attach great importance to that. We can move forward with proper training and proper retraining, if that is necessary.
§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)What discussions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with the DPP about disclosure in cases under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? In the light of that, why did it take his Department 17 days to advise the Home Department of the errors that were discovered in the recent version of the PTA? Is 17 days an acceptable period of delay when dealing with a matter of that importance and urgency?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the translation to his new office. Who knows—his learning curve may turn out to be as long as mine: 18 years.
On the precise question, the position is as follows. I have read the debate in the House. The matter was discovered by one of my staff; the Home Office was informed; it requested advice on 1 June. The Solicitor-General and I took a preliminary view. The advice sought by the Home Office was not solely on the problem that the regulations had not been properly delineated; there were other issues involving the procedure to revive them. It was an unprecedented situation. There was also the knock-on effect in relation to the case that is to be before the House of Lords on 19 July.
In those circumstances, I deemed it right to seek the advice of, eventually, two Treasury counsel. That was obtained on 17 June. The instructions were given to counsel on 8 June. It was important to get it right. We saw a preliminary view from Treasury counsel and, on the day we eventually received the final joint advice, it was conveyed to the Home Office.
There was no unacceptable delay whatsoever. I am sure that, 18 years from now, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing my job, he will do precisely the same to get it right.
§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)Can my right hon. and learned Friend recollect a situation in which any 428 member of the Crown Prosecution Service has been subjected to disciplinary procedures for failure to disclose?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe answer is none. Frequently, the problem is not one of non-disclosure but of late disclosure, as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). There are also obvious difficulties unless non-disclosure is clearly an unambiguous fault, as opposed to something that has been overlooked. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has to rely on material provided by the police; hence the need to continue to be vigilant and to retrain, so that both the police and the CPS can ensure that justice is done.