Criminal Evidence (Prohibition of Sale) (Hansard, 6 March 2002)

§ Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings.

In 1994, a series of murders committed over a number of years came to light in my constituency of Gloucester. During that time, the city became the focus for the country's, and indeed the world's, media. It soon became apparent that 25 Cromwell street had been the venue for some of the most appalling acts of sexual abuse, torture and mass murder that Britain has ever seen. During a number of agonising weeks, many people discovered the fate of their missing loved ones. It was an extremely painful time for many people, and how victims' relatives and the surviving victims can even begin to rebuild their lives is almost beyond my comprehension. I know that many have done so, however, as many of them reside in my constituency. I am introducing this Bill because their healing process was to be rudely interrupted.

In 1996, Fred West committed suicide in jail while still awaiting trial. He died intestate and the Official Solicitor made a deal with a television company for the documentary television and video rights to the archive material from his estate. That evidence included recorded interviews that the police had conducted with West, West's personal photographs, home video footage and witness testimonies—evidence that would have been covered by Crown copyright had West not committed suicide pre-trial. Essentially, all the evidence that the police had gathered during their investigations was being sold on by the Official Solicitor to a television company. That television company was the creative consortium working with Channel 5.

When the police interview a suspect such as Fred West, they give the defence counsel copies of their evidence under the disclosure rule. They do not expect evidence for a court case then to be sold on to the media to produce a salacious television documentary. Channel 5 commissioned a programme on Fred West and broadcast not just transcripts of his confessions but his voice—he described his crimes in great detail. Unsurprisingly, the Gloucestershire constabulary was aghast. The victims, many of whom live in my constituency, turned to me because they could not believe that trial evidence could be traded in such a way.

Prior to the broadcast, I wrote to or had meetings with representatives of the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Attorney-General to convey the concerns of the police and those of the victims and their families. The Attorney-General told me that an application for an injunction would not be successful, and that a court could not be expected to prevent a broadcast as it would contravene article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The police argued that taped interviews and other material were covered by Crown copyright and asked the Attorney-General to block that material being broadcast on the basis that not to do so would be a contempt of court. That request was turned down. The BSC and the ITC then told me that they could only act retrospectively—after the programme had been shown. 305 Indeed, the Broadcasting Act 1990 explicitly excludes the possibility of the ITC being able to preview such a programme.

By maximising the estate of Fred West in such a way, the Official Solicitor had made it impossible for the Government or the regulators—the ITC and the BSC—to prevent footage of a mass murderer talking about his crimes in his own voice from appearing on our screens.

Channel 5 showed its documentary. Throughout the campaign to block the broadcast, Channel 5 consistently gave reassurances that the programme would be tasteful and predominantly investigative. Indeed, shortly before the broadcast, Channel 5's chief executive stated: This documentary is of the highest possible calibre. It is not in any way salacious. None the less, the programme showed Fred West describing his crimes in great detail. It showed pictures of victims faded in and out against pictures of their skeletal remains, and it showed Rose West undressing in front of the camera and in bed with her clients

Some may argue that censorship is an issue in this matter, and a reason to object to the Bill. However, it has never been my intention to prevent the making of a programme about Fred West. I do not have a problem with crime documentaries. Two other documentaries about Fred West are in the public domain at present. They were made with the co-operation of surviving victims, the police and people in the legal profession. My Bill would not prevent the media from covering or documenting such cases, but the sale of evidence and the screening of the film have significant implications for future police investigations.

The police officer who led the investigation, former Detective Superintendent John Bennett, said on the eve of the Channel 5 broadcast: Police promises of confidentiality are rendered useless if every tape and every piece of evidence can be turned over to TV companies on the whim of some legal bureaucrat. 306 If this programme has set a precedent and more programmes of this nature are made, how long will it be before detained prisoners, aware that their confessions could soon be in every living room in the country, simply refuse to talk to the police? How long will it be before witnesses, who already face enormous difficulties in even talking about their experiences, are simply unable to open up to the police?

Furthermore, once evidence is in the public domain, there is also the danger that convicted criminals will have easy access to witnesses' testimonies once they have served their sentences. How long will it be before a convicted criminal is able to access everything that a prosecution witness has said?

This Bill does not introduce censorship. It does not undermine the media. However, it will ensure that, if surviving victims of crime or the families of murder victims object to the sale to the media of evidence that was meant for a trial, the Official Solicitor will have to seek permission from the Attorney-General.

Fred West is dead. Through the sale of evidence from his trial by the Official Solicitor to the media, his surviving victims, many of whom are my constituents, have been tormented by him again. The police and the justice system have felt undermined. In similar cases up and down the land, that could happen again. This Bill can change that. It may be too late for some, but it is not too late for others

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Tom Watson, Ms Candy Atherton, John Mann, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. George Osborne, Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight, John Robertson and Valerie Davey.