§ 2.37 p.m.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking on the Devlin Report on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases (H.C. 338, 1975–76).
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes shortly to issue a further circular to the police about the conduct of identification parades and the showing of photographs. The new circular will be based on the relevant recommendations of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether there have been any consultations and, if so, with whom?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the first part of the Devlin recommendations were carried out in a circular issued by the Attorney-General after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions within two months of the issue of the Devlin Report in April 1976. That dealt with the whole question of how far it was safe to convict a person on eyewitnesses' evidence. The second part, to which the noble Baroness referred, dealt with the rules governing identification parades and the showing of photographs of suspects to witnesses.
The further circular that I mentioned will deal with the second part. The consultations have been not only between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions but with police organisations, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society, the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend this. Was not the very full report of the Devlin Committee after two years' work very well received by the judiciary, the legal profession and the organs of public opinion? That being so, what has led to the result that the whole question of identification has now been referred all over again to a Royal Commission?
Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I did say that, within two months, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General had issued guidelines to clerks of courts and also to chiefs of police. Since then, within a comparatively short space of time, in July 1976, something less than three months after the report was issued, the initiative—I think I can use that word—was taken by the Lord Chief Justice in an Appeal Court consisting of four learned judges and himself which considered the appeals of three persons who had been convicted of criminal offences and who had challenged 1149 their convictions on the ground of identification.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his legal colleagues applied the recommendations of the Devlin Committee, and took the opportunity of reinforcing the recommendations of the Devlin Committee by laying down that these procedures are, in fact, essential. This resulted in two of the appeals being allowed and one being disallowed. The very fact that the recommendations of the Devlin Committee are being used at the present time is, I think, sufficient, whatever else may be decided.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, did not the Devlin Committee unanimously recommend that on at least five points the recommendations must be dealt with by legislation? Is it not the fact that whatever the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice says it does not alter the law?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I thought that might well be asked. I took advice on this matter and I am told that legislation is not necessary. It can be done by administrative means.