HL Deb 19 July 1978 vol 395 cc313-4

2.51 p.m.

Baroness DAVID

My 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 are the rights of the police to photograph juveniles before court proceedings have taken place.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the taking of photographs of persons in police custody is not regulated by Statute, except in the case of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. It is general police practice to photograph all persons in police custody (including juveniles) who are charged with an offence which would he punishable with imprisonment in the case of an adult. Wherever practicable, the police obtain the consent of the parent or guardian before photographing a juvenile.

Baroness DAVID

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied as there is in fact apparently no law regulating this practice. I would suggest that perhaps in the interests of juveniles, and of the police, there might be an amendment to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, possibly on the lines of Section 8 on fingerprinting, which would make the position clear to everybody. Are police forces totally aware of what their powers and responsibilities are?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the police forces are certainly aware of their responsibilities in this matter. One has to bear in mind that a good deal of the very serious crime in this country is in fact committed by juveniles. It does not seem unreasonable that they should be photographed. If a juvenile is found guilty, the photograph is put with the other records relating to him. The period of retention of a photograph is a matter within the discretion of the police, but where the defendant is found not guilty, or where the case is not brought to court, the general practice is for the photograph to be destroyed in the presence of the parents or guardians.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me exactly what is the objection to photographing people? Is he aware that I have often been photographed when not in custody and without my consent being obtained prior, and the negatives have never been destroyed?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, we are discussing juveniles.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, is it not a fact that the law forbids the identity of any juvenile in proceedings before a juvenile court being disclosed except by express permission of the court or, I think, the Home Secretary? In that case, is that law not broken in spirit, if not in the letter, if the juvenile is in fact photographed?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I think that the Government's view is that the taking of a photograph is no more than making a record which one would perhaps regard as being superior to a written description. It will form part of the particulars of a suspect which may enable the police to identify that person as being responsible for other offences. But, as I have been at pains to point out, if in the event no charge is proceeded with, or the juvenile is found not guilty, then that particular form of record is destroyed.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the record of a photograph makes the child identifiable, and that it is against the law to identify a child who is the subject of proceedings in a juvenile court?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, on that matter I would have to take advice.