Criminal Justice Commission: Report (Hansard, 28 November 1991)

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is looking in the wrong direction. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was asked to make every effort to complete its work within two years. Given the very wide range of subjects which it has been asked to consider, we do not think that the Royal 1403 Commission could reasonably be expected to bring forward its report, but we hope that it will be able to adhere to what is already a very exacting timetable.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I am delighted to receive a reply from the noble Earl even though I had anticipated receiving a reply from another Minister. Does not the Minister agree that our judicial system—of which we have been so proud and wish to continue to be proud—has been definitely affected by such recent cases as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and the Silcott case? Is it not a fact that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which the noble Earl mentioned cover a variety of proposed reforms or examinations of the criminal law? Does he not think that the forecast of a two-year period before the Royal Commission reports justifies the Government asking that there should be an urgent interim report into that part of the mandate given to the Royal Commission which deals with miscarriages of justice?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, prepared his questions thinking that he would be addressing them to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That gives me even more cause for anxiety because the noble Lord is always particularly generous to me in a way which he may not be to one of his colleagues of his own legal distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly referred to the anxiety which people feel about those cases. That is why my right honourable friend set up a Royal Commission. Many of the matters under examination by the Royal Commission are interrelated. It is difficult to pick out one and concentrate on that. The conduct of the review is a matter for the Royal Commission. It is unlikely that it would wish to approach its task in a disjointed way. Whether or not it makes an interim report is a matter for the Royal Commission. I guess that it will prefer to deal with the matter in the round and make a full report at the end of its deliberations.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it was precisely the need for a comprehensive review of methods of investigation, mounting prosecutions, evidence and procedure which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission? Would it not be far better if we awaited its report, knowing how serious the matter is and how important the investigation, rather than trying to make the commission come to any rushed decisions?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is entirely right. The whole point of setting up a Royal Commission is to have an in-depth study. To ask the commission to rush it would be wrong. My noble and learned friend is also right in saying that there are a great many interrelated problems. For that reason it was decided that a Royal Commission was the most appropriate course. It would be right to await the report of the Royal Commission rather than trying to rush the matter.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, should it not be borne in mind that one of our policemen was slain? Somebody murdered him. Will that matter be pursued when the Royal Commission reports or is it still under investigation? Whoever killed that policeman is free.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is quite correct to say that behind that particular incident, to which part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, referred, is a whole series of events which culminated in the murder of a policeman. The action that is being taken is a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The original investigation was intense and wide-ranging but no significant information has been forthcoming in response to police appeals. The police are ready to consider any new information from witnesses or from any other source which may have something to offer.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a difference between the word "rush" and the word "expedite"? Does he not consider that having to wait for a period of two years —which will be followed by the time required for complex legislation—is too much to ask of a public who are seriously worried by this run of miscarriages of justice which our courts are unfortunately unable to deal with under their present powers?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not wish to get involved in a matter of semantics with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to the difference between "rush" and "expedite". The single result of either would be that the Royal Commission would produce a report, whether rushed or expedited, earlier than it would wish. I do not think that that would be right.
As regards the public anxiety, of course there is anxiety when any wrongdoing or malpractice appears. Over the past year or so there has been a series of high profile cases which would appear to involve wrongdoing on the part of the police. We must not allow such unrepresentative cases to obscure the fact that most police officers do an excellent job in very hard, difficult and sometimes frightening and dangerous circumstances.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that past experience has shown that frequently governments have taken as long to consider a Royal Commission report as it took to compile the report itself? Will the noble Earl give the House an undertaking that whenever the report of the Royal Commission is made public the Government will give it immediate and urgent attention?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, of course no government would set up a Royal Commission of this nature on such a subject without considering its conclusions very carefully and with great urgency.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the stress he has placed on the importance of getting this right and ask him to take note that that view is not confined to any one quarter of the House?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I hope that no quarter of the House would insinuate that we do not want to get it right.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to bear in mind that there have been important changes in criminal procedure since some of the early cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that is perfectly true. Some of the changes in procedure have been due to the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and of the Crown Prosecution Service, both of which were the result of a previous Royal Commission investigation.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, picking up the last point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I very much agree with what he said. Is he not aware that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is now recognised by most people as being a considerable improvement in the law because it followed detailed and careful consideration by a Royal Commission, unlike some other pieces of legislation which have not been handled in the same way? Is he also aware that many of us have deep sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Nevertheless, given the fact that these issues are, as he said, interrelated, it is very difficult to see how there could possibly be an interim report.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that remark. Whenever I have looked at the problem from the viewpoint of a small part of a department it has been clear that, whether it is the police, the courts, the way evidence is taken or given, or the powers of the courts to cross-examine, these matters are intricate and tied together. It is very difficult to home in on one and deal with that in isolation. One has to take them all together. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quite rightly said, it is important to get it right in the end.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that pending the report, which it has been said will take at least two years, some immediate administrative steps will be taken to prevent the wickedness which has occurred being repeated?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the courts can only come to a conclusion and a judgment on the evidence which is placed before them. In those particular cases the courts came to a certain judgment. It was only later that new evidence became available, and it was as a result of that new evidence that my right honourable friend referred the matter back to the courts. That is pretty convincing evidence of the fairness and justice of the judicial system.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, while being the soul of courtesy, has a withering way with wafflers? Does not 1406 the noble Earl agree that he must be allowed time to cross-examine the massed regiments of lawyers who will have to give evidence before him?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, he will need a lot of time. I have seen some of the evidence that has been sent to him and I was very glad that I was not part of the Royal Commission.

§ Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, in view of his rather depressing forecast of the length of time before we see any results from the Royal Commission, will the noble Earl take note of the great public anxiety occasioned by the delay between the time a conviction occurs and when the Court of Appeal can make time to hear that appeal, particularly in relation to cases where there is an appeal agaist conviction and the man is serving a sentence?
Will the noble Earl also bear in mind that in August of this year out of 250 cases which came into that category about 72 had been waiting for over six months and about 15 for between 12 and 18 months? In the light of the fact that a number of those cases ultimately proved to be miscarriages of justice, will the noble Earl indicate to the House what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take as a matter of urgency to ensure that those delays are cut?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it is always a cause of anxiety if justice gets delayed for any length of time. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Silcott. I took the trouble to find out the facts in that case.
Any Home Secretary has to be cautious of seeking to interfere with decisions which are reached by the courts. However, my right honourable friend received representation on 15th July 1991 that Silcott's confession was unreliable. Until that moment there had been no question of the authority of the interview concerned. It was 15th July that my right honourable friend had the information. He asked the Metropolitan Police for a report on it on 24th July. The Metropolitan Police quite rightly asked the Essex police —an outside force—to go into the matter. The report from the Essex police arrived on 26th September and my right honourable friend referred the cases of Silcott and Braithwaite on 26th September. Therefore, from that point of view there was no delay.