§ 2.57 p.m.
§ Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they accept that in a majority of cases in the last three years when the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has quashed convictions the court concluded either that evidence was unsafe or that relevant evidence had not been disclosed to the defence; and what procedures have been instituted to monitor and reduce the number of such cases.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice found that the most common grounds upon which appeals against conviction are allowed are errors at trial.
§ Lord SpensMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that a few weeks ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to me to say that he did not know what the common cause was; that it would take three civil-servant months to find out; and that he was not prepared to spend the money to find out what it was? Does the noble Earl not agree with me that, in view of the fact that there were 400 cases last year, 300 cases the year before and an estimated 500 to 600 cases this year in which there was some form of evidence abuse, something needs to be done about the problem?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, that is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was set up. It took into account all those problems. It carried out research into them. The results of that research are as I 380 have suggested to the House. I am not privy to the letters which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor writes to the noble Lord, but I have every reason to believe that the contents of his letters are precise and accurate.