HL Deb 23 May 1994 vol 555 cc481-2

3 p.m.

Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether proposals to alter the rules of disclosure of evidence in criminal trials are under consideration for inclusion in a future criminal justice Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

Yes, my Lords. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made proposals on this matter which the Government are considering.

Lord Spens

My Lords, on a day in which the right to silence is under serious threat, does not the noble Earl agree that the rules of evidential disclosure are important to that decision and that this House should know more about those proposals which are under consideration so that we do not return to the bad old days of the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four and so on?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the two matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, refers are separate issues. Early defence disclosure may help to improve the efficiency of the court process, and our proposals on the right to silence do not place any obligation on a suspect to answer questions.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that at present in practice disclosure often means simply showing defence counsel into a room at a police station, pointing at a large number of boxes filled with documents, and telling them to look for themselves to see whether they can find anything relevant? Is he aware that that was the way in which the document which ultimately freed the Taylor sisters came to be discovered?

Will the noble Earl give some thought to the possibility of appointing a lawyer—possibly from the Crown Prosecution Service—at a very early stage in every major criminal investigation to ensure that evidence is kept under review and that the defence have those documents at an early stage? Will he have in mind that that might also free the officers in the case from that burden and allow them to carry on with the task of investigating rather than disclosing?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion. We are considering these matters very carefully. The noble Baroness is quite right that in some cases there is an enormous quantity of paper to be read. I understand that in one recent case there were thousands of pages which I was told would take 40 years to read. That is one of the problems which the Royal Commission has had to address, and the Government have to address the views which the Royal Commission has put forward. I cannot give the noble Baroness an indication of what our stance will be because it is not yet decided.