Law on Murder: Review (Hansard, 26 October 1995)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the Government have not yet completed their consideration of this matter. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the conclusions of the review in due course but I cannot say at present when that will be.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the recommendations regarding reducing from murder to manslaughter cases where excessive force was used either in self-defence or in the prevention of crime were put forward first 15 years ago by the Criminal Law Revision Committee; that some six years ago, the Law Commission drafted the criminal code following that recommendation; that in 1989 your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment put forward the same recommendation; that in 1994 the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, in the case of Regina v. Clegg, recommended that the law should be changed; and in 1995 the House of Lords, in 1190 that very case, said precisely the same—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, giving the leading judgment saying that all the recommendations pointed one way? In those circumstances, will the Minister indicate why all this time is needed to carry out a review which was offered only because of the embarrassment which the Clegg case caused?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, all that the noble and learned Lord has catalogued as having been said and debated in the past and what is being debated at present—indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee at this moment is considering, among other things, this issue—will be taken into account in the course of the review, and eventually will he reported to Parliament.

§ Lord Carver
My Lords, will the noble Baroness please accept that this is a matter of great urgency for the Armed Forces, the members of which are liable to find themselves convicted of murder and statutorily sentenced to life imprisonment if deemed to have used excessive force in support of law and order?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes a very important point. In particular, it was such a case that gave rise to this review. We understand the urgency, and the noble and gallant Lord will also understand the complexity of the matter. It is worth again putting on record that it is not just about members of the Armed Forces or uniformed personnel. It is dealing with the general matter of using excessive force in preserving law and order and/or self-defence.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, may I respectfully ask the Minister when this review was set up; who is in charge of it, where is it being held; and how far has it reached?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was set up following the Clegg case. The review is being conducted within government with representatives from the Home Office; the Northern Ireland Office; the Ministry of Defence; legal personnel; and the Scottish Office. An interim report has gone to my right honourable friend, and that is being considered at present.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, will the Minister recognise that when she uses the phrase "in due course" to describe how soon a report is to be issued and debated, she is giving the lowest possible priority to the report? She might at least have used the word "shortly" or the words "very shortly". When such a review is forced on government by public disquiet, is it seriously open to government to delay for 10 months in the way that they have now? Is it not a public obligation to take the matter far more seriously than has been evidenced by her replies to the noble and learned Lord?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I can tell the whole House that the matter is being taken very seriously. I can say also that there is no malicious intent or deliberate delay in reporting to the House about the matter.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is it not just possible that, among the government departments which might be interested in this important subject, the Lord Chancellor's is one?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble and learned friend catches me out. I am looking to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to ascertain whether indeed his department does have any input into the matter. I cannot believe that it does not. However, I shall have to check.

§ Lord Lowry
My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government are no less interested in possible criminal law reforms which may ameliorate the condition of accused persons than in those which may make them worse?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that all aspects and all facets of the issue will be taken into account in the course of the deliberations on the matter. However, it only serves to highlight the complexity of the particular issues.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, the Minister said that the report would be published "in due course". However, can she give us any further indication? For example, is it likely to be published by the end of this year or during the next parliamentary Session? When are we to have the final report? Surely we deserve an answer to that question.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I can be no more specific than I already have.

§ Lord Whaddon
My Lords, I did not notice whether the Minister mentioned the Northern Ireland Office in her Answer. Does it indeed have an input?

Noble Lords
It was there!

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I mentioned the Northern Ireland Office.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I should point out that the Minister failed to mention the Welsh Office. Perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday. There is profound anxiety in Wales about the neglect of the Principality. It is a deliberate insult to Wales when such important committees are set up with no Welsh representatives on them. Will the Minister please look into the matter?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, of course; I always look into matters that are brought to my attention at the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may point out that no one is specifically representing England or Scotland in the matter. It is the expertise across Whitehall that is being brought to bear. I am sorry, I must take that back: I mentioned the Scottish Office. I shall certainly check on the situation. The particular reason for the mention of Northern Ireland was due to the specific case which was brought to the attention both of this House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; and, indeed, was the reason for setting up the review in the first place. However, if the Welsh Office wishes to have an input into the debate, I shall make sure that the matter is considered.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, it is not the Welsh Office that I am particularly concerned with; it is the people of Wales who are anxious about the matter. The Welsh Office is there to serve them. Will the Minister also take that into account?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I note the noble Lord's point. However, the deliberations under consideration and the outcome will affect all citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the complexities which are holding up the ultimate delivery of the report. Can the noble Baroness identify some of those complexities—at least the main ones—which are responsible for the delay?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I am unable to give the most technical answer to the noble and learned Lord. However, I can comment on the balance of the definition of excessive force, the particular circumstances which surround it and the scope for a lesser charge. As has already been conveyed to the department, if a lesser charge is an option, it may well lead to more convictions rather than fewer. I know that that is a consideration.