Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Part I (Hansard, 27 February 1997)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
No, my Lords. We consider that the provisions of Part I of the Act are sufficient to ensure that material which points away from the accused is disclosed to him. In particular, although I cannot comment on the substance of the appeal in the Carl Bridgewater case, we consider that the material relating to the disputed confession, together with the material relating to the fingerprint evidence, would have been required to have been disclosed under Part I of the Act.

§ Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she confirm the report in today's press that her colleague in another place, the Home Secretary, has agreed to alter the requirement under the Act that material should only be retained for a period of three years and that it should now be retained for the full period of somebody's sentence? Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. In view of serious concerns, both public and within the legal profession, that once the provisions of the Act are implemented we shall be taking a step back to the bad old days when the prosecution alone determined what material the defence would see, will she consider at the very least not bringing that part of the Act into force until after the hearing of the Carl Bridgewater appeal and any judgment that the court may give in it, so that any lessons from what seems to be yet another serious miscarriage of justice can at least be taken into account before we change the law and put the clock back?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, perhaps I may take the second point first. There is no question of returning to what the noble Baroness referred to as "the bad old days". There is also no question that the prosecutor alone is going to be the determinant of what shall be disclosed. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that Section 3 of Part I of the Act provides that the prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which the prosecutor thinks might undermine the prosecution case and at the same time must give the accused a schedule listing all prosecution material which is not sensitive contained within Section 4. But in response—and this is the important point—the accused must disclose the general nature of the case, the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution and the reasons for that defence. The defence disclosure is mandatory in the Crown Court, but voluntary, of course, in the magistrates' court. That is covered by Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
1278 In response to a defence disclosure, the prosecutor must disclose any additional prosecution material which might reasonably assist the defence that has been disclosed. That is Section 7. Material which does not undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence as disclosed in the defence statement does not need to be disclosed. Between the schedule and what must be disclosed, everything is made available to the defence.
As regards the first point that the noble Baroness made, she is right. In fact, a Parliamentary Question has been put down to the effect that my right honourable friend is minded to change the code of practice and will bring it to Parliament before too long. The police will be required to retain material at least until the end of the trial and then, in the event of a conviction, either until the convicted person is released from custody or discharged from hospital (if the court imposes a custodial sentence or a hospital order) or until six months from the date of conviction if the court imposes a non-custodial sentence.
Where a convicted person is given a short custodial sentence and would be released within six months of conviction, material would still have to be retained for at least six months. If an appeal is in progress at the end of one of these periods or an application is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the period will be extended until the appeal is concluded or the commission makes a decision on the application.
It is worth recording for the purposes of this Question that all the material was kept by the police in this particular case and it will be material to the appeal which is yet to be heard. In some of the more high profile and celebrated cases of recent times, again the police kept all the material and evidence to be available to the appeal court.