HL Deb 19 November 2003 vol 654 cc1975-6

100 Clause 78, page 52, line 22, leave out "and"

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

100A Because the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient

101 Page 52, line 23, at end insert ", and

(c) he has sought leave from a judge of the Crown Court on an ex-parte application.

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

101A Because the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.

One of the important safeguards provided by the Bill in respect of retrials for serious offences is that the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be needed to authorise certain steps being taken by the police to reinvestigate a person previously acquitted of a qualifying offence. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be able to give his consent to reopen an investigation unless he considered that, firstly, there was new evidence, or would be new evidence, as a result of a reinvestigation; and, secondly, that a reinvestigation would be in the public interest.

The amendment would seek to add a further requirement that the DPP should seek the leave of a Crown Court judge before consenting to a reinvestigation. We consider the amendment to be unnecessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions is senior and experienced enough to take a decision on whether to allow the police, in reopening an investigation into an acquitted person, to take the steps set out in subsection (3). He is sufficiently independent of the police to review their request for a reinvestigation. The Government consider that having him take this decision provides the necessary safeguard to ensure that the acquitted person is not being harassed by the police. At the stage of reinvestigation, it is quite proper for the decision to reinvestigate to be taken by the prosecuting authorities rather than the courts.

Involving a Crown Court judge in proceedings at this stage would also make the process more cumbersome. There are many layers of safeguard already built in to the exercise of the powers listed in subsection (3). I do not believe that requiring the DPP to secure the leave of a Crown Court judge is necessary before a reinvestigation can get to the point of the exercise of these powers. The safeguards on reinvestigation need also to be seen in context. Before there can be an application for a retrial, the DPP's consent is required again. He must be satisfied at that stage that there is new and compelling evidence and that it is in the public interest for the application to be made. That application is then determined by the Court of Appeal. We believe that it is at that stage that a judicial decision in required. As such, I invite noble Lords not to insist on this amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.