§ Lord Spensasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether transcripts obtained by inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry, without caution and under threat of imprisonment, are used as evidence-in-chief in the criminal trial of individuals, and if so whether this is consistent with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Funke, Cremieux and Miailhe v. France.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)DTI inspectors have statutory powers under the Companies Act 1985, in certain circumstances, to require answers to questions which they may put in their investigations. They may certify any refusal to answer to the court. The court alone has power to penalise a refusal to answer questions (which may only be exercised after it has inquired into the case). Transcripts obtained by DTI inspectors may be and are used in criminal trials by both the prosecution and the defence. Protection for individuals is found in certain features of the DTI inspection system, for instance in the obligation of inspectors to act fairly. In England and Wales, it is also found in the power of the judge in any subsequent criminal trial to exclude evidence in the exercise of his discretion, or which in his judgment is unreliable or has been obtained by oppression or unfairly. In Scotland the trial judge has a duty to exclude evidence which has been obtained by oppression or unfairly.
With regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Funke, Cremieux and Miailhe v. France, the Government are of the view that the law as summarised above is consistent with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.