Clause 6 - Supplementary provisions as to proceedings before competent court
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
I have one or two very brief questions about clause 6. We all know that the competent court means the domestic court that will deal with the transmission of the defendant to the ICC. I want to ask the Government about costs.
I note that in clause 6(2) provision is made for the payment of
``defence costs on dismissal of proceedings''.
If a defendant is brought before the competent court and it dismisses the information against him, he would be entitled to recover his costs, which I assume would be obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service or the Foreign Office. I expect that it would be the CPS because it would be acting for its client—the Foreign Office or the ICC—just as the CPS acted for the Government of Spain in the Pinochet matter. In the event that the case is dismissed and the CPS is required to pay the defendant's costs, will the CPS—and I ask the question as protector of taxpayers' money—be able to recover, on an indemnity basis, what it has paid from the ICC?
Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)
When the hon. and learned Gentleman moved the amendment on the previous clause, he commented that we must address the detail of the Bill and get it right. I concur. We are not content to say simply that the Bill is a good idea, so let us get on with it.
Clause 6 contains practical provisions that will ensure the proper and efficient conduct of proceeding on a delivery order. It enables a competent court to exercise certain powers relating to the conduct of proceedings; for example, it can adjourn the case and remand the arrested person. It provides for the arrested person to have access to criminal advice, assistance and representation through the criminal defence services. As for what would happen in the event of a discharge, the arrested person's costs would be paid out of central funds.
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister, but my question went a little further. Will the CPS be able to recover the outgoing costs that it has to pay from its client—the foreign extra-territorial body? While he is taking instructions, and I mean that in the nicest—
Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)
I am not insulted. I apologise for the delay.
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
No, I am delighted. I want the Minister to have all the information that he needs.
In the extradition case, the kingdom of Spain was the client of the CPS, which may—I do not remember—be insusceptible to an order for costs, and that case may have gone all the way through the Lords and back. Under the Bill, will the ICC be required to pay the CPS's costs for doing the ICC's work?
Mr John Battle (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Leeds West, Labour)
That is a good question. I apologise for consulting the Solicitor-General, but his advice, as usual, is spot on. Article 100 refers to costs, and makes it clear that costs would be borne by the state, not by the ICC, so they would come back home to us and we would have to find them from central funds.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill