Clause 36 - Taking a conveyance without authority:extension of prosecution time-limits
Vehicles (Crime) Bill
2:45 pm

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 20, line 34, leave out `any' and insert `the'.

The clause relates to the taking of a conveyance without authority and the extension of time limits for prosecution. The argument for our amendment can be extremely crisply made. Prosecutions can be initiated by only one person. The Bill states that the extended time period under clause 36 begins from

the day on which sufficient

knowledge ``to justify the proceedings'' is obtained by ``any person responsible''. This is a genuine drafting point—whether it is minor is a matter for debate—but it seems more sensible to us that the clause should read, ``the person responsible'', rather than ``any person responsible''. Surely an individual should make the decision.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point was an illumination to me when I studied it. The phrase ``any person'' is used to ensure that Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors are unable to get round the six-month time limit by passing the file to another prosecutor. A CPS prosecutor who had sat on the file for six months could pass the file to another prosecutor and another six months could commence. The reference to ``any'' rather than ``the'' person responsible for deciding whether to commence prosecutions will prevent that from happening. The six months will start as soon as a prosecutor capable of taking the decision to prosecute has the evidence in his possession. If he fails to do so, no subsequent prosecution can be commenced. That legalistic response illuminated me, and that is the reason for using ``any'' rather than ``the''.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Although what the Minister said sounds eminently sensible, and I might well choose to withdraw the amendment, it is very unfortunate if that sort of excuse has been used at any stage. It would be quite improper for a public official to do so, as it would not be in the spirit of the legislation under which a matter was being considered.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I cannot give chapter and verse, but I, too, was surprised to discover that information. Obviously, making such an excuse would be bad practice, and as we are making the law it is important not to allow bad practice to be used to evade the law.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

As I think that the Minister will accept, the purpose of our drafting amendment was to tighten the law and discover the reason for the Minister's preferred wording. The last thing that any of us wants inadvertently to do, is to weaken the provision by providing a get-out clause. I am not certain that my proposed wording would do that, but the Minister is. He is confident that his wording would not allow for such a get-out, and on the basis of his good intentions and the advice that he has taken, I am happy to accept his word on this occasion and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I was wondering about the purpose of clause 36. I believe that the prosecution has a general time limit of three years from the date of an offence taking place. Why, in the clause, has that been limited to six months? Was the aim to speed up the process and stop a queueing system within the prosecuting authority or the police, or was it meant to provide some form of protection to someone who had committed an offence? Why has the general principle of a three-year gap been breached by a change, in this instance, to six months?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause extends the time for bringing prosecutions for unauthorised vehicle-taking—joy-riding—by amending the Theft Act 1968. It thereby extends the limit from six months after the offence to a maximum of three years, subject to the requirement that the prosecution be brought within six months of sufficient information coming to the attention of ``the'' or ``any'' any prosecutor. So-called joy-riders cause deep distress to their victims. They may be involved in accidents, and their offences are sometimes—some would say often—the gateway to more serious crime.

At present, some people escape justice because, as the law stands, no charges may be brought more than six months after the offence was committed. We want to make prosecution possible, signalling that the offence is not to be taken lightly. The extended time limit also allows us to take account of technological advances, particularly DNA and fingerprinting. Such developments may allow evidence to come to light later than six months after the offence.

Those are the principal reasons why we wish to make the change. The Crown Prosecution Service requested the limit of three years, and there are precedents, such as section 146A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That is why, with an offence for which it is not always easy to identify the offender, there should be more time to use the benefit of technological changes to help us to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.