Clause 17 - Statement of information
Proceeds of Crime Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
It is a pop group.
One might interpret subsection (3) to mean that the prosecutor must disclose everything. However, it could also be interpreted to mean that the prosecutor should disclose everything that justifies the position that he has concluded—in respect of the defendant having a criminal lifestyle, for example—and that it does not necessarily oblige him to disclose matters that may lead him to reach an alternative conclusion. I am not convinced that subsection (3), or the point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham, would require the prosecutor to put that case fairly. After all, it is not his job to do that. If it is his job to put a balanced case that sets out the pros and cons, why is subsection (4)(b) necessary—especially as subsection (4)(a) is all-encompassing? The assumption is that subsection (4)(b) is necessary because a further test is put on the prosecutor: having reviewed the matter, he must ask whether there is a risk with regard to material that is not being disclosed. Ought the court to be made aware of that in reaching its conclusions? That is how I read the matter.
If that is correct, we return to the matter of serious risk. With regard to subsection (4)(b), my initial point—and the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Surrey Heath also referred to it—was, if the word ``serious'' is allowed to stand unqualified and unamended, does that mean that the prosecutor could come up with material that, in his mind, could lead to a suggestion that a risk of injustice is possible? The test that he has to follow is that of a serious risk of injustice. Therefore, he may conclude that that information does not have to be submitted as part of the statement that he gives to the court.