Clause 22 - No order made: reconsideration of benefit
Proceeds of Crime Bill
12:45 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I have listened to my hon. Friend's reading of the Bill with great care. He should apply to read ``Book at Bedtime'', because if he were to read the Bill, I would get to sleep much more quickly.
I have a number of concerns about clause 22 and I hope that the Minister will address them so that I need not object to the clause. Subsection (1)(b) appears to state that the prosecutor or director would go to the court if it appeared to him that the amount that should be made in the order would exceed the amount that was originally made. I understand why it should normally be left to the defence, and the convicted person, to argue why a reduction should be made. However, there have been cases in which information has been available to prosecuting authorities, the police and similar agencies and when it has served their purpose—I choose my words carefully—to withhold that information from the public gaze. Sometimes, it is many years before the information comes to light, and, when it does, many questions are asked.
There might be occasions when it would occur to the director—or to one of his senior officials or senior prosecutors—that the original amount was excessive, given the information that had subsequently come to light. It would be unfortunate if he were not able to go back to the court and say, ``Look, we are very sorry, but we realise that an honest mistake has been made and it is appropriate for the amount to be reduced.'' The clause would prevent him from doing that. It would prevent him, when he came across an injustice, from putting the matter right in a simple way, and that might leave a convicted criminal and his advisers to dig away in search of information that they did not know existed. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on that.
Subsection (4)(c) states that it is possible to make reference to things that have been obtained before the original order was made. Am I right in understanding that anything that may have been gained subsequently—even things that arise from the crimes for which a person has been convicted—will not be taken into account? If that is the case, and if it subsequently becomes clear that something else was obtained from the proceeds of a crime—
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock. {**vert_rule**}