Clause 9 - Use of evidence obtained
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
4:10 pm
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman may now sit down and get his breath back while he listens.
The amendments seek further clarification on the gathering and use of evidence obtained abroad. The Government cannot accept either of them. In explaining why, it might be helpful if I provide the Committee with further detail about the procedures involved and the use to which evidence obtained is put.
UK authorities may request that evidence be taken in the form of sworn testimony from a witness overseas. That evidence will generally be taken in accordance with the law of the requested country, although the UK may request the country to follow certain procedures if they are a necessary prerequisite for such evidence to be admissible. Ultimately, admissibility cannot be established until the evidence is presented to the court. Under the MLAC, EU countries will be under a general obligation to comply with requests for necessary formalities and procedures to be followed, provided that they are not contrary to fundamental principles of their law. That will help to ensure that the evidence is taken in a way that is useful to the UK.
Once the evidence has been obtained in the form of a sworn witness statement, the requesting authority will decide what further action to take. In some cases, it might ask whether the witness is willing to travel to give evidence at a trial, at which they could be cross-examined. In other cases, it might seek to admit a written statement as evidence. Admissibility is for the court to establish, having taken into account the matters in subsection (4), such as whether the person to be represented was present when the evidence was obtained.
Amendment No. 22 is inappropriate for inclusion in the Bill. Many aspects of the Bill, including the provisions under discussion, require the training of the judiciary as well as of other prosecutors. That aspect of the Bill is not new, however, and replicates section 3 of the 1990 Act. Evidence from overseas has been used successfully in domestic prosecutions since 1991 and the courts have been capable of making the necessary provisions. I would therefore argue that to include the requirement for training in the Bill is unnecessary and would arise in many other pieces of legislation, which is the reason not to include it. We
cannot prejudge what is admissible—the court will decide that at the end of the day. That rules out the hon. Gentleman's amendment. The training requirements should not be in the Bill.