Clause 19 - Seized evidence
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)
I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. The hon. Gentleman is right that there have been problems. Mutual legal assistance between two countries will never be a foolproof procedure. Domestic law differs. The key is the framing of the request and ensuring that the requested material will be in a form that the jurisdiction seeking to bring the case before the court can use. The hon. Gentleman is right that problems could arise if the request for information is not framed in that form. That is why we are obliged to respond to requests in a particular way. The only get-out is if there is some fundamental legal reason why it is not possible to respond to those requests. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that will always be a potential difficulty if people do not frame requests correctly.
I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer in response to his question about joint investigation teams, but he now chases the argument one stage further back. The reason for the subsection is that the joint investigation team would have been originator of the request, which he accepts. The team would have been set up to undertake a specific operation with a view to bringing a prosecution. I do not want to respond off the top of my head to the question about the flexibility given to the joint investigation team at that stage to pass on information that comes its way that might be peripheral to the original reason for its establishment. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in trying to check whether we are imposing inappropriate restrictions on passing on information that may come to hand. I shall try to ascertain what the procedures are for going wider than the original intent of the joint investigation team in passing on the information. There may be restrictions that are appropriate.