New clause 2 - Application of sections 30 and 31
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)
We believe that proper safeguards for witnesses are already provided in clauses 30 and 31, combined with schedule 2. The two sorts of hearing are subject to different rules. Television evidence is governed by clause 30, which says that witness can be compelled to attend the court. Telephone evidence is governed by clause 31, which says they cannot be
compelled. Schedule 2 makes it clear that there is a significant difference between these hearings.
Paragraph (1) of part 1 of schedule 2, entitled ''Securing attendance of witnesses'', relates to the television link and states that the nominated court has powers for securing the attendance of a witness, as it does for proceedings before the court. By contrast, paragraph (11) of part 2, entitled ''Notification of witness'', relates to the telephone link and only gives the court the power to inform the witness of when the hearing will take place. That paragraph states that the court must be satisfied that the witness is willingly giving evidence by telephone.
The usual domestic summons procedures will apply in relation to television hearings. The summons will be issued by the domestic court in accordance with our law under section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Summonses set out when and where the witness should appear, the consequences of failure to comply and details of who to contact for more information. We consider that the existing summons procedures are appropriate.
Schedule 2 sets out the circumstances in which a witness cannot be compelled to give evidence by television link. A witness could not be compelled to give any evidence if he could not be compelled to give it in criminal proceedings in the UK, were he participating in domestic proceedings, if giving any evidence would be prejudicial to the security of the UK, or in his capacity as an officer or servant of the Crown. The first point ensures that the witness is granted at least the same protections as in domestic proceedings, even though the hearing is being conducted by an overseas court.
The requirement in the second part of new clause 2 is not appropriate. It is extremely unlikely that our authorities would be able to provide witnesses with information about the uses for which their evidence may be put. The overseas authority conducting the hearing would inform the witness of as much as necessary on the use of evidence under its law.
Turning to new clause 3, other than for the purposes of contempt of court and perjury, television and telephone hearings are not proceedings before a UK court. The Bill enables witnesses to be heard as part of the proceedings before an overseas court, and they take place under the law of the state that requested the hearing. The witness would give evidence as part of foreign proceedings and the foreign court would not be conducting proceedings in the UK. The mutual legal assistance convention and the Bill are designed to ensure that witnesses are adequately protected under the law of the country in which they are present, even though the evidence they are giving is taken in accordance with the law of a country outside the UK. The provisions ensure that while a domestic court is not conducting the hearing, it has the appropriate powers to safeguard the rights of the witness.
The protections are adequate. They cover the position where the court has the ability to take sanctions against witnesses who commit perjury or contempt as defined in our law, while they are present
in our domestic court. I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clauses.