Clause 25 - Release of evidence held under the order
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 136, in
clause 25, page 14, line 27, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
The clause is a puzzlement to me. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me. It deals with the release of evidence that has been held under the order. Subsection (1) states that
''the nominated court may authorise the release of any evidence retained by a constable under section 24 if, in its opinion—
the condition in section 21(6) or (7) is met, or
the overseas freezing order has ceased to have effect in the participating country.''
I refer the Committee back to the condition under clause 21(6) or (7), which concern the circumstances in which the person who is the subject of the freezing order would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction. In other words, that person cannot be convicted of the offence to which the investigation and the evidence relates.
The second condition described under subsection (7) refers to
''giving effect to the overseas freezing order would be incompatible with any of the Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998''.
Surely to goodness if either of those conditions apply, there should not be a discretion about whether the court releases evidence that is properly the property of the person in question. It must release it.
The second condition under 25(1)(b) is if
''the overseas freezing order has ceased to have effect in the participating country.''
Again, there is no case to answer. Therefore, what are the circumstances in which a court may hold that it is lawful for a constable to retain evidence on the basis of an order, which was shown either to have been extinguished, which was improper because it related to an offence to which the supposed defendant was entitled to be acquitted, or was a breach of convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998? There is no potential doubt about the matter. The court must release the property. Not to release the property would be a contravention of the Human Rights Act, in that that person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his property.
Unless I have grievously misread the clause, the Minister must accept this amendment or give a very good reason why it will not be accepted, because I fail to understand in what circumstances the court would retain—or cause the constable to retain—such evidence without challenging the law, which would be improper.