Clause 52 - Jurisdiction for terrorist offfences
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:45 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
We are moving on to a new and important part of the Bill. I shall place on the record
the view of my party that this is an important provision that we support in principle. There should be the extra-territorial jurisdiction.
I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Lists inherently are not always the best way of dealing with such matters. I presume that the list exists because the agreement under the framework directive requires offences to be specified, as opposed to the more general terms for terrorist offences required by terrorist legislation, which are defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.
The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that it is necessary to provide for the additional offences of aiding, abetting, conspiring, et cetera. There is an interesting, although not illuminating, reference to that in explanatory note 119, which states:
''Where an extra-territorial offence is created, extra-territorial jurisdiction is also automatically taken over secondary and inchoate offences, such as aiding, abetting, attempting, inciting, conspiring, counselling or procuring.''
In other words, the explanatory notes suggest that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are already covered, but it is not clear how. We are writing British law, not a European directive, and our law usually requires matters to be spelt out. If one is creating an area of jurisdiction that deals with specific offences, we would usually expect to identify what those offences are.
I certainly do not have the expertise, not only in English and Welsh law, but in Scottish and Northern Irish law, to know that in each case there is a secondary offence other than the broad ''criminal conspiracy'' and descriptions of that kind. There are specific offences in each of these instances of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, et cetera. If they are specific offences, it is sensible to list them. If they are not specific offences, I am unsure whether we can invent them by inference, which would appear to be the case here.
I ask the Minister how this list may or may not be amended in future, because there does not appear to be express provision for amendments to the list of specified offences over which we are taking jurisdiction. Usually, in a Bill of this kind, that is done by negative resolution whenever there is a new agreement in the Council of Ministers, and we have debated that. However, that does not appear to be case in this instance. Does that mean that we would need new primary legislation if there were to be any amendments to that list by agreement or otherwise? If a crime was committed for terrorist purposes that does not appear in this list, can we assume that it would not be subject to the extra-territorial jurisdiction? I presume that that is the case and that, despite the fact that that has formed part of a criminal act that was linked to terrorism, we cannot assume that we would have such jurisdiction in those circumstances? Does the Minister believe that the definition is watertight in all contexts? If a new law were to be made by a constituent part of the United Kingdom, how would that be incorporated within this provision in the Bill?
There are a series of interlocking questions, the answers to which are important to our understanding of this part of the Bill, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give us an extensive reply so that we can be clear about what we are talking about.