Clause 82 - Foreign surveillance operations
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I turn now to amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75. We have had such a detailed debate this morning and so much ground was covered, that I can probably speak briefly not only to this group of amendments, but subsequent groups. That will probably suit the Minister, the Whip and other members of the Committee. The three
amendments run together. They would ensure that hot surveillance in the United Kingdom was lawful only if it was lawful under the UK law if carried out not by a foreign police or Customs officer, but a British officer. We want the Bill to state explicitly that overseas police or Customs officers must at all times stick to the same rules of lawful surveillance as our police or Customs officers. I do not want to repeat all that has been said about the clause, but surely that must be the better option.
There is a danger that if the Bill was unamended, the Government could end up with a lot of egg on their face. I referred earlier to the investigations into the Brinks-Mat case and the tragic consequences of the murder of a police officer. The Minister did not seem to understand my argument this morning, so I shall briefly stress it again. I have had a personal briefing with the detective chief superintendent at Scotland Yard, who was in charge of the case. Even in the most serious criminal investigations when the greatest possible care was taken, as it was in the Brinks-Mat case, things can still go wrong.
This morning, the Minister was praying in aid, as part of her argument in defence of the Government's position, that due to the fact that only the most expert surveillance officers of the most serious crime would be involved, care would be taken. I then referred to the case of Kenneth Noye, who murdered a police officer who was acting properly while undertaking covert surveillance. That operation should not have gone wrong, but it did because the police were dealing with a serious and violent criminal.
I have had discussions with senior law enforcement officers from America whom I met during the Easter recess when I was in Greece. I was there in my capacity as a shadow Home Office Minister, meeting our ambassador and consul in Greece to discuss the serious case of the British lorry driver who had been arrested in Patras because illegal immigrants had been found in his lorry. He was put on trial within hours of his arrest. He was not given an English-speaking lawyer. A jeweller who spoke some English was pressed into service as the court interpreter. The lorry driver, David Wilson, was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. That showed our concerns about foreign jurisdictions even within the European Union, but that is a point to which we shall return under other legislation.
While I was in Greece, by coincidence I met a couple of senior sheriffs from America, who were in Greece to try to extradite someone back to that country for the most serious offences of counterfeiting and drugs smuggling. They were from Tocoma in Washington state. They said that they were happy for me to use the international experiences that they described as examples when we debated matters of international co-operation and extradition.
The sheriffs said that we must be aware that, however careful the forces of law and order may be, things can still go wrong. I hope that, the second time around, the Minister will understand my argument. It is a response to her praying in aid in support of the Government's position that such matters are serious and will always be dealt with carefully. I accept that
they will be, but things can still go wrong. That is why additional safeguards are needed.