Clause 15 - Appeals by prosecution
Criminal Justice Bill
9:15 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 15, page 10, line 37, after 'imprisonment', insert
'for two years or more'.
First, I associate myself with the Minister's response to the information given to us by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. We all send our best wishes to the officer and his family.
The clause amends the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993. Under the clause, it will be possible for the prosecution to appeal not only in the case of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for five years or more but in the case of any imprisonable offence.
When I saw the words ''Bail (Amendment) Act 1993'' in the Bill, it brought back memories—I drafted that legislation, having been asked for help by the hon. Member who was introducing it as a private Member's Bill. I had never drafted a piece of legislation before, and might never do again. Since it appeared on the statute book, the Court of Appeal has criticised its drafting on a number of occasions and it has been tinkered around with several times. That drafting was done by my fireside with a whisky in one hand and a pen in the other, quite late at night, when I came back from my barrister's practice, but at least it has stood the test of time and the Government seek to improve it—or do they?
When the 1993 Act was drafted, I felt that it would be pushing it a bit to say that it should be possible for the prosecution to appeal what it considered to be a mistaken decision to grant bail in respect of any imprisonable offence. That is why that was confined to offences attracting a sentence of imprisonment of five
years or more. This probing amendment prompts us to consider, as a topic for discussion, whether we are going too far in including any offence punishable by imprisonment. While I accept that discretion will lie with the prosecution, we could end up with a situation in which grants of bail in offences in which the likely sentence of imprisonment is going to be minute or non-existent could be appealed. That is why I have tabled an amendment that introduces a two-year limit. It is important for the Committee to consider the matter, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
We do not wish to see people out on the streets who have been wrongly granted bail by magistrates courts; that is why the 1993 Act seemed to be such an important tool. Prior to that, there was no possibility of any appeal by the prosecution against what the police might have felt was a mistaken decision to grant bail. However, it was always thought that it would be used in respect of serious offences, or of a person on trial for a serious offence. What is now proposed is a catch-all that could apply to anyone and would cover a vast number of offences. Do we need to go that far? There is a merit in having certainty in legal proceedings. Apart from the danger of clogging up the courts, if legislation results in people constantly thinking that decisions by magistrates to grant bail might be reversed a few weeks later, is it necessary? That is the key test in our deliberations on the Bill, and I should like the Minister to explain why the current wording is necessary.