Clause 30 - Notification of names of experts
Criminal Justice Bill
5:30 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I accept that it might not be impossible, but it would be very unlikely. Whether it would be desirable is another issue. Advisers have an obligation not to mislead the court by misrepresenting the case. However, they have no current obligation to divulge matters that might be prejudicial to their client's case, and there is no proposal in the Bill to impose such an obligation on them. The proposal is a serious inroad into that principle. I find it impossible to justify, and would not want to do it. After all, the prosecution has access to enormous lists of experts. As the hon. and learned Lady said, it can shop around. If it finds that an expert does not support its case, it can go to someone else, although it does, of course, have to
reveal that to the defence. It is inherently unlikely that the prosecution would want to use an expert once it had been told that he had been approached by the defence, unless it were in some way to attack, rubbish or criticise the defendant when he gave evidence—the most important point. That would be very undesirable.
I cannot say more than that, but simply urge the Government to reconsider the matter. If the proposal is so modest, why pursue it at all when all parties are expressing such anxieties about the impact the proposal could have on the fairness of trial proceedings. I urge the Minister not to be swayed by what I am sure are well meaning and, in many respects, extremely well reasoned reports produced after tragedies or horrible murders. We cannot introduce sound legislation on that basis.
I intend to ask for the opportunity to press amendment No. 230 to the vote. If I cannot secure that amendment, I will not vote against the clause in the clause stand part debate, as it is my intention to return to the matter when other hon. Members of the House, not just Committee Members, may have an opportunity to express their views for or against it. I do not think that we should prejudice that by voting on it at this stage.
If possible, I should like to put amendment No. 230 to the vote. It would draw the sting from the primary use of disclosure, although I would still be unhappy even with an amended clause 30. However, it would at least be an improvement. I do not like the intention at the heart of clause 30; it is a terrible mistake.