Clause 31 - Further provisions about defence disclosure
Criminal Justice Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)
Although we agree with the principle behind the amendments, we do not consider them necessary. In the process of offering reassurances, I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that.
To echo our earlier discussion, judges will invariably wish to consider representations from all parties before they direct that the jury should be given a copy of the defence statement. For the reasons that I gave earlier, to have to provide in statute a reference to
the need to consider representations throws into doubt all the other cases in which such decisions must be taken. As far as the amendment needs to be considered, it could be covered by the rules of court. I hope that in making an identical point to the one that I did earlier, I can reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
As far as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is concerned, the judge will always take into account the need to ensure a fair trial. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is worded:
''that it would be fair in all the circumstances to do so.''
I am sure that judges would take offence at any suggestion that they would not consider whether it would be fair in all the circumstances to decide to give the jury a copy of the defence statement. Therefore, I genuinely do not think that the amendment is necessary. As to the circumstances, the jury may wish to consider arguments that have been made on whether adverse inference should be drawn.
I confess that I was surprised when I discussed the matter in more detail with officials before the debate—there may be an argument for saying that, in general, it might help juries to see defence statements. I was puzzled by the argument that to have a trial based on the defence statement, rather than on hearing the arguments, was a problem.
I am not a lawyer and I may be treading in dangerous waters, but, given the way in which most of us now take decisions, and the ways in which Ministers operate on the basis of submissions and then discussions with officials—similar to a trial—I have no difficulty with the argument that, in some circumstances, the judge might decide that to have access to the defence statement, alongside listening to the arguments presented at the trial, would help the jury to consider the case. That might allow a practice of giving documentation to juries to develop in the court.
I see no conflict there; I do not see how giving the jury a prepared defence statement could get in the way of a fair trial or the consideration of arguments that are presented orally in court.