Clause 29 - Notification of intention to
Criminal Justice Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I share the hon. Gentleman's anxieties on some matters, but not all. I do not find the principle of supplying the name and address of a witness whom one intends to call a difficult concept. I do not understand where injustice flows from in that.
A couple of matters sprang to mind while the hon. Gentleman was speaking—during which time, oddly enough, I re-read the clause—that cause me greater concern or at least prompt me to seek clarification. In many cases a defendant clearly knows that there is a witness called Mr. X, and where he lives. Sometimes he may know exactly who that person is, but not his address. In some cases, the defendant may refer to a person who he thinks might be able to help his case because he believes that he was in the vicinity of the events in question. There seems to me to be a slight lack of clarity about who is covered in the phrase
''he intends to . . . call any evidence''.
On the whole, until one has seen the proof of evidence of someone whom one has asked to attend as a witness, one is in no position to decide whether to call him. Until then, he is a speculative bystander who may or may not be able to help.
When I read the clause I took it that the requirement to disclose the names of witnesses related to someone whom a defendant and his legal advisers had decided to call to give evidence on his behalf. I would normally be surprised if that person's address were not known, unless, perhaps, after the witness statement had been obtained or the witness had been spoken to, he had moved and it was not possible to trace him. In that case, one would refer to him in such terms as ''Mr. Bloggs, previously of this address, but I do not know where he is at the moment.''
However, perhaps the intention is that a defendant will be required to inform the prosecution of people who he thinks might be able to help him, although he has not really any idea whether they will be able to. I had not understood that to be the thrust of the clause. If it is, I am slightly concerned that it goes too far. How on earth can someone decide whether a person who may be able to help should be called as a witness, without having had an opportunity to look into the matter? I do not think, in those circumstances, that a defendant should be required to tell the prosecution that he thinks there might be someone who can help him, but that he has not yet been able to trace that person, and that while he believes his name is so and so, he does not know where he lives. I hope that the Minister can follow the distinction. I should be grateful for his clarification of what is intended.
I think that unfairness could result from the interpretation of the clause that I have outlined. It might require a defendant to communicate the names of people who might turn out to be hostile witnesses, through no fault of the defendant's. He would be under no obligation to call them, and indeed would not want to. The matter could be used against him by the prosecution in the course of the trial. I should not want that to happen.