Clause 38 - Application by prosecution for trial to be
Criminal Justice Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)
We have had a good debate on the amendments and on the clause. Clause 38 and its companion clause, clause 40, which we shall discuss in due course, are intended to deal with what the Committee has acknowledged is a serious problem. I do not need to say any more about that, because the
hon. Member for Woking spoke with insight and authority when he described, in graphic terms, precisely the problem that we are talking about.
I have been asked what the phrase ''jury tampering'' means. In a sense, we have heard the answer. It clearly includes actual or attempted harm or threat to, or intimidation or bribery of, a jury or any of its members, and it could include improper approaches to a juror's family or friends and threats to a juror's property. The law currently takes a serious view of jury tampering. I submit that it is a serious problem, which must be dealt with extremely firmly because of the threat that it poses to the integrity of the whole criminal justice system.
As we have heard, the court can order police protection when it considers that there is a serious risk that jurors may be the subject of intimidation. The type and level of protection will vary. In a handful of cases each year, between six and 10 jurors undergo the stress and intrusion of 24-hour police protection, with officers accompanying them everywhere inside the courtroom and in what remains of their private lives. Anecdotal evidence indicates that jurors suffer considerable strain when placed under that protection, for obvious reasons. Their privacy is disrupted and their normal activities are curtailed.
Research by Merseyside police suggests that, in a few cases, jury protection measures, such as balloting juries rather than reading out their names in court—a process described by the hon. Member for Woking—are ineffective. Interviews have been conducted with jurors who served on a trial that collapsed as a result of improper approaches to jurors. I am aware of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred from a conversation that I had with a recorder in Liverpool. I asked him about that.