Clause 62 - Cases that may be retried
Criminal Justice Bill
9:10 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to both questions. First, I am not aware of the Committee having indicated an objection to the change. Secondly, on a number of occasions, voices have been raised in the Conservative
party in favour of its introduction—for precisely the reasons that I put forward this morning when initiating the debate.
As I said to the Minister at the outset, I am pragmatic on the issue. I have read part 10's various clauses, starting with clause 62, and there are areas on which I am pushed one way or another. I am worried about the disappearance of the double jeopardy principle, but I appreciate that there may be compelling reasons for its removal. That will be my approach in Committee, rather than an argument based on some principled objection, but I shall be interested and delighted to hear those principled objections.
I dare say that the matter will be returned to on Report. I hope that it will be, because if ever there was a matter on which the House should pronounce, it is the retrying of cases. That is a difficult area. As we make our way through the clauses, I shall see whether part 10 can be improved and, if so, how. If we can reach the point at which it may be possible to improve one or two areas that cause me particular anxiety, I may be far more reassured on the surrender of the principle.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) is quite right: I suspect that different views have been expressed in all political parties. The press expresses different views, as do the public. It is worth remembering that, as an instrument for fighting crime in general, clause 62 is completely irrelevant. By any showing, the number of such retrials that are likely to take place in any given year is likely to be extremely small, and that is based on the Government's own assessment.