Clause 63 - Application to Court of Appeal
Criminal Justice Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is perfectly possible to think of circumstances in which compelling evidence exists but a fair trial may be impossible. For example, evidence may come to light that the defendant's DNA is present at the scene. However, since the original trial, the defendant has suffered a head injury, which everybody accepts makes it difficult for him to recall events. As a result, he will be unable to explain how his DNA might innocently have been found at the scene.
That is a classic example of the kind of conundrum that might arise: compelling evidence exists that was not present at the previous trial, but since then the defendant has been put at a substantial disadvantage by something that is wholly unrelated to the offence and is not his fault. In those circumstances, the DPP should decide that the retrial cannot go ahead. However, it would be tempting for him to pass that buck to the Court of Appeal. The DPP must actively participate in the process.
The Minister may be able to reassure me that the amendment is not needed because of the public interest test, but we must bear it in mind that the media and the public will apply a great deal of—perfectly legitimate—pressure. They will want something done about the case. However, people who look at the clause will say that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial. If that is the case, the DPP must have the courage of his convictions. I want to ensure that that happens.