Clause 65 - New and compelling evidence
Criminal Justice Bill
9:45 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am not tying the Minister down to a form of words. However, in trying to understand how the clause emerged as it did, I imagine that there was a deep desire to ensure that the test was a high one. As an inevitable consequence, the jury's later decision making has been pre-empted. That is the mischief that needs to be addressed, even if it has occurred unintentionally.
As the Minister pointed out, the consideration of the Court of Appeal, even though it will have power to call witnesses and do all sorts of things, is bound to be partial. The trial process, particularly the defence case in response to any new evidence that emerges, will not have been tested and scrutinised by the Court of Appeal, which will take a decision based on the new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence advanced
by the prosecution on the basis that it brings a completely different dimension to the case against the defendant. There will not be an opportunity for the defendant's response to that—except, perhaps, some preliminary comments—to be fully considered. That provides the Minister with his let out, and the drift as to how the clause might be reworded.
It is worth repeating that merely tinkering with a few words may be unproductive and may not achieve the intended result. Obviously, the less the wording has to be changed, the better, but the more I look at my amendments, the less I think that they meet the nub of the issue any more than the Government's original draft does.