Clause 72 - Authorisation of investigations
Criminal Justice Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
Well, one could, but it is difficult to determine whether the process on which one is embarking is readily susceptible to judicial review. After all, once the DPP makes his decision, the police will presumably start scurrying around—sorry, that might be seen as a pejorative term and I did not mean it that way. The police will, however, be doing their investigations. That might prevent judicial review. It might also provide for a little judicial oversight.
Of course, it is a difficult decision. The DPP will be seized with a massive dossier and will be advised about the issue. None the less, the protection of having a Crown court authorise an investigation commends itself to me. I take the hon. and learned Lady's point that judicial review proceedings might be an option, but that raises difficult issues. For example, will everything be frozen during such proceedings? If so, one argument against them is that they might seriously impede the course of investigations, which will be carried out in the interests of justice. That could raise complicated issues. I was rather happier with the idea of subjecting the issue to judicial scrutiny, because one could then say that the investigation was taking place on the order of a Crown court judge.
We cannot escape the fact that the clause proposes a massive alteration to the basic principles that govern the grounds on which someone can be arrested and investigated. If other hon. Members think that the judicial review procedure is the better route, and the Minister says that it would be available, I will consider it. However, the amendment seemed to deal with the problem by removing the idea that it was for the DPP—the state—to initiate what could be seen as an oppressive procedure.