Clause 73 - Urgent investigative steps
Criminal Justice Bill
5:30 pm
Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)
For the reasons alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, I am not persuaded that the appropriate rank of person to authorise the arrangements under the clause is chief constable. In consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Government have reached the view that a superintendent would have the appropriate seniority and operational experience to take a decision to authorise an urgent reinvestigation. Chief constables are far less readily available to deal personally with such urgent situations than superintendents. What if the chief constable was away?
As for the sort of circumstances to which the provision would apply—what about those in which information is received? I accept that, in the main, the clause 72 route should be used. However, it would be unwise, having gone to all the effort to change the law on double jeopardy, not to provide for urgent circumstances. An example might be an instance in which information is received from an informant that a particular piece of evidence is to be found at a particular place, and that if the acquitted person were to become aware that he was being reinvestigated, he might decide to dispose of it. That is why subsection (5)(a) gives as a condition that meets the test of a matter of urgency
''to prevent the investigation being substantially and irrevocably prejudiced.''
Thus, information that the weapon that was used in a particular murder is to be found in a cupboard would be a good reason for taking urgent investigative steps. Provision has to be made for such situations; otherwise the circumstances described in subsection (5)(a) might come to pass.