Clause 77 - Bail and custody during and after hearing
Criminal Justice Bill
6:15 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 386, in
clause 77, page 49, line 2, at end add—
'(b) in the event of the acquittal of the defendant on any retrial, he should be entitled to compensation for any period he has spent in custody prior to and during any proceedings under this Part of the Act.'.
This is a simple issue. It is a principle of our law that if a person is held in custody pending trial, there is ordinarily no remedy, unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to subsequent action for malicious prosecution. Usually, there is no compensation for that. I think that it is generally accepted that the administration of justice would be difficult if compensation was provided for. However, under the procedure in question, such a rule should apply. If someone has been acquitted of an offence by a jury, and the police subsequently, with the DPP's approval, decide to reopen the investigation, in the course of which they re-arrest the person and detain him, and it is decided that he should be deprived of his liberty during the investigation and trial, which lasts several months, it seems to me that that person is entitled to be compensated by the state if the outcome of the process is a second acquittal. If the person is convicted, the issue of course does not arise.
We cannot get away from the fact that the process that we are considering, which has been proposed for understandable reasons, is a massive change to the principle of our liberties in this country. In view of that, a new compensation regime should apply to it. It can be clearly distinguished from other examples of the same kind, and it would be proper to ensure that someone who is put in jeopardy in this way twice, and inconvenienced and deprived of his liberty as a result, should, if acquitted a second time, be compensated for what he has been put through by the state.