Clause 77 - Bail and custody during and after hearing
Criminal Justice Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I accept that, and that there might be grounds for claiming malicious prosecution. However, I take my view quite independently of that. Above all, the point is that the person has been detained in custody—the hon. and learned Lady will see that that is provided for—and that there has been a deprivation of liberty in the trial process. There might be circumstances in which trials take place without the person's being detained in custody at all. I also suspect that the judiciary might bend over backwards to avoid custody, unless the risk of absconding or interfering with the course of justice is thought to be so great that someone should be locked up. If someone is not already inside for another offence when the procedure
is carried out, which might often be the case, or if he is at liberty and has been leading a normal life for some time, the judiciary might be loth to deprive him of his liberty. If so, I would certainly not seek compensation for him.
There is a powerful argument—it is no more than an argument, and I shall not press the amendment to a vote—for recognising that we are taking a grave step in public policy terms. If the retrial turned out not be justified, and the jury opted for acquittal, it would be right to pay compensation to the defendant, who would have been detained in custody for an offence of which he had previously been acquitted and who would have been put through the trial process again.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.