Clause 65 - New and compelling evidence
Criminal Justice Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
Having a meeting with constituents in the Lobby and getting to Committee on time nearly caused me problems, but I return to the matter of omitting subsection (5). The Minister will recall that I explained that I am in doubt as to its meaning, so it would be helpful if he explained what it is. My concern is that it would be possible, if I have understood correctly, for evidence to be admitted at a second trial that would not have been admissible at the first. For example, as a result of subsection (5), would evidence of bad character, whose admissibility we shall facilitate in a later part of the Bill, be admissible at a retrial even though it was not admissible at the first?
I remind the Minister of my previously expressed concern about the legitimate opportunities open to the defence to make choices based on the existing rules of evidence—for example, circumstances in which a defendant may have exercised the right to silence. That right has since been abrogated in its absolute sense, because it is possible to draw inferences from silence that it might not have been possible to draw when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The Committee should be aware that we might end up addressing problems of unfairness because the rules under which a retrial will take place differ from those for the original trial and investigation.
That is a discrete point, and I do not want to spend any more time on it as I should like to hear from the Minister why subsection (5) exists if not for that purpose, what its purpose is and whether we need it.