Clause 65 - New and compelling evidence
Criminal Justice Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)
That evidence might be used, subject to the tests that we have discussed in relation to clauses 65 and 66. Science has moved on since DNA samples were first taken. Then, quite a blob of material was needed—I put it in a non-scientific way—to establish the required information, and that can now be done from a much smaller blob or piece of material. That does not stand in the way of the general thrust of the clause, although I recognise the hon. Lady's concern and opposition to the provisions, and nor do I think that it stands in the way of a fair trial. Clause 66(2) refers to the possibility of a fair trial and clause 66(2)(b) to the length of time involved. The Court of Appeal will have to weigh those things in the balance when it decides whether a retrial can be considered.
Admissibility is not an issue, because the court will have to decide whether any new evidence is compelling and indicative of guilt. It will not be concerned with whether the new evidence would have been admissible if it had been available at the original trial. That would have been a matter for the trial judge at the time, dealt with in the context of the trial as a whole. Here, however, the court will have to be concerned with the value of new evidence in the context of a potential retrial.