Clause 81 - ''Bad character''
Criminal Justice Bill
9:10 am
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 467 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We also tabled amendments Nos. 468 and 469, and put our names to amendments Nos. 361, 362 and 363.
The clause is at the beginning of part 11, which is very important. It deals with evidence and, in particular, evidence about character. Party colleagues and members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs have the greatest concerns about the Government's proposals, and we shall gradually build up the arguments as we seek to amend the different elements of the Bill. To put matters simply, however, there is concern that allowing evidence about character to be introduced much more frequently will result in significant prejudice to the defendant, who should be judged on the facts in the case, not the facts of his life.
Clause 81 defines bad character, but our probing amendments would amend the definition by reducing the opportunities—or raising the threshold—for introducing evidence of bad character. We table them without prejudice to our view that the whole proposal has major defects, and we shall argue that it gives rise to a significant prejudice, which is not dealt with. Through the amendments, we seek to temper the extreme nature of the proposal.
Amendment No. 467 would insert the word ''clearly'' so that the clause read:
''For the purposes of this Chapter, evidence of a person's bad character is evidence which clearly shows or tends to show''.
Amendment No. 468 is a stronger alternative, which would insert the word ''conclusively'' in the same place. Amendment No. 469 concerns a different, but important, point. Paragraph (a) reads:
''he has committed an offence''.
The issue should not be whether someone has committed an offence; it should be whether they have been convicted of an offence. What a person did in the past should not count, irrespective of whether it has been proved. The justice system works reasonably well on the basis that the ticks are in the box once you have been charged and found guilty or you have admitted your guilt. I hope that the Minister sees the importance of making sure that amendment No. 469 is accepted. The wording in the clause is completely wrong, and we should take care not to go down that road.
The first of the joint amendments, amendment No. 361, would remove the words ''or tends to show'' for evidence showing ''bad character''. Like our Conservative colleagues we believe that it is not enough that evidence ''tends to show''—it must ''show''. It must be straightforward. Perhaps we could debate later how we can alter that threshold.
Amendment No. 362 is a probing amendment, and would have the same effect as our amendment on ''been convicted'' rather than ''committed an offence''. It aims at the same objective of replacing the words
''committed an offence'' with something more acceptable mentioning the fact that there has been a conviction. I hope that the Minister will accept that it is ''conviction'' that is material, not commission of the offence.
Amendment No. 363 is a probing but important amendment, which would reduce the test simply to previous convictions. That is because clause 81(1)(b) is an extremely—extraordinarily—widely drawn precondition. It suggests that the ''bad character'' test, which is the test of when something can be triggered through admission, could be met if evidence shows that the defendant
''has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person''.