Clause 6 - Evidence and procedure: courts-martial
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her comments. I repeat that in order to
leave open the possibility that there is a case to answer on murder or manslaughter, there must be a case to answer in relation to the new offence. In other words, there must be the possibility of there being sufficient evidence that one or other or both defendants committed the act. If that case is there to answer in the second half of the trial, we must leave open the possibility of there being further evidence that pinpoints which of the two or more people involved in the case did the deed. That is what we seek to achieve through the procedural change.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) commented on the Law Commission's proposals, saying that they would apply only to the new offence, but that is not quite accurate. Its proposals on adverse inferences and deferring cases to answer would apply to a wider range of offences against children. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with a list of those offences, if that would be helpful; the list is substantial, and I am sure that he would find it of interest.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the statutory duty to provide a statement. I indicated that the reason why we were following a route slightly different from that recommended by the Law Commission was that we had chosen to introduce a different offence from the one that it had proposed. We did not believe that a statutory duty would be effective. It would be relevant only to children, parents and carers. It would not therefore be relevant to vulnerable adults, whom we want to protect by way of the new offence under clause 5, or to other members of the household with no caring role. We want something wider than the Law Commission proposed.
A duty to speak is difficult to reconcile with the right not to incriminate oneself. We have therefore built instead on the elements of the new offence. We believe that if those elements are established, the circumstances clearly call for an explanation. It is only in those circumstances that an inference can be drawn, if that is appropriate.
I hope that that is helpful. We have had an interesting discussion, with various interventions. I believe that the Committee is in agreement on the principle and the aim of the provision. Hon. Members of all parties have said so. There may be concerns about how it will work, but I do not believe that those are well founded.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.