Clause 8 - Extended detention of suspected drug offenders
Drugs Bill
12:00 pm
Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made provision for a magistrate to commit a person charged with possession of a controlled drug or a drug trafficking offence into the custody of a customs officer for a period of up to 192 hours. Under clause 8, we are trying to give magistrates similar powers to remand a person charged to the custody of a police officer for a period of up to 192 hours to increase the likelihood of the evidence being recovered. That is an important part of the clause.
Although the amendment appears reasonable, it would limit the exercise of the power to cases in which an X-ray or ultrasound scan has established the possibility of the defendant having swallowed a substance that is reasonably believed to be a controlled drug. I do understand the desire to ensure that the power of extended detention is used only where necessary, and I would certainly expect the police to take great care when considering whether to use the new powers to seek an X-ray or ultrasound scan before deciding to seek a remand for 192 hours.
I cannot accept the amendment, however, because it could mean that a suspect could avoid being remanded on charge to police custody simply by refusing consent to an X-ray or an ultrasound scan. In the light of our earlier discussion, the court could obviously make inferences from a refusal to consent. On the other hand, there is the question of building the case and the evidence base that the person is involved in the supply of drugs. We will know for sure that the evidence is inside them only when it comes out at the other end.
Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already requires a magistrate to consider whether the use of the power is appropriate. That is important, because the power is exercised by the magistrates, not police officers, and therefore must be exercised judiciously. I would also remind hon. Members that the power cannot be used on defendants under 17 years of age.
The power is important for dealing not only with refusals, but with X-rays or scans that are not clear and which might therefore cause problems with showing reasonable belief that a substance is there, in line with the amendment. We have sought information from customs officers. Although they said that most swallowed parcels of drugs are detected by X-ray or ultrasound, a small pellet may remain undetected. That may depend on the experience of the ultrasound or X-ray operative or on the equipment being used.
Although there must be a procedure for the police to make a case—in this case to the courts—for using the power over and above an X-ray or scan, or when someone has refused, the police need to have the power provided for them in certain circumstances. On that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw the amendment.