Clause 38
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 131, in clause 38, page 23, line 43, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where a law enforcement officer has retained an original document under subsection (1) he shall—
(a) on the request of the person who is the subject of the serious crime prevention order; or
(b) at the request of any person who was given the opportunity to make representations in the proceedings concerned by virtue of section 10(1), (2) or (as the case may be) (3);
provide that person with a copy of the retained document unless, on application of a person mentioned in this subsection, a court to which an application is made otherwise orders.’.
In Committee, we have debated many matters of principle, but this is a matter of detail. I might be wrong, but it looks to me as though there might be a significant problem that has not been addressed.
The clause gives power to law enforcement officers to take documents, both copies and originals, and to retain them. One needs to keep in mind that the person who is to be made the subject of the order might well have a legitimate need for a copy of the documents, either to deal with the allegations that have been made—that is natural justice—or to carry out his ordinary business. That applies also to third parties, who, as we all understand, might be affected by the order and might have a legitimate need to see copies of the documents, to see whether they wish to make representations to the court, as is provided for in the Bill, or otherwise to conduct their business.
It is possible that I have overlooked a passage, but when I look at the clause, I see no obligation on the law enforcement officers who have taken possession of the originals or copies of documents to deliver a copy on request to the subject of the order or to a third party. That seems to me to offend both natural justice and general disclosure laws that apply in criminal and civil courts.
There might be exceptional cases in which it would be wrong to provide the subject of the order or a third party with a copy. I suppose that one can construct such cases and I have provided for that in the amendment, which would give the enforcement agency the power to go to the court to get relief from delivering up a copy. As a matter of general principle, however, it is right that a law enforcement agency should have to deliver to the person who is the subject of the order or to a third party a copy of the relevant documents on request. In that spirit, I move the amendment.