Clause 37
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Jeremy Browne (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 37, page 23, line 35, at end add—
‘(3) Notwithstanding this, the rules on admissibility of evidence to be observed in such proceedings shall be the same as those observed in trials on indictment; and no person shall be required in such proceedings to answer any question or to produce any document which he could not be required to answer or produce in similar proceedings in a trial on indictment.’.
I will be genuinely brief. The amendment would ensure a higher standard of evidence than the civil standard. You may feel that this subject has been discussed to your satisfaction, Mr. Benton, but let me take a little longer to clarify my point. We believe that the civil standard of proof—on the balance of probabilities—is not sufficient, whereas the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, would offer greater reassurance. Baroness Scotland said in the other place that the likely standard of proof for the orders would be
“very close to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2007;Vol. 689, c. 729.]
I am not a lawyer, but I think that “very close” is an extremely loaded expression. It is hard to be confident about precisely what it will mean in practice. The amendment is yet another attempt to move the Bill towards firmer and more rigorous standards of evidence and proof.