Clause 23
Counter-Terrorism Bill
10:00 am
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
You flatter me, Mr. Bercow. None the less, I will accept flattery for whatever reason.
Video evidence can be helpful when a defendant is extremely contemptuous of the questioning process. I remember that when I was doing the Minister’s job many years ago, I once went to the Castlereagh holding centre in Northern Ireland. At that time, the police did video interviews of IRA and other terrorist suspects. I remember looking at the process of the interview and seeing one of the detained people just lolling back and really laughing at the questioning officer. Such evidence is helpful for the prosecution to see how the interviewee is responding, so there is merit in videoing.
I also think that paragraph (d) in amendment No. 18 is too restrictive. The Minister is right when he says that definitional questions will arise as to what is new evidence. In any event, it seems rather perverse that further questioning should not be allowed in respect of doubts that have arisen in the previous questioning. Indeed, it can also work to the advantage of the defendant. I will briefly cite the case that I have just concluded. The defendant was asserting that he had made phone calls to relevant parties. That was true, because it was reflected in the billing records. It would be perverse if anything that we did prevented a police officer from going back and saying, “You said in the previous interview that you had made these phone calls. Would you be good enough now to indicate where in the billing records they are to be found?”
We should be cautious about being unduly restrictive in the PACE code requirements that we have in mind, although I am always on the libertarian side of the argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will recognise that although I entirely accept his good purpose in the matter, I do not wish to see his amendments carried or pushed any further forward.