Clause 23
Counter-Terrorism Bill
9:15 am
David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I do not think that I wished you good morning on my earlier intervention, Mr. Bercow, so I do so now. I rise to speak to two amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I have tabled. As the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has already said, post-charge questioning is seen by many Committee members as a matter of some importance in providing an addition to the armoury of tools that is available to the investigating and prosecuting authorities when looking at terrorist offences. I do not think anybody has suggested that it will necessarily provide for a huge increase in the number of successful prosecutions because, as was pointed out by some of our witnesses, there is a strong suspicion that in many cases there would be further questions, but less in the way of answers being forthcoming from the person who has been charged and is held in custody.
We think that post-charge questioning is important and we are interested in exploring not only the process by which it would take place, but the safeguards that are in place to ensure that whatever emerges from it is admissible in court and is not in any way contaminated by the process. We would like to ensure as far as possible that the process is in good order and in accordance with previous practice.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the important point about whether it is possible to question on further charges. The Minister must be absolutely clear on that question when we are talking about further charges on the same facts. It is quite clear that it is possible to re-arrest, re-question and re-charge on new offences if further evidence is brought to light. It is not clear that it would be permissible to question further on the same facts and proceed to further charges. The Government have to be absolutely clear about that and if there is any doubt, they must adjust the legislation to ensure that it is not outwith this part of the Bill.
The second issue, which is common to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments and my own, is judicial supervision. In Scotland, the position is clearer. Once the accused has been charged, he is under the protection of the court. That is implicit in the English and Welsh jurisdiction, but not explicit. Particularly in the circumstances that we are discussing, it is sensible to ensure that there is judicial supervision. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that whether it is a judge of the High Court or of the Crown court is neither here, nor there. There is a principle that some judges at any level will be appropriate and some judges will be less appropriate. This is not a question of the seniority of the judge, but of the level of supervision that can be applied.
The amendments that I have tabled raise the same issue that forms part of the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman and I look forward to the Minister’s response.