Clause 35
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
9:00 am
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)
Between three and five years, is it? Well, there we are. Even compromises get compromised. The process would take that time before it bit upon the Prison Service and the police. It is not a matter of interest for a debating society, but a fundamental matter about the powers of the state and its powers over individuals in involuntary custody. We know from the clause that the commissioner will carry out investigations into deaths falling within what is delightfully called the “deaths remit”. The clause states:
“A death falls within the deaths remit if it is of a description specified in Schedule 8.”
I shall not take the Committee through every paragraph of schedule 8, but it is interesting that paragraph 2 refers to
“A death of a person while in the custody, or under the control or escort, of prison officers or prisoner custody officers anywhere in the world.”
That is a description of a set of circumstances that comes within the commissioner’s deaths remit. “Anywhere in the world” includes within this jurisdiction, but I submit that we need clarification, hence my tabling the amendment, of how precisely a death in custody or of the sort described under paragraph 2 of the schedule fits.
We are not complaining. Indeed, we welcome the fact that, under clause 35(3), the commissioner must aim
“to establish the circumstances surrounding the death; and...to identify steps that should be taken for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of deaths occurring under the same or similar circumstances.”
It is suggested that the commissioner should
“determine the scope of, and the procedure to be applied”
in any investigation. However, clause 35(6), which is where the amendment would bite, does not specifically refer to deaths that might attract an investigation under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. Clause 35(6) reads:
“In subsection (5) “criminal investigation” means an investigation conducted by police officers or other persons with a view to ascertaining whether an offence has been committed or whether a person should be charged with an offence.”
I dare say that the Government may say that a death that might attract an investigation under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act is implied within clause 35(6). If that is true, I would like to hear the Minister say so; if not, I would like the Minister to explain why it is not implied and why corporate manslaughter is, by implication at least, expressly not included in the Bill. That is the short point that I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee and I invite the Minister to respond.