Clause 59
Coroners and Justice Bill
9:30 pm

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

We can return to business as usual and deal with some criminal law, which may or may not attract greater public interest.

The amendments can be described briefly, because they all seek to achieve the same purpose, which is to widen the ambit of the qualifying offences set out in clause 59(2). We are talking about investigations of criminal offences in which it is thought appropriate that those helping with the investigation should be provided with some form of anonymity during the course of the qualifying criminal investigation. That relates to clause 61, which we will deal with shortly. Applications can be made to the court to secure an investigation anonymity order.

The intentions behind clause 59 were explained to us, I think, on Second Reading and perhaps also during the evidence session featuring Government Ministers. The Government are concerned that gang crime is going undetected or is not being prosecuted because people are scared to come forward and identify themselves as potential witnesses; that is, as people who have seen, heard or have other relevant evidence to give in relation to offences and to identifying the people who have committed them.

At the moment, under clause 59(2) the Government restrict themselves to outlining the offences of murder and manslaughter. It seems to me that if it is right to have investigation anonymity orders, it is right to extend their ambit beyond offences of murder and manslaughter. Gangs do not just kill people; they also hurt them and inflict non-fatal injuries.

That is why in amendments 404, 74, 406, 75, 405, 76 and 77 we are attempting to increase the types of offence that are covered within this chapter of the Bill. Amendment 406 is probably the widest example, but the others follow the same pattern. Of course, some of the amendments are consequential and adjust the language of the clause to fit the amendment.

Let me go through amendment 406 to explain broadly the principles behind our thinking. What we intend to do through this amendment is to add, at the bottom of clause 59(2)(b), the following subsections. Beyond murder and manslaughter—amendment 404 already seeks to insert “attempted murder”—we suggest:

“(c) under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent);

(d) an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm);

(e) an offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life);

(f) an offence under section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence);

(g) an offence under section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968 (carrying firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence or to resist arrest);

(h) an offence under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 (carrying firearm in public place).’.

All those offences are the sorts of things that, in addition to murder and manslaughter, disobliging members of gangs occasionally do, so it would be sensible to add to subsection (2) if not in those exact terms, then in something similar to them.

Amendment 77 deals with the same clause, of which subsection (3) states:

“The condition in this subsection is that the death was caused by one or both of the following”.

Our amendments would change the provision so that it reads that

“the death or injury was caused by one or both the following—

(a) being shot with a firearm;

(b) being injured with a knife;”—

and thirdly, by including amendment 77—

“(c) any other weapon or means of causing injury including but not limited to hands and feet.”

I have had the misfortune to try any number of cases where people have been severely beaten up by people kicking and punching them, and, beyond guns and knives, there are other forms of weapons, too, such as blunt instruments and domestic appliances—saucepans, frying pans, you name it, Mr. Gale, these unattractive people will lay their hands on anything that they can get hold of to wreak terror. It strikes me that if the clause is to do what it is supposed to do, which is make it easier to prosecute and to bring adducible and relevant evidence to court, it would be sensible not to limit it to murder, manslaughter, firearms and knives, but to extend it as I have suggested.

See this speech in context