Clause 43
Policing and Crime Bill
11:45 am
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
I have two points to make in relation to the clause, which extends the limitation period in which civil recovery proceedings can be brought from 12 to 20 years. My first point is on the ability to obtain a fair trial after such an extended period. The Minister may be aware that in response to the consultation on the asset recovery action plan the Fraud Advisory Panel voiced the concern that
“the problem with extending the limitation period is that it may be considerably more difficult for a defendant to assimilate evidence necessary to defend the case; memories may be faded and records thrown away.”
The panel was concerned about the impact of the clause on the ability to obtain a fair trial. Why does the Minister consider the 20-year period appropriate? Has he thought through the Human Rights Act implications for the ability to obtain a fair trial after an extended period? Although, if someone simply got away with it and the authorities have finally worked out that assets have been received by criminal activity, I respect and understand the need to ensure that the benefit of those assets is not in the hands of that person, a significant period has elapsed. There is therefore a question of proportionality and what is appropriate to balance the private versus the public arguments and to ensure due process.
My second point is slightly different. A victim of an acquisitive crime, for example, must generally commence any action against the perpetrator within 12 years of the crime. Why should the state be in the privileged position, as envisaged in the clause, of having a further eight years to bring an action for civil recovery if an individual in similar circumstances does not have that benefit? In other words, why have the Government decided that there should not be a level playing field, and why should civil recovery procedures not apply equally to a victim of an acquisitive crime? It would be interesting to know why the Minister has fastened upon that point as particularly relevant.
In what circumstances have the police and SOCA advised him that they have identified assets that were received through unlawful activity, but they now feel prevented from taking action? How significant a problem is that? How many cases does the Minister expect will be revisited as a consequence of the clause, and why does he therefore regard it as important and necessary to the Bill?