Part of Criminal Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:15 pm on 21 January 2003.
Dominic Grieve
Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)
6:15,
21 January 2003
I beg to move Amendment No. 386, in
Clause 77, page 49, line 2, at end add—
'(b) in the event of the acquittal of the defendant on any retrial, he should be entitled to compensation for any period he has spent in custody prior to and during any proceedings under this Part of the Act.'.
This is a simple issue. It is a principle of our law that if a person is held in custody pending trial, there is ordinarily no remedy, unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to subsequent action for malicious prosecution. Usually, there is no compensation for that. I think that it is generally accepted that the administration of justice would be difficult if compensation was provided for. However, under the procedure in question, such a rule should apply. If someone has been acquitted of an offence by a jury, and the police subsequently, with the DPP's approval, decide to reopen the investigation, in the course of which they re-arrest the person and detain him, and it is decided that he should be deprived of his liberty during the investigation and trial, which lasts several months, it seems to me that that person is entitled to be compensated by the state if the outcome of the process is a second acquittal. If the person is convicted, the issue of course does not arise.
We cannot get away from the fact that the process that we are considering, which has been proposed for understandable reasons, is a massive change to the principle of our liberties in this country. In view of that, a new compensation regime should apply to it. It can be clearly distinguished from other examples of the same kind, and it would be proper to ensure that someone who is put in jeopardy in this way twice, and inconvenienced and deprived of his liberty as a result, should, if acquitted a second time, be compensated for what he has been put through by the state.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
