Police and Justice Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 which have been tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He is unable to be with us today, having gone to Scotland to be with my noble friend Lord Steel while he receives his honour. Clause 16(4) states that: "““Where a person is released under subsection (2)(b), the custody officer must inform him that he is being released to enable a decision to be made as to whether he should be charged with the offence in question””." Our amendment would insert at the end: "““A person who is released following an arrest under this section shall not be re-arrested without warrant for the same suspected failure to comply with a condition attached to a conditional caution””." I turn now to Amendment No. 99. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has so rightly said, this amendment would put a 12-hour limit on the length of time for which a person arrested on the suspicion that he has breached a conditional caution could be held in custody. It would also prevent a person being re-arrested for the same suspected breach of a condition. As well as giving the police powers to arrest someone suspected of breaching a conditional caution, the Bill would allow them to detain the person indefinitely until they felt able to decide whether to charge or release. It must be remembered that the only purpose of this detention is to ascertain whether a condition has been breached and thereafter to decide whether to charge the person with the original offence or to release them, whether or not on bail. Given the restricted purpose for the detention and the Government’s confidence that conditional cautions are to be used only for low-level offences, it would be entirely disproportionate to give the police an indefinite power of detention in such cases. The Magistrates’ Association has gone as far as to describe this as, "““a draconian power in relation to a matter that has not been before the judiciary””." By contrast, strict time limits are rightly imposed on the powers of pre-charge detention where a person is suspected of having committed an offence. In such cases the suspect can be detained only for up to24 hours initially, with extensions taking total detention up to four days available by application to the courts. Within this time the police are required to gather sufficient evidence to decide whether to charge the person. That is a far harder task than deciding whether a condition has been breached. It would be indefensible to give the police the power to keep someone in custody for longer on suspicion of breach of a caution condition than on suspicion of a criminal offence. If the action which breached the caution was itself a crime, the person could be arrested for the crime and the police would not need to use the power under this clause. In Committee in another place, the right honourable Hazel Blears explained: "““The provision is designed to enable a quick, on-the-spot inquiry to take place””." Despite accepting that inquiries will usually be quick, she rejected the proposal to include a time limit on the face of the Bill, arguing that, "““In the vast majority of cases, an hour or a couple of hours will be sufficient, but I cannot say categorically that it will be so; it will depend on the circumstances of the case””." The amendment acknowledges that some flexibility is required and that it would be unworkable to impose a time limit of one or two hours. However, given the simple question the police are required to answer during the period of detention, these Benches consider that 12 hours should be more than enough to deal with a non-typical case. Without such a time limit, there is a real risk that these powers will be abused and there would be no incentive for the police to ensure that inquiries into the suspected breach are conducted as quickly as possible. In response to the call for a time limit to be imposed on the power of detention, again Hazel Blears explained that: "““It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if the police had to release someone automatically and then rearrest them””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 23/5/06; col. 174.]" We agree. After the time limit for detention has expired, the police should not be able to re-arrest a person for the same suspected breach of a condition to enable the clock to start afresh. This would completely undermine the purpose of imposing a time limit and it is for this reason that our amendment would prevent re-arrest for the same alleged breach.