Police and Justice Bill

I hope that I have been able to give some comfort to all three noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Linklater and Lady Harris, with the rather full explanations I set out earlier. I do not propose to reiterate those, but perhaps I may deal first with some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I want to put on the record that it is absolutely not our intention to reintroduce night courts. I would also be more than happy to place a copy of the letter I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and copied to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in the Library of the House so that it is available for other noble Lords better to consider the details contained therein. In that letter, I make clear that we will test the concept of the use of live links in magistrates’ courts through a pilot to be run at rather later than normal court hours. The most important thing is to identify the London courts which are willing to participate in the pilots and negotiate with them on the kind of framework they are going to have. It would have been quite improper for us to have started negotiations on that matter, either with them or, indeed, with the Magistrates’ Association, before coming to this House and seeking permission to so do. I very much welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness and her appreciation that these amendments have a practical orientation as opposed to anything else. They are designed to speed up proceedings and I can reassure the Committee that the Government do not in any way wish to diminish the rights of the individual in relation to access to lawyers or the way in which PACE applies. There are clear opportunities to save time and effort in relation to defendants, victims and witnesses. Justice delayed is justice denied, and delays can be very distressing for victims and for defendants who wish to admit guilt quickly and to be dealt with. I envisage that the kinds of cases that are likely to be disposed of in this way will be at the lower end of the scale. With most other offences, risk assessments and other issues have to be dealt with, reports have to be obtained in relation to sentencing and it simply is not possible to dispose of the more complex cases without the benefit of a little more mature reflection. I invite the House to remember that we now have a new process in relation to charging. It is no longer the police who charge; the Crown prosecutor has to be satisfied about the nature of the charge and that the evidence produced is sufficient to charge. So, if you like, we have another safety net as regards the propriety of doing that and we believe that these provisions will be efficacious. I hope that I have indicated with sufficient clarity the occasions when consent is to be asked for, first in relation to sentencing and then in relation to those other matters. I hope the Committee will feel that the Court of Appeal is safe to be trusted with the Human Rights Act, the ECHR, the PACE conditions and the need to have a lawyer. I shall certainly be very happy to consider these matters further and to write more fully in response if noble Lords feel that that is appropriate. We do not think that there has been any improper haste in bringing these matters forward. It is not easy to see why a defendant should feel more under pressure as a result of an immediate court appearance than, for instance, the prospect of a night in thepolice cells, particularly if it is for a relatively straightforward offence. I think many defendants would like to get matters over and done with and not spend a night in the police cells. It is not something that holds a lot of attraction for many defendants. Indeed, for those of us who have had the benefitof seeing them at that stage, it is something to beavoided if at all possible, but absolutely necessary on occasion. As to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, in relation to juveniles, I remind her—I know she is very familiar with this—that juvenile courts are specifically created to be less intimidating. Some children—dependent on their age, I know—welcome the fact that they are, for once, included in proceedings. Many children are often excluded and things happen behind their backs—they are not involved and they are not made to feel responsible—and this can inure to their disadvantage. We do not think that it should be applied to all children because, if it were, we would have all children giving evidence via a video link if they were under 17. I am not sure whether that is what the noble Baroness is suggesting but, just to put it on record at this stage, we would find that very difficult to accept. We shall have an opportunity to talk further about this and we will be able to respond more fully if the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on reflection, having had the opportunity to read what I have said at great speed in introducing these amendments, thinks that it is necessary. I very much thank Members of the Committee for the very helpful and collaborative way in which they have responded. If we were into teasing, I could tease the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, by saying that I hope she is not seeking to suggest that those who should justly be in prison should be put elsewhere, but that, too, can be left for another day.