Serious Crime Bill [HL]

The Minster has already referred to some of the issues in Clause 46. We have given notice of opposing the questionthat Clause 46 stand part only to obtain further explanation, not because we want to excise it—far from it. Clause 46 sets out that it will be a defence to the offences in Clauses 40 and 41 if the person charged with those offences acted ““reasonably””—that is, inthe circumstances that he was aware of, or in the circumstances that he reasonably believed existed, it was reasonable to act as he did. I am going to be much briefer than I would have been because of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, who put forward three scenarios to test the Minister on whether, in those circumstances, offences would or would not take place. We have another scenario. It has been suggested to us by Liberty, Justice and others that there could be an issue with whistleblowers. The scenario that we have in mind is as follows: someone with a position of trust or confidence, such as a civil servant, encourages a journalist to publish confidential evidence. Would that civil servant be able to argue under this clause that, first, he knew that certain circumstances existed and, secondly, that it was reasonable for him to act as he did given those circumstances? Could the clause offer protection for what are commonly known as whistleblowers? If so, that would appear to be contrary to what was envisaged by the Law Commission in its draft Bill.