Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether, if the court thought that a defendant would be better tried under Clause 40, the prosecution would need to apply to change the indictment. Our view is that whether—I am trying to shorten my response. One of the problems with trying to shorten it is that you end up thinking about making it longer. I shall start again. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether, if all the offences D believed would be committed would be triable only summarily, it would be better to try the Clause 41 offence summarily also. I explained that this offence is aimed at those who assist in the commission of serious crimes although it is correct that it is not limited to such offenders. In addition, we do not believe that this offence will be easy to prove. Nevertheless, its inclusion is important to prevent D avoiding liability under Clause 40 by saying that he did not believe that the offence chosen by the prosecution would be committed, but that he believed that another offence, or one of many offences, would be committed. Due to the complex nature of this offence, we do not expect that it will be used in relation to summary offences only. I hope that that has helped to clarify the position. I shall place in the Library a full copy of the letter that I wrote to noble Lords opposite in the hope that it will better clarify the position. However, if further elucidation appears to be necessary at Third Reading, I shall be very happy to provide it in the interim. The prosecution, of course, would need to apply to change the indictment. However, the noble Lord opposite will know that.