Asked by Lord Campbell-Savours To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what plans they have, if any, to reform sexual offences
legislation. The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)
(Con) My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of
keeping sexual offences legislation under review. The Sexual
Offences Act 2003 was amended in 2015 and...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if
any, to reform sexual offences legislation.
-
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)
(Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of
keeping sexual offences legislation under review. The
Sexual Offences Act 2003 was amended in 2015 and again in
2017. We are currently reviewing the law around upskirting
and considering the wider law on non-consensual
photography.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, given that Mr Harvey Proctor has launched a civil
action in the High Court, revealing in his particulars of
claim the full name and identity of the man “Nick” who
trashed the international reputation of Sir Edward Heath
and others, and in so far as the public interest provisions
under court procedure rules, which deny anonymity in the
Proctor action, are in conflict with anonymity provisions
in sexual offences legislation, surely the cloak of
lifetime anonymity should not be extended to false accusers
such as “Nick”, whose full name is now plastered across the
internet worldwide. This was never, never, never the
intention of Parliament. Is it not about time that we
reviewed the law on anonymity?
-
My Lords, lifetime anonymity that is extended to
complainants may be removed. Indeed, those complainants who
are found to have made false and misleading claims
regarding sexual conduct may be subject to prosecution.
-
(LD)
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the case,
highlighted on Channel 4 last night and again in the Times
this morning, of a defendant who was arrested for rape in
2015, charged 18 months later, suspended from his job
without pay and whose case was dropped by the CPS
yesterday? Are such cases the result of a failure in the
law to protect the innocent—to uphold the principle of
being innocent until proven guilty—or are they a failure of
the police and the CPS properly to investigate such cases?
What do the Government intend to do about it?
-
I am not going to comment on the particulars of an
individual case. However, police guidance is clear that the
name of a suspect should not be released before they are
charged. The naming of people who have been charged with a
sexual offence is consistent with the principle of open
justice.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to an item in
today’s Times, which states:
“Google is helping its users to uncover the identity of
rape victims whose anonymity is protected by law”.
What action will or could the Government take?
-
Again, I am not in a position to say what action the
Government will take with regard to such a matter, but
clearly such conduct could potentially be regarded as a
contempt of court.
-
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when,
in cases such as those of Sir Edward Heath—there would be
many others such as Cliff Richard and Paul
Gambaccini—people’s names are leaked or made public because
the police are on a public fishing expedition and no charge
is made, there is no formal way in which they can be
acquitted? Therefore, their reputation is permanently
damaged.
-
We quite recognise the danger to a person’s reputation where
their name is leaked prior to charge. That should not occur,
as I indicated before. That does not mean that they do not
have civil means of redress. The noble Lord referred to the
case of Cliff Richard, who I understand has undertaken a
civil course for redress in these circumstances.
-
(Con)
Further to my noble friend’s question, the noble Baroness,
Lady Williams of Trafford, informed the House recently that
the Government have the power to establish an inquiry into
Operation Conifer. Since the hopeless Wiltshire chief
commissioner has made it clear that he will not take any
action, will the Government now establish this inquiry so
that the reputation of Sir Edward is not left in intolerable
limbo?
-
My Lords, that would be a matter for the Home Office and not
for the Ministry of Justice to consider. However, I am sure
that Ministers in that department are listening.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the question asked
by my noble friend Lady Corston? His answer seemed rather
complacent. If on Google women who have been victims of rape
can be identified and help is being offered to do that,
surely the Minister would want the Government to take some
action and not just accept it.
-
With respect to the noble Baroness, there was no complacency
in my previous answer. Clearly, we will look at the facts and
circumstances of any complaint and then determine what action
it is appropriate to take. However, it would not be
appropriate to anticipate prosecution or other action without
a proper investigation of the facts. Indeed, that underlies
many of the complaints made here today.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, are there any positions on which the noble and
learned Lord can take some action?
-
Not at present.
-
(Con)
My Lords, will the Government make the change whereby, when
people are not prosecuted, the police do not say “because of
insufficient evidence” but use the phrase “a lack of
evidence”? There is a very important distinction.
-
I am not sure that I would necessarily draw a strict
distinction between those two terms, but clearly no charge
will made unless the police have an element of evidence.
Where a case is not proceeded with by way of prosecution,
that may be because of an absence of a sufficiency of
evidence.
-
(Con)
Further to the answer that I understood my noble and learned
friend to give earlier on, will he recognise that many people
who have faced such accusations have spent many hundreds of
thousands of pounds dealing with lawyers and seeking
representation to clear their name before any decision is
taken about no further action? To suggest that they should
then pursue redress implies that they have the resources to
pursue that claim. For many of them, that is just not
financially practicable.
-
My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of my noble
friend: it may well be that some of those who are charged and
indeed prosecuted and found not guilty of an offence do not
have the means to take civil action in order to vindicate a
complaint about the way in which they were treated.
|
