I am grateful for the interest that my hon. and learned Friend has taken in the matter. When we bring forward the replacement I hope that it will meet the concerns expressed on both sides of the House and those of practitioners. He is absolutely right. It is true that in most cases, although not in all, where there has been not so much an abuse of process as an error of process, which might have been relatively serious but which still does not affect the justice of leaving a conviction to stand, the Court of Appeal will do that or will sometimes order a retrial.
However, I certainly accept that there are some examples—we can all think of them—where the abuse of process has been so outrageous that it would break the principle of the rule of law for the conviction to stand. Although that means that a guilty person has to walk free, I am afraid that that is the price we all have to pay if there is an abuse by agencies of the state. It is wholly intolerable in any democracy that the ends should justify the means. Achieving the right balance is what we all seek to do. I applaud the manner in which the Court of Appeal has sought to do that under the existing law, but I think that everybody accepts that the law should be recalibrated a little to improve matters.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jack Straw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c66-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:09:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415393
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415393
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415393