Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, Schedule 16 implements the council framework decision of July last year on taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings. Courts will be required to treat previous convictions of other member states in the same way as previous UK convictions. To a large extent, this merely sets out what can and does already happen. For example, overseas convictions can already be adduced as evidence of bad character or taken into account in sentencing decisions. As I said in Committee, these amendments are obviously well intentioned but we do not think that they are necessary. The effect of the amendments as drafted would be that we would fail to comply with the provisions of the framework decision. This is because the amended legislation would oblige courts not to take into account other EU convictions to the extent that domestic convictions are taken into account since a separate assessment of whether to admit those EU convictions would be required beforehand. Moreover, it would be an impracticable, if not impossible, task for the courts in every case. As drafted, the amendments would oblige courts to determine whether a conviction resulting from a trial in another jurisdiction would, ""if the trial had taken place in England and Wales"," have breached Article 6. However, different rules of procedure and evidence apply between countries. For example, evidence admissible in some EU states would not be admissible in England and Wales, and it would often be difficult to predict accurately how such cases would have proceeded here, taking this into account, before any assessment of Article 6 compliance could be made. All EU member states are subject to Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The framework decision is predicated on compliance with the convention and states that it shall not have the effect of amending the obligation to respect fundamental rights. It will not be necessary for courts to consider the procedural proprieties of trials in other member states. Despite differences in national legal systems, convicted persons throughout the EU will have had recourse to the same framework of rights by which to challenge the previous conviction if it was procedurally unsound. We do not think it practicable or proper in implementing the provisions in the framework decision for our courts to be required to undertake a separate assessment of Article 6 compliance, and it would not be necessary because of the safeguards already in place. As regards convictions from countries outside the EU, no provision in the schedule makes any material change in respect of non-EU convictions. The amendments proposed only clarify the existing law, which already applies to all convictions wherever obtained. Those clarifications concern the "bad character" provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and related Northern Ireland provisions. Under those provisions, it will, as now, be open to the defence to argue that a conviction is unfair by Article 6 standards. A court could continue to exclude evidence of a conviction that was shown to have resulted from an unfair trial. The court may, for example, exclude evidence under Section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if such evidence would have a sufficiently adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings; and, under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the court may refuse to allow evidence to be given on which the prosecution proposes to rely if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court should not admit it. I hope with that explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will withdraw his amendment.