Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, together with other noble Lords whose names are appended to several amendments of the same kind, I tabled these amendments to remove Part 7 altogether from the Bill. We were not satisfied with the Government’s response to similar amendments that were tabled in Committee. We continued to be concerned that the Government’s proposals to enable court proceedings to be brought to recover royalties and fees earned by criminals from books, articles, films et cetera were not a proportionate response to a pressing social need. Soon after we tabled the amendments on Report, the Government tabled amendments to modify their proposals in Part 7. First, they seek to reduce the scope of their proposals by confining them to indictable offences. Secondly, they seek to remove the test of offensiveness to the general public from considerations to be taken into account by the court when an exploitation proceeds order is sought. What remains for consideration by the court, if the Government’s amendments are accepted, is any offensiveness to the victim or the victim’s family from the offender receiving payments from a book, article et cetera. The amendments proposed by the Government are welcome, particularly because proceedings could not now be based on a media-led populist appeal to public outrage. All along, the Government have said that the new provisions would be exercised only sparingly. In the light of that assertion, and the amendments now proposed by the Government, noble Lords are entitled to ask: why seek the new powers at all? They ignore existing powers to deal with criminal memoirs and necessarily involve limitations on freedom of expression. Therefore, they are doubtfully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights—a matter on which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will speak. These proposals introduce a large discretionary power for the Attorney-General and, if a court action is brought, discretion for the judge. This must leave anyone acting as an adviser to a potential author, and indeed the author himself or herself, in a state of considerable uncertainty as to whether the law would apply. The Government’s answer is that sometimes real pain is caused to the victim or the victim’s family from the offender being able to profit by exploiting his offence for personal gain. But these proposals are bound to have what I call a chilling effect on any attempt by an offender to express himself, including publications or artistic work that may of course be very helpful in assisting his rehabilitation. It is not as though our present law on criminal memoirs is non-existent. There is the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the full implications of which have not yet been pursued sufficiently to see its advantage in extreme cases. The prison rules, enabling confiscation of memoirs by anyone serving a prison sentence, were upheld by the Court of Appeal in the case of Dennis Nilsen as being in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. Because Dennis Nilsen is serving a life tariff—he has already served 26 years in prison—there will never be a time when the Government’s proposals could apply in his case. He will never be a free man able freely to engage in publishing memoirs. The same point could be made about Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, who is also serving a full life tariff. Then there are cases at the other end of the spectrum where there are no obvious victims whose outrage could form the basis for an exploitation proceeds order. In the recent case, which your Lordships may have read about during the Summer Recess, John Darwin the canoeist faked his own death so that he and his wife could live in Panama on insurance payouts. He profited from newspaper articles and was given a jail sentence of eight years for fraud. It seems that the proposed legislation can hardly apply to what is sometimes called a victimless crime. When you take all these things into account, surely the Government have a real question to answer. What is the value, use and worth of Part 7 of the Bill, with its 15 pages of proposed legislation? Part 7 can achieve very little for the victims of crime in whose name it is promoted, but it could have a number of damaging consequences, and it is doubtfully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.