Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the only support I got in the whole debate. I thank all noble Lords for this extensive debate on this interesting area. We have not changed our view that it is wrong for a criminal to cash in by exploiting the story of his or her crime, especially in cases where the offence has already inflicted immense suffering on victims and their families. We felt so strongly on this point of principle that we included a commitment to legislate in this area in the Labour Party’s 2005 election manifesto. Earlier this month I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, giving details about those offenders who had prompted public debate after receiving payment for material about their crimes. There are several more, including the Ian Huntleys of this world, who have reportedly written material that has not yet been published. I do not intend to go over each case cited in my letter, but one thing is clear: offenders will continue to benefit in the future from publishing material about their crimes if we do not take this opportunity to do something about it. My noble friend Lord Borrie has argued that the scheme is not worth while because it will rarely be used. It is, of course, hard to predict precisely how many cases there will be each year. We suggested a figure of two a year in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill; this was on the basis of past cases that have caused concern. However, in some years there could be a greater or smaller number. Even if the scheme is rarely used, it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to this problem. The fact that the scheme may be used in only a small number of cases is no reason for saying that people who cash in on their crimes should be outside the reach of the courts. My noble friend also cited the existence of the prison rules and existing legislation on confiscation as a reason for not introducing these provisions. I recognise that the prison rules provide some degree of protection, but history shows that they cannot fully address the problem. Crucially, prison rules bite only when an offender is in prison. As to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, this was not designed with criminal memoirs in mind and their potential application to such cases is doubtful. Even if the Act could be utilised, confiscation orders are imposed at the time a person is convicted, whereas criminal memoirs are often published months or years after the conviction. I turn now to some of the other criticisms that have been levelled at our scheme in recent weeks. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and some organisations think the scheme will have a "chilling effect" on the right to freedom of speech and might damage an offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. Let me be clear that the scheme does not prevent anyone from writing or publishing anything. If offenders want to write and publish material to develop their skills, they can continue to do so. Indeed, we recognise that the natural outflow of expression in print can greatly aid rehabilitation. All we are saying is that if offenders profit from accounts of heinous crimes, an action which can cause great distress to surviving victims and bereaved families, the courts should have the power to order them to pay back the proceeds.