My position was well summarised by an Opposition Member who spoke earlier. It is a shame that there has been a conflation of two separate issues—one about Israel-Palestine and the whole sordid tale there, and the other a legal debate about what the system ought to be. I wish it were possible to have that discussion.
The DPP made it clear that he would talk to the Attorney-General, but he said five or six times that there would have to be a very powerful weight in favour of prosecuting, because the crime is one of universal jurisdiction. The public interest would have to be overwhelming. I take comfort from that, because I am concerned that at present the Attorney-General can stop any process going ahead. We do not have a functioning private prosecution system in this country, because the Attorney-General can stop any such prosecutions at any stage. Including the DPP in the provision would make it harder for the Attorney-General to do that, because straight after the DPP—a recognised independent person—said, ““Yes, there is a case. This person can be prosecuted,”” the Attorney-General would be faced with the prospect of saying, ““Actually the DPP is wrong. He doesn't understand this,”” and trying to end it.
The provision makes prosecutions easier, and it is prosecutions that I am concerned about. I should like to hear more about how the Government will make sure that the police take stronger action. I should like to hear whether they agree with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that would weaken the role of Attorney-General in terminating private prosecutions. My remaining concern is about the fact that the DPP may decide not to go ahead because the evidence is too weak. If that is genuinely the case, I do not think that any of us would have a problem with it. However, what worries me are cases in which the DPP does not get round to making a decision because there is a pocket veto. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will report on such cases. If there are a large number of them in which a pocket veto is exercised and no proper decision is made, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and make sure that there is due process.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Julian Huppert
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 March 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
526 c461-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:52:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732731
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732731
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732731