Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Legal Reforms, BAE/Hawks, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq/BBC.
Legal Reforms
Asked what action the Government would take if it was defeated on the trial by jury measure in the Criminal Justice Bill, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that the Government remained absolutely committed to the Bill. It went without saying that we would listen to any constructive suggestions. However, there would be no concessions on points of principle. We viewed the Bill as a coherent and balanced whole. He said it was important to be clear about what it was that was being proposed. The Government believed that these were sensible, limited measures which, far from undermining a fundamental principle of the legal system, would protect its integrity and improve public confidence. Jury trials would remain for the vast majority of cases. But what was critical was that in a small number of cases, serious criminals could not evade justice either by threatening or interfering with a jury or, in long and/or complex fraud cases, by not having their full criminality brought before the court. In terms of witness and jury protection, at the moment the Met spent £3.5 million a year and the equivalent of 26,000 officer days a year protecting juries from intimidation by the defendant. Sir Ian Blair, the Deputy Commissioner of the Met had also said a couple of weeks ago, "There is a tier of criminals who are prepared to go to any lengths to evade justice. It is a fact that jury intimidation exists as a consequence of those people. If the system cannot cope with the threat and it is not improved, there will be a group of violent, sophisticated and dangerous criminals who may truly become untouchable. For that reason, the police service strongly supports the inclusion of the proposals on jury-less trials where there is a real and present danger of intimidation".
In terms of fraud trials, the need to pare down evidence and reduce charges in order to make the length more manageable for a jury meant that the full criminality of such crimes was often not fully exposed. As a result, juries were often asked to reach a verdict on an artificially truncated version of the full facts, which was obviously not right. That was why we were acting on the recommendations of Sir Robin Auld in his wide-ranging and independent review of the criminal courts, the Halliday review on sentencing and the scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
As Sir John Stevens had indicated this morning on the Today Programme, he was supportive of the Bill in its totality. If we lost the Bill, it would mean losing out on tougher sentences for murder; increased sentences for dangerous sex and violent offenders; new minimum sentences for firearms offences to help tackle gun crime; longer sentences for dangerous drivers; extending drug testing and treatment provision so that even more offenders could tackle their addiction and cut drug related crime; clearer rules of evidence; and putting as much evidence before juries in order to make trials even more comprehensive than they already were. Obviously we would listen to suggestions being put forward, but the Government believed that these measures were absolutely the right thing to do. It was also worth noting that jury-less trials would only be used in a comparatively small number of cases. They would be the exception than the rule. However, in cases of jury intimidation, we did not believe it could be right that people could evade justice and be outside the law. This measure aimed to address that.
Asked to explain why the whole Bill should be endangered if the trial by jury clause was struck out, the PMOS said that the Government was committed to the Bill as a whole, including this clause. The consequence of it being knocked down could potentially mean losing the whole Bill because the Government stood by it as a coherent and balanced package of reform. Asked if the Bill would be reintroduced in September if it was knocked down, the PMOS said that we would have to wait and see how the Lords treated it. The Government was committed to bringing this piece of legislation onto the statute book for the reasons he had already outlined. Questioned as to whether the Government would invoke the Parliament Act, the PMOS repeated that we would have to wait and see what happened in the Lords today. Asked if the whole Bill would be lost because the Government would not want to proceed with it without the trial by jury measure, the PMOS said the Government believed that this was a balanced package which should be seen in the round. That was why it was important to spell out the other measures contained in the Bill. Put to him that if the Bill failed, it would have been the result of a decision by the Government to withdraw it, the PMOS pointed out that Sir John Stevens himself had said that he would rather the Bill was passed in its entirety rather than only 80% or 90% of it. We would argue the proposals on the merit of the case.
Asked to explain the point of a revising chamber when the Government refused to listen to the revisions being put forward, the PMOS said that Peers were perfectly entitled to set out their views. That was their job. Equally, the Government was entitled to set out the reasons as to why we wanted to bring the legislation onto the statute book and to argue strongly for that to happen.
Asked to clarify the ‘integral link’ between putting a complex issue before a judge rather than a jury and tougher sentences for violent criminals, the PMOS said that the link was about modernising the criminal justice system in a way that ensured that there was better justice and that those who committed serious crimes served the appropriate sentence for it. Put to him that the reforms were backward-looking given we appeared to be returning to the days of jury-less trials and putting people in the stocks, the PMOS said he would fundamentally disagree. He pointed out that the argument being mounted against the proposal was that since things had always been done in a certain way the status quo should be maintained. We would argue that, in limited cases, we would deliver better justice for the reasons he had already outlined. He took the opportunity to draw journalists’ attention to a case which supported this view. In August 2002, at Liverpool Crown Court, the trial of six defendants for serious drug offences collapsed because of jury tampering. Two jurors had been threatened and a third juror had been offered £10,000 to return a verdict of not guilty. The trial had been in its fifth week and was estimated to have cost in excess of £1 million.
In answer to further questions about the reforms, the PMOS said that we had made no bones about the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill was about bringing into the twenty-first century a system that had been immune to change for a long time. The fact that proposals were controversial or that people believed the status quo should be maintained for its own sake were not arguments for discarding sensible reform. The reason we were going down this route was because of witness intimidation and fraud cases, which often meant people escaped justice. This was separate to previous discussions we had had, such as the Mode of Trial Bill for example.
BAE/Hawks
Asked to comment on reports that the Chancellor was refusing to bail out BAE systems, meaning that the deal to supply Hawk trainers to the RAF would be lost, the PMOS said that discussion was continuing within Government about this matter. At this stage, he was unable to say when it might conclude. Asked if he was implying that there might not be an announcement to Parliament before recess, the PMOS said that we would have to wait and see.
Guantanamo Bay
Asked if the Prime Minister had given up any hope of repatriating the two British detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay who had been selected to be among the first group to face prosecution, as reported in today’s Guardian, the PMOS said that the situation remained as he had spelled out yesterday. This story, which had appeared overnight, did not change anything. We were continuing to discuss a number of options with the US, one of which was repatriation. The position had not changed since last Friday. No decisions had yet been taken. It continued to be a live issue.
Asked if we were expecting the issue to be resolved by the time the Prime Minister flew to Washington on Thursday, the PMOS said he did not know. Attention in Whitehall was being focussed on this issue, as you would expect. Asked if any progress had been made since last Friday, the PMOS said it went without saying that the discussions that were taking place meant that we were further forward than last Thursday when this issue had first been mentioned. However, as things stood, we were not yet at the point of decision. Questioned about the discussions, the PMOS said he did not think it was helpful to get into the minutiae of the conversations. The Prime Minister would be meeting President Bush in Washington on Thursday. People would have to be patient and wait and see how things panned out before then.
Iraq/BBC
Asked if Downing Street was still demanding an apology from the BBC for broadcasting Andrew Gilligan’s report, the PMOS noted that the BBC had appeared to impose a news blackout on the fact that Dr David Kelly was appearing before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC) this afternoon. Clearly, what the BBC chose to do was a matter for them. Pressed as to whether Downing Street still wanted an apology from the BBC, the PMOS said that that remained our position. He pointed out that Mr Gilligan had told the FAC that his story had been based on a single source and that the other three sources he had mentioned had not spoken to him about the WMD dossier before he had broadcast his report. We knew that Dr David Kelly had spoken to him about the dossier. We also knew that he had spoken to him about the 45-minute claim. As a result of the BBC’s confirmation, we also knew that Mr Gilligan had met his source on 22 May in a hotel in central London - the same day that Dr Kelly had met Mr Gilligan. We were still awaiting answers to the questions we had posed: Did the BBC believe their story was true? They had not yet answered that one. And did they continue to believe that their source was a senior intelligence source? As a technical expert, it was clear that Dr Kelly was not a senior intelligence source. Asked if we felt that we had made our point in the light of the fact that he was not being as forthcoming on the subject as he had been in the past, the PMOS said that the only reason he was not saying much more about the issue was because the FAC was examining it today. We continued to have concerns about the story. They had not gone away.
delicious
digg
facebook
