Criminal Solicitor Dot Net RSS Case Law and Statutes Forum Feed

Where Is Ron Barker

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:32 GMT

I am seeing a lot of posts on here today that Ron would have fielded by now. Seems a bit empty without his long and detailed answers to everything. Does anyone know him well enough to know if this is pause for breath and calm reflection or is he gone, gone never coming back?

Expert on dangerousness

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:35:44 GMT

Does anyone know, or has anyone used, an expert who can give an independent view on this question for sentence?

Our Psychiatrist can assist but, if one exists, a further report may assist.

Views or recommendations welcome.

Thanks

violent behaviour in a police station

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:53:23 GMT

Got a client who is arrested for breach of the peace. He is arrested for breach of the peace (possibly unlawful we're checking) and taken to custody. In custody he is said to be shouting and threatening. However he doesn't make any specific threats other than 'try and search me' and then walks a few steps away from the officer before being taken to the ground by a few of them.

Is there any case law to define what is violent behaviour as this wouldn't appear to be violent to me?

Argument on Severence - R v Christou

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:19:21 GMT

I have tried to search for the judgment of R v Christou 1997 AC117 with Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ gave the leading speech with which other members of the House agreed - so I'm assuming this is HOL. This was an argument on "severance".

I cannot find the judgment on BAILII. Do any members have this please?

Many thanks

False arrest and mental health

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:11:39 GMT

I have been cheerfully blathering away on another forum about a case I read of involving a police officer arrested for a straight forward case of shoplifting. He succesfully appealed a conviction on the grounds that he was mentally ill at the time of the offence. He then sued the store for unlawful arrest, and succeeded. That's how I recall it anyway.

Unfortunately, I can't find any reference to the case now, even though I'm sure I saw it on t' net. Help!

To expand, the issue under discussion is whether the 'any person' powers of arrest indemnify Joe Public if he has a genuine belief that an indictable crime is being committed, makes an arrest, but it is then established that no crime had, in fact, been committed.

sentencing burglary

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 14:24:24 GMT

I am being lazy so if you dont know off top of head please dont waste time looking. Can someone tell me if the starting points for sentencing burglary in Mcinerney are on a guilty plea or after trial?

Thanks in advance.

Firearms forensic expert

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 05:44:28 GMT

Can anyone reccomend a good firearms forensic expert ?

Money laundering?

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:17:44 GMT

The Court, in two rulings, found that the word "proceeds" in the US legislation meant "profits" not "receipts". Accordingly money laundering charges should only be applied to the profits from illegal gambling, not the entire stake monies. Furthermore in a case in which a person hid large amounts of cash in his car and headed for the border there was insufficient evidence to support a money laundering conviction. The prosecutor was required to prove that the purpose of transporting the money was to conceal it.

The Supreme Court's view was that the US Government was exaggerating the difficulties of enforcing a more narrow interpretation of money laundering.

Reported by: David Winch, B.Com., F.C.A.
Accounting Evidence Ltd
Well House
Broughton in Furness
Cumbria LA20 6HS

T 01229 716651

M 07816 767154

E d.winch@AccountingEvidence.com

W www.AccountingEvidence.com

June 2008 CPD Questions

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:14:07 GMT

The June 2008 CPD questions are now available.

To take part in the free Criminal Solicitor Dot Net CPD scheme follow this link.

Alternatives to prosecution CJaIA 2008

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:09:13 GMT

Alternatives to prosecution

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Cautions Reprimands Final Warnings

Part 4: Other criminal justice provisions

Section 48 and Schedule 9 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 extend the adult conditional caution scheme, provided for in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Act, to young offenders. The provisions allow for a caution with specific conditions attached to it to be given where there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with an offence which he or she admits, and the suspect agrees to the caution. It would be for the prosecutor to decide whether a conditional caution was appropriate, and in most cases for the police to administer it. If the suspect failed to comply with the conditions, he or she would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence. The Act provides for the publication of a Code of Practice for youth conditional cautions.

Section 49 and Schedule 10 amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (the 1974 Act) to bring warnings, reprimands, “simple ”cautions and conditional caution within the ambit of that Act. Once such warnings and cautions become “spent” an ex-offender is not obliged to declare them, for example, when applying for a job (save in excepted circumstances). Section 50 makes consequential amendments to Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) which provides the statutory framework for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).

The Home Office issued a consultation on extending the ambit of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to cautions in 1999 (available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-1999-rehab-offenders ). Section 49 amends the 1974 Act to this end.

Section 48: Alternatives to prosecution for offenders under 18

Section 48 Subsection 1 gives effect to Schedule 9 which makes provision for Youth Conditional Cautions. Similar provision for adult conditional cautions is made in Part 3 of the 2003 Act, as amended by sections 17 and 18 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Schedule also amends section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Act which relates to reprimands and final warnings.

Subsection (2) provides the Secretary of State with the power (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure) to amend the provisions in new sections 66A-66H of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 [inserted by Schedule 9] in respect of youth conditional cautions for those aged 15 and under. This is necessary because the needs and specific requirements of those aged 10-15 are likely to be different from those aged 16 and 17. Subsequent to consultation on the younger age range, it may be necessary to amend the provisions on youth conditional cautions for this age group.

Schedule 9: Alternatives to prosecution for offenders under 18

Schedule 9 amends section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Paragraph 2 Act. That section provides for the giving of reprimands and final warnings to children and young offenders. Paragraph 2(2) amends section 65(1) of the 1998 Act which sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before a reprimand or warning may be given.

Paragraph 2(2)(a) amends section 65(1)(b) – which requires a constable to be satisfied that, on the evidence, there would be a realistic prospect of the offender being convicted so as to bring it into line with the equivalent test for adult conditional cautions, namely that there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender with the offence. No practical difference is intended between the existing and revised test.

Paragraph 2(2)(b) amends the test in section 65(1)(d) so that no young person may be given a reprimand or warning where he or she has previously been given a youth conditional caution.

Paragraph 2(3) amends section 65(3) so as to require a constable, when considering whether to warn a young person (who has previously received a warning), to be satisfied that the offence is not so serious as to require either (as now) the person to be charged or a youth conditional caution to be given.

Paragraph 2(4) amends section 65(6), which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance in respect of reprimands and warnings. As a result of the amendment, such guidance will need to set out the criteria for determining whether an offence is not so serious as to require the offender to be charged (as now), or given a youth conditional caution.

Section 65(8) of the 1998 Act prohibits the giving of any caution to a child or young person other than a reprimand or warning.

Paragraph 2(6) amends this provision so as to exclude youth conditional cautions from the prohibition (children and young persons will, as now, be ineligible to receive a “simple” police caution).

Paragraph 3 inserts new sections 66A to 66H into the 1998 Act.

New section 66A of the 1998 Act: Youth conditional cautions

New section 66A of the 1998 Act defines a youth conditional caution and provides that it may be given to a young person aged 10 to 17 if the offender has not previously been convicted of an offence and five other requirements, listed in new section 66B, are met. The conditions which may be imposed are restricted to those aimed at the rehabilitation of the offender, ensuring that the offender makes reparation for the offence or punishing the offender.

New section 66A(4) provides that the conditions that may be included in a youth conditional caution may include the imposition of a financial penalty and/or a requirement for attendance at a specified place at a specified time (which might include completion of a specified activity). The provision for a financial condition is subject to new section 66C.

New section 66A(5) provides that where a condition involves an attendance requirement, the maximum number of hours is restricted to no more than 20 hours in total. This 20 hour limit does not apply to an attendance requirement imposed for the purpose of facilitating the offender’s rehabilitation. This is to permit rehabilitative conditions involving, for example, drug or alcohol treatment programmes that may take longer than 20 hours in total. By virtue of new section 66A(6) this figure of 20 hours may be amended by order (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure). A youth conditional caution may be given by an authorised person as defined in new section 66A(7).

New section 66B of the 1998 Act: The five requirements

New section 66B of the 1998 Act sets out the requirements which need to be met for a youth conditional caution to be given. The requirements are that there is evidence against the offender; that a “relevant prosecutor” (as defined in new section 66H) considers that the evidence would be sufficient to charge him or her and that a conditional caution should be given; that the offender admits the offence; that the offender has been made aware of what the caution (and failure to comply with it) would mean; and that he or she signs a document containing details of the offence, the admission, the offender’s consent to the caution, and the conditions imposed. Where the offender is aged 16 or under the explanation about the effect of a youth conditional caution must be made in the presence of an appropriate adult.

New section 66C of the 1998 Act: Financial penalties

This new section makes provision in relation to a condition that the offender pay a financial penalty, called a “financial penalty condition”.

New section 66C(1) specifies that a financial penalty condition may not be attached to a youth conditional caution given in respect of an offence unless the offence in question is one prescribed, or of a description prescribed, in an order made by the Secretary of State (subject to the negative resolution procedure).

New section 66C(2) requires that an order under new section 66C(1) must also specify the maximum amount of the financial penalty that may be specified for each offence or description of offence.

New section 66C(3) provides that the maximum financial penalty prescribed for an offence must not exceed £100. New section 66C(4) provides that this limit may be amended by order (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure save where the £100 limit is being updated only to account for inflation in which case the negative procedure applies).

The financial penalty condition is intended to be a requirement to pay money that is imposed for the purposes of punishing an offender. It does not preclude an offender also being required to pay compensation to victims for the purpose of making reparation for the offence, or to pay a sum of money to a charity by way of indirect reparation to the community.

New section 66D of the 1998 Act: Variation of conditions

New section 66D makes express provision for the conditions attached to a youth conditional caution to be varied with the consent of the offender. Such variation may include the addition or omission of any condition.

New section 66E of the 1998 Act: Failure to comply with the conditions

New section 66E provides that if the offender fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the conditions attached to the conditional caution he or she may be prosecuted for the offence. If proceedings are commenced the document referred to in new section 66B(6) is admissible in evidence, and the conditional caution ceases to have effect.

New section 66E(4) and (5) apply section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [Inserted by Criminal Justice and Police Act 2006 section 18 subsection (1) a new section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003] with the necessary modifications. Section 24A confers on a constable a power of arrest without warrant where an offender is suspected of having breached the conditions of a conditional caution without reasonable excuse; this is in order to enable a quicker, more effective means of facilitating prosecution for the original offence.

New section 66F of the 1998 Act: Restriction on sentencing powers where youth conditional caution given

New section 66F provides that, save in exceptional circumstances, a court may not, when sentencing an offender who has been given a youth conditional caution in the period of two years preceding the commission of the offence for which he is being sentenced, sentence that person to a conditional discharge. Where the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances are present, the sentencer must state in open court why he or she is so satisfied.

New section 66G of the 1998 Act: Code of practice on youth conditional cautions

This new section makes provision for the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Attorney General, to publish a Code of Practice setting out, amongst other things, the circumstances in which youth conditional cautions may be given, how they are to be given and who may give them, the conditions which may be imposed and for what period, and arrangements for monitoring compliance.

The Secretary of State is required to publish the Code in draft and to consider any representations regarding it. The completed Code must then be laid before Parliament. The Code is then brought into force by an order. The first such order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and any subsequent orders will be subject to the negative resolution procedure

New section 66H of the 1998 Act: Interpretation

New section 66H defines various terms used in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Act, as amended.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 amends section 114 of the 1998 Act to specify the appropriate parliamentary procedure for each of the new order-making powers conferred by new sections 66A, 66C, 66G and 66H.

Section 49 and Schedule 10: Protection for spent cautions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Section 49 introduces Schedule 10 which amends the Rehabilitation Act 1974 Act so as to provide protection of spent cautions.

The 1974 Act supports the rehabilitation into society of reformed offenders. Under the Act, following a certain period of time (which varies according to the severity of the sentence passed), all convictions (except those resulting in prison sentences of over 30 months) are regarded as “spent”. As a result the offender is regarded as rehabilitated. For most purposes the Act treats a rehabilitated person as if he or she had never committed an offence and, as such, they are not obliged to declare them, for example, when applying for a job. There are certain exceptions, including where an ex-offender is applying for certain positions or jobs, such as those involving work with vulnerable adults or children.

The 1974 Act currently applies only to convictions. Schedule 10 amends the 1974 Act so as to apply its provisions, with appropriate modifications, to adult and youth conditional cautions, other cautions (for example, “simple ” cautions issued by the police), reprimands and warnings given to children and young people, and cautions given in a jurisdiction outside England and Wales (see the definition of a caution in new section 8A(2) of the 1974 Act inserted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 10).

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 inserts new section 9A into the 1974 Act; this makes provision in respect of the unauthorised disclosure of spent cautions (mirroring the provisions in section 9 of the Rehabilitation Act 1974 relating to the unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions). New section 9A makes it an offence for a relevant person (that is, someone who in the course of his official duties has access to caution information) to disclose caution information otherwise than in the cause of his or her duties or for any person to obtain caution information through fraud, dishonesty or bribery. New section 9A(5) enables the Secretary of State, by order (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure), to except specified classes of disclosure from the ambit of the offence. A similar order-making power is contained in section 9(5) of the 1974 Act, although the power has not been exercised.

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 inserts a new Schedule 2 into the 1974 Act. Paragraph 1 of new Schedule 2 sets out the rehabilitation period for spent cautions. In the case of “simple ”police cautions, reprimands and warnings, and cautions given in a jurisdiction outside England and Wales, the caution becomes spent at the time it is given. In the case of adult and youth conditional cautions the caution becomes spent after three months. This rehabilitation period for a conditional caution is extended where the offender is subsequently prosecuted and convicted for the offence in respect of which the conditional caution was given. In such cases the rehabilitation period for the caution is extended so that it is the same as the rehabilitation period for the offence.

Paragraph 3 of new Schedule 2 to the 1974 Act sets out the protection afforded to persons relating to their spent cautions and the ancillary circumstances in relation to such cautions (this term is defined in paragraph 2 of new Schedule 2 and includes the offence in respect of which the caution was given and any proceedings in relation to that offence). As a result of the protections afforded, no one may ask a question in civil proceedings that might lead to the disclosure of a spent caution and any person with a spent caution applying for a job can truthfully answer “no” if asked if he or she has ever been cautioned. Failure to disclose a spent caution may not be taken as grounds for dismissing a person from employment. Under new paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 the Secretary of State may, by order (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure), specify exceptions to the protections afforded under paragraph 3. It is expected that such exceptions will be similar to those specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (SI 1975/1023), as amended, which, amongst other things, sets out kinds of employment, such as working with children and vulnerable adults, where spent cautions must still be disclosed.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, SI 1975/1023 Schedule 1 Part I is entitled "Excepted professions, offices, employments and occupations".

Liberty Exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

http://www.crbs.org.uk/registration/Documents/Appendix318090 6.pdf

Police Act 1997 section 133 (not yet in force - 1st May 2007) is entitled "Rehabilitation of Offenders".

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (No. 1192)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001 (No. 3816)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 (No. 441)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2003 (No. 965)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2006 (No. 2143)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment No. 2) (England and Wales) Order 2006 (No. 3290)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007 (No. 2149)

Paragraph 5 of new Schedule 2 to the 1974 Act ensures that the protections afforded by paragraph 3 do not affect the operation of the caution itself (for example, if the conditions attached to a conditional cautions apply for a period longer than 3 months) or the operation of any enactment, for example section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which prevents the police from giving a child or young person more than 2 warnings and/or reprimands.

Paragraph 6 of new Schedule 2 to the 1974 Act applies, with modifications, section 7 of the 1974 Act which places limitations on the effect of rehabilitation under the Act.

Section 50: Criminal conviction certificates and criminal record certificates

Section 50 makes amendments to Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) consequential upon bringing cautions within the ambit of the 1974 Act. Part 5 of the 1997 Act provides the statutory framework for the disclosure of criminal records (under the aegis (in England and Wales) of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)) for employment and other purposes. Subsection (2) amends section 112 of the 1997 Act so that details of any unspent conditional caution would appear on a criminal conviction certificate (known as a CRB “Basic Disclosure”). Subsection (3) amends section 113A(6) of the 1997 Act [Section 113A was inserted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 schedule 14 para 2: In section 114(3) for “Section 113(3) to (5)” substitute "Sections 113A(3) to (6)] so that details of spent cautions are included on criminal record certificates (CRB “Standard Disclosures”) and enhanced criminal record certificates (CRB “Enhanced Disclosures”).

Police Act 1997

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Police and Justice Act 2006

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Schedule 9 Alternatives to prosecution for persons under 18

Schedule 10 Protection for spent cautions under Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.

Witness Anonymity Legislation

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:03:11 GMT

Jack Straw has given a statement on the new legislatioon expected to deal with witness anonymity:

The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:

With permission Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement following the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, issued Wednesday last, in the case of Davis.

As the House will be aware, the Law Lords decided that there was not sufficient authority in common law to provide for the current arrangements for the admission of anonymous evidence, and said that this was a matter for Parliament to deal with by statute.

The government, therefore, urgently will be bringing forward a Bill to rectify the situation. I hope, very much, that the Bill will be published next week, and, that subject to the usual channels, it will be debated through all its stages in the House of Commons the following week.

For reasons which I will explain, it is essential that the Bill receive Royal Assent, and come into force before Parliament breaks for summer recess.

I am very grateful to the opposition parties for their cooperation in this matter, but I fully appreciate that, like other Members of this House, they will not be able fully to judge the merits of the government's proposals until their detail is available in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the background to this is as follows:

As long as there has been crime, the criminals concerned have sought to intimidate those who are witnesses in order to avoid punishment. Criminal justice systems across the world have sought to deal with this problem. Criminals do not operate by the rules; but the Rule of Law requires that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done. The right of a defendant to confront his or her accusers in open court has been a key feature of all systems of justice worthy of that name. That right is one which should only be modified where this is fully justified.

In recent years, witness intimidation has become an all too common feature in crimes of a serious nature, especially those involving guns, gangs or drugs. Such is the fear that can be engendered by such criminals that entire communities in an area may be reluctant to come forward to give any evidence about what they know.

In the Court of Appeal judgment in Davis, the President of the Queen's Bench Division, Sir Igor Judge, quoted the evidence of a detective who specialised in murder investigations. He said this, and permit me to quote at some length:

'Most people opt not to cooperate and do not get involved. Doors are not opened, arranged meetings result in a witness not turning up, telephone messages go unanswered & This is not a problem that exists on an occasional basis& it is a problem that exists in practically every investigation in one way or another. Such problems exist on a daily basis. I have spoken to witnesses about a reluctance to give evidence. The common factor between all of them is fear.

'They are in fear of their lives and that of their families and friends. There is a very real danger to such persons of death or serious injury, either to prevent them from giving evidence, or to punish them for giving evidence and to send a warning to those who may be thinking of assisting the police. This risk I know and the witnesses know, is not necessarily at the hands of the defendants themselves, but at the hands of the associates of the defendant. If the defendant is in custody, it is often the associates who are the physical threat. In many but not all cases, the witness knows of the defendant and their associates.

'They know they have easy access to firearms and the "ease" with which they are prepared to use them...'

To deal with this situation our courts had developed careful and proportionate measures by which the trial judge, where he or she believed it necessary, could order that evidence be given in such a way that the identification of certain key prosecution witnesses was disguised. In some cases the key witnesses concerned themselves may well have been involved in crime, others will be innocent bystanders, and still others may be undercover police officers or agents. In the Davis case, key witnesses were screened from sight of the defence, given pseudonyms and had their voices electronically distorted.

In the Davis appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed all of the circumstances, the common law authorities and the Strasbourg jurisdiction, and held that measures of this kind were both necessary and just to defendants in this case. Their appeals were therefore dismissed.

In the House of Lords, their Lordships took the opposite view. In the lead judgment, the Senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham said:

'By a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own facts, the courts have arrived at a position which is irreconcilable with long standing principle', and common law authorities.

Lord Mance, who extensively reviewed the Strasbourg jurisprudence, said that he did not believe that the Strasbourg court in this case would:

'accept that the use of anonymous evidence in the present case satisfied the requirements of article 6.'

However, Lord Mance went on to say that the 'admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for national law', and that the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly stated that the use of anonymous evidence is 'not under all circumstances incompatible with the Convention'.

And importantly, Lord Mance said, it is not certain that, 'there is an absolute requirement that anonymous testimony should not be the sole or decisive evidence'. In other words, there should be caution about treating the Convention or apparently general statements by the Strasbourg Court, as containing absolutely inflexible rules.

All of their Lordships accepted fully what Lord Bingham said was the 'reality of the problem' of witness intimidation, 'vividly described' in the Court of Appeal judgment. Lord Bingham went on to say that 'this is not a new problem, but it is a serious one. It may very well call for urgent attention by Parliament'.

Lord Rodger said: 'Parliament is the proper body both to decide whether such a change is now required, and, if so, to devise an appropriate system which still ensures a fair trial'.

Lord Mance echoed these views. He referred to the experience of New Zealand and the Netherlands, who have introduced statutory frameworks for the use of anonymous evidence, and said:

'it may well be appropriate that there should be a careful statutory modification of basic common law principles. It is clear from the Strasbourg jurisprudence & that there is scope within the Human Rights Convention for such modification.'

Since the judgment was handed down last week, we have been looking urgently at how a statutory framework could operate, taking account of overseas experiences not least of New Zealand.

Because of the urgency of the matter, the Bill is literally being drafted as I speak. The House will therefore excuse me if now I simply outline our thinking, though I may say that this situation has the advantage that the draft can take account of comments made in the House today.

The essence of the scheme which will be published in the Bill, will be this.

The trial judge will have to be satisfied that the need for anonymity is established; that a fair trial will be possible and that it is in the interests of justice to make such an order. There will be other factors that the judge will have to consider in reaching this decision.

Mr Speaker, Parliament should never legislate at the speed with which I am proposing unless it is convinced that there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. I suggest to the House, however, this requirement is satisfied in this case.

Anonymous evidence is these days fundamental to the successful prosecution of a significant number of cases, some of which involve murder, blackmail, violent disorder and terrorism. Such cases could be jeopardised if we do not quickly fill the gap created by their Lordships' judgment.

The Crown Prosecution Service is conducting an urgent assessment of the total number of cases in the prosecution pipeline which may be affected. Neither my Noble Friend the Attorney General nor I can yet give definitive numbers of cases involved. As soon as we have accurate numbers we will make them available.

In addition to those cases in the prosecution pipeline, there is great concern among the Crown Prosecution Service and the wider public that a number of serious criminals convicted by a jury, whose trials satisfied Article 6 and common law requirements, and whose appeals have failed, would seek to make use of the technicality of their Lordship's judgement to have their convictions quashed.

The Bill will therefore contain measures to ensure that the appeal courts should not quash convictions solely in the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the common law to provide for anonymity measures. The aim will be to ensure that defendants cannot take unfair advantage of the technical defect in the law which has been until now unidentified and unsuspected.

I will publish this Bill just as it is drafted, and I will arrange to hold an open meeting for Members of both Houses in advance of formal consideration in this House.

Let me also provide this additional but important reassurance. My right honourale friend the Prime Minister has already announced in the Draft Legislative Programme for the next session, the Law Reform Victims and Witnesses Bill. We had for months planned in this Bill to provide a statutory basis for anonymous evidence. I can therefore give this undertaking of what amounts to a 'sunset clause' for this urgent measure, that the provisions of this Bill, if passed, will be included in next Session's Bill. So there will be a full opportunity for both Houses to give further consideration to this important area of criminal process.

To see the full text of this statement follow this link.