UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Allan Dorans – 2022 Speech on the Murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

    Allan Dorans – 2022 Speech on the Murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

    The speech made by Allan Dorans, the SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    May I begin by paying tribute to and thanking all the police officers who at this very moment are policing our streets and putting themselves at risk and in danger to protect others and to keep us all safe?

    I declare an interest in this matter: in January 1972, I joined the Metropolitan police as a police cadet, on the same day as John Murray, who features prominently in this speech. We trained together for over a year and became friends. Mr Murray is present this evening in the Under Gallery. In addition, I was a serving detective sergeant in the Metropolitan police on duty and nearby on the day Yvonne was murdered.

    In 1984 Yvonne Fletcher was a 25-year-old police officer who had served in the Metropolitan police for seven years and had recently become engaged to be married. In the words of her late mother, Queenie,

    “Yvonne loved being a policewoman. It was her life.”

    On 17 April 1984, Yvonne and her policing partner and friend PC John Murray had paraded for duty at Bow Street police station expecting to undertake their normal duties as community police officers in the Covent Garden area. However, instead, they were requested by the duty inspector to assist in the policing of a political demonstration which was expected to take place outside the Libyan People’s Bureau in St James Square. The bureau, formerly known as the Libyan embassy, had been taken over and was under the control of a new revolutionary committee consisting of four individuals, including a senior official known as Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk.

    Just after 10 am, about 70 anti-Gaddafi demonstrators congregated behind barriers on the pavement directly opposite the bureau. WPC Fletcher and PC Murray were positioned on the road in St James Square with their backs to the bureau and facing the demonstrators. At about 10.20 am, two windows on the first floor of the bureau opened, and Sterling sub-machine-guns were pointed out of those windows and opened fire towards the crowd of demonstrators and the police officers standing between the bureau and the demonstrators. Yvonne, who had her back to the bureau, was struck in the back by a bullet and fell to the ground. PC Murray, who was standing next to her, immediately went to her assistance and with colleagues moved her to the safety of a nearby street. An ambulance attended and PC Murray accompanied Yvonne in the ambulance, where it was clear that she had sustained injuries that were likely to prove fatal. At that time, PC Murray promised Yvonne that he would find whoever was responsible. That promise became the basis for the campaign for justice for Yvonne that Mr Murray has continued tirelessly and relentlessly for 37 years.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which I know carries great personal meaning for him as a former officer with the Met. PC Fletcher unfortunately paid the ultimate price in the name of public service, and it is shameful that even now, more than three decades on, the onus remains on her former colleagues and not on the Government to continue to fight to hold those responsible to account. I am keen to know whether the Government intend to open an inquiry into the matter, which I am sure my hon. Friend will push for tonight.

    Allan Dorans

    I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

    Yvonne was conveyed to Westminster Hospital, but sadly she succumbed to her injuries on the operating table about an hour after arriving at the hospital.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    I have studied the matter at length and must say that the bravery of that lady after she was wounded was astonishing. I understand that all she was concerned about was the safety of other people. What service. How wonderful for the Metropolitan police.

    Allan Dorans

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for holding a previous Adjournment debate on this matter.

    The fact that the shots that murdered WPC Fletcher and injured others were fired from the Libyan People’s Bureau is not disputed and is supported by overwhelming eyewitness accounts, videos and forensic evidence. Immediately following the events of 17 April, Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, along with other members of the bureau, was deported to Libya. Mr Mabrouk was subsequently allowed to return to this country by the British Government and in 2011 he settled permanently in Reading. As there was evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy, we must ask why he was ever allowed to return.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    In Northern Ireland, we have had more than our full share of murder and heartache. It must be remembered that our officers, past and present, offer to pay the ultimate sacrifice in their service. The fact that WPC Fletcher was willing to sacrifice her life will never make that sacrifice acceptable and negate the need for justice for her family. When the hon. Gentleman asks for a public inquiry, I want him to know that I fully support him.

    Allan Dorans

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will address that matter later in my speech.

    Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)

    As the hon. Member—my friend—knows, I have been involved in this issue for many years; before that, Sir Teddy Taylor was trying to get justice for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. The question I have to ask—I asked it when I was the police Minister and I have asked it in parliamentary questions—is: why was that man allowed to come in and out of the country? He was not just a suspect in the Yvonne Fletcher murder but accused of other criminal activities, and yet he walked in and out of this country. That is why an inquiry is vital.

    Allan Dorans

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree. Hopefully we will get answers to those questions.

    In 2015, Mr Mabrouk was arrested by the Metropolitan police following an investigation of money laundering and in connection with the murder of Yvonne. Following a two-year investigation, it was announced by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2017 that no prosecution was possible due to evidence withheld by the Government on the grounds of national security not being available to it. Mr Mabrouk was therefore released without charge.

    There is no suggestion that Saleh Mabrouk fired the weapons that killed Yvonne. He was in police custody—perhaps intentionally and conveniently—when the shots were fired. However, there is significant evidence that he, as a senior member of the revolutionary committee responsible for the control of the people’s bureau, was involved in the events that led to the shootings taking place. He is a clearly a major suspect in a criminal conspiracy that led to the death of Yvonne.

    Following the failure of the Government to support a criminal prosecution, the only avenue available to bring Mr Mabrouk to justice of any kind was for John Murray to initiate a civil court action against him. Accordingly, in November 2018, while Mabrouk was still resident in this country, John Murray lodged a civil court action against him in the High Court for the nominal sum of £1. The civil court action was brought primarily to bring the evidence of Mabrouk’s involvement in the death of Yvonne into the public domain and to prove that he was involved in, and liable for, Yvonne’s death. Very shortly after the case was filed on 9 January 2019, the Home Secretary wrote to Mr Mabrouk at his address in Libya informing him that he was excluded from the UK on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to good public order due to his suspected involvement in war crimes against humanity in Libya.

    On 1 July 2020, I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions in relation to reopening the criminal investigation into the murder of Yvonne. The Prime Minister, in response, said:

    “The murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher was sickening and cowardly.”

    He agreed to meet me to

    “see what we can do to take the matter forward.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 327.]

    We met in the Prime Minister’s office on 29 September 2020. My memory of that meeting is very clear. I asked the Prime Minister a series of questions, the most significant of which was: would he carry out a review of whether evidence, which had been withheld by the Government from the Crown Prosecution Service during the criminal investigation into Saleh Mabrouk on the grounds of national security in 2017, could now be released as Saleh Mabrouk had now left the country and had been excluded from returning by the Home Office. He replied that yes, he would do that and would reply to me.

    On 10 November 2021, the civil court case brought by Mr Murray against Saleh Mabrouk took place at the Royal Courts of Justice and was presided over by an experienced senior judge, the honourable Justice Martin Spencer. Despite being properly served with notice of the court proceedings, Saleh Mabrouk failed to respond. He was also given the opportunity to appear by video link, but again no response was received. The trial judge’s conclusion was that Mr Mabrouk had chosen to play no part in the trial, and that the trial could fairly proceed in his absence. Mr Justice Spencer delivered his judgment on 16 November 2021, which runs to 25 printed pages.

    These are just a few of the highlights from that judgment. Mr Justice Spencer said:

    “I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there existed a common design to respond to the planned anti-Gaddafi protest by using violence, and specifically by firing shots at or in the direction of the protestors. Witness statements and statements made by Mr Mabrouk demonstrate not only his knowledge of the common design, but also his views of the inevitability of that response.”

    He quoted Mr Mabrouk as saying: “We have guns here and there’s going to be fighting,” and said that:

    “This is a statement confirming a plan to shoot protestors.”

    The judge went on to say:

    “Coupled with his position as one of the few leaders of the Revolutionary Committee controlling the People’s Bureau, it amounts to confirmation of the common design to fire upon the demonstrators, in which he was an active participant. On that basis, I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the defendant”—

    Saleh Mabrouk—

    “is jointly liable for the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher on the doctrine of common design.”

    That was a hugely significant judgment delivered by a senior High Court judge, having heard evidence from witnesses over three days. It was clear that Saleh Mabrouk was involved in, and jointly responsible, for the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. It is without doubt a landmark victory secured as a direct result of John Murray’s determination, courage and commitment to seek justice for his murdered friend and colleague.

    I ask the Minister to address the following questions. Given that the evidence presented and accepted at the High Court has been available for over 37 years, how can the Government justify that it was left to John Murray, himself a victim in this case, to bring Saleh Mabrouk to justice in a civil court, rather than see him prosecuted in a criminal court? Will the Government undertake to review whether the evidence withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service in 2017 can now be safely released, as requested by me and agreed by the Prime Minister at our meeting on 29 September 2020? Has Saleh Mabrouk ever been provided with a letter of comfort or letter of assurance by the British Government, which guarantees that he will never be prosecuted in a British criminal court?

    Will the Government acknowledge that the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Spencer confirms Mr Mabrouk’s culpability in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and in the light of that, what action are the Government and the Metropolitan police now taking to bring Saleh Mabrouk to justice by requesting his extradition from Libya to face a criminal prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher? Will the Government now reconsider the need for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and subsequently?

    Before the Minister responds, I pay tribute to John Murray, who, for the past 37 years, has worked tirelessly and relentlessly to achieve justice for Yvonne and without whose efforts the callous murder of a young policewoman, for which no one has ever been charged, may have faded in people’s memories. I also thank the police officers who have served for their service—some of whom are present in the Public Gallery this evening—and those who have helped and supported John through these incredibly difficult years to keep the memory of Yvonne and the campaign for justice for Yvonne alive.

    Finally, in addition to seeking answers to those questions, my hope, in bringing this debate to the Chamber this evening, is that it will send a powerful message to the Government and to Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk that the murder of Yvonne has not been, and will never be, forgotten. The campaign for justice for Yvonne continues. It will never give up; it is not going away; and it will continue the fight, by any legal means possible, to finally achieve justice for Yvonne.

  • Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Jack Jones, the then Labour MP for Silvertown, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    I beg to move, “That this House do now adjourn.” I hope, Sir, you will excuse me if during the course of the discussion I may display a certain amount of ignorance, as is only natural. I do not claim to be a constitutional lawyer. I only claim to ask for my fellow citizens their constitutional rights. We have been led to understand that the common citizen has a common right. The question I asked the Home Secretary to-day was not raised because I am a believer in the policy of those who are trying to upset the Free State Government in Ireland. I have been one of their most persistent and consistent opponents ever since they adopted the policy of trying to destroy the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain and I have run some little risk in that connection. Therefore I am not here as a champion of those who want to destroy constitutional relationships between Great Britain and Ireland, but I believe even the Devil himself ought to get justice, even if he cannot always give it. Therefore I want to raise the case in the first place of one whom I happen to know. The only crime he has committed as far as I know—and I am acting upon information, personal of course—is that for some period he was the secretary of a branch of the Irish Self-Determination League in the East End of London, and he acted when all of us who are Irishmen stood on the same ground, and under similar circumstances will stand again, but when peace was made, when the two countries entered into an Agreement signed by the representatives of both, and when afterwards that Treaty was agreed upon by a Free Vote of the people North and South, and when eventually the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were constituted we accepted the situation loyally as democrats and agreed on the principle that the majority must govern. However we might have differed upon details we agreed upon the main principle.

    What has happened in the meantime? A certain number of people in the South and West of Ireland have repudiated the Treaty, have differed from the understandings arrived at between the representatives of the Government of both countries and have gone in for actions which have been more injurious to Ireland than anything the British Government could do against Ireland. None of us are defending the attitude which has been taken up, but there is a certain number of people in Great Britain who, because of their past history, have evidently been on the books of the Government of this country and have made themselves unpopular and, perhaps to some extent, undesirable. Amongst them there are men and women who have washed their hands of this policy ever since the Treaty was signed. Some of these have been arrested equally with those who may have been guilty.

    The point I want to raise is this. Since when has deportation become a British industry? I know aliens have been deported for offences against the State. That may be justified in international law. What I am protesting against is the deportation of our own English-born citizens to another country because of a constitution which you have arranged. The Home Secretary to-day in answer to questions said he was doing so under certain defined powers contained in Acts of Parliament. I notice that one of the Acts was passed before the Treaty was signed, which in my opinion, although I am not an expert in legal matters, makes a considerable difference. The Regulations that existed under the Defence of the Realm Act in War time are not exactly the same as after War time. They have been modified very considerably in my opinion, although of course I would not claim to have the same kind of knowledge as some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If a British citizen feels he has no security that at midnight policemen and detectives may break into his house, escort him to the coast and take him away to any place they like, no man in this House or outside can feel secure in the expression of his political views.

    We have always posed as being leaders of constitutionalism all over the world, as being the Mother of Parliaments, whose Rules have been adopted by all other Parliaments, and we have been looked upon as the champions of liberty all over the world. I am not asking you to be the champions of licence. If a man breaks the law, let him be tried where he lives. Surely the law of England is strong enough to punish an Irishman if he breaks the law. But we have a bigger argument than that. What is going to be the result of this policy of the wholesale deportation of suspected persons from Great Britain? It is to feed the Irregulars with an argument which they have been using all the time, and which they can use now with greater force than ever. The argument will be that the Free State Government of Ireland is in a regular relationship with the British Government, and while we are striving to break down the barriers between Great Britain and Ireland which existed in the past and trying to kill race prejudice, we now have an argument that the Government in Great Britain is used against the people in Great Britain of whom the Free State Government may have a suspicion.

    I am not suggesting too much in asking this House to realise that citizens of this country who have been arrested, if they have committed a crime should be tried for it here. I am not defending any man who commits a crime. If a man wants to break the law, he must take the consequences of having done so. We are asking that this course of procedure shall be negatived and that we shall no longer put in force this policy, imitated from countries with which we have been at war, of sending away people because they have committed a crime. The ease to which I particularly referred in my question was that of a man who occupies a responsible position, whose whole life depends upon the position in which he now finds himself. I may be guilty also, because during the period this man was secretary of the Self-determination League in East Ham and Forest Gate was a member of the same organisation. I am not ashamed of it, and if there is any deportation to come along I will go. But I am not appealing for any mercy; I am only appealing for common justice, and common justice in this particular case, and the other case to which I can refer. The law of this country has been broken. I know that we shall have cases quoted against us, eases that occurred during the War. I have had some of those cases and I know exactly what they mean. During the War Irishmen coming to Great Britain carrying on a campaign against the interests of the British Empire, might find themselves in durance vile subject to all sorts of penalties, but I am suggesting that the Treaty was signed between Great Britain and Ireland, as a consequence of the movement that took place in Ireland, after the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations were so amended as not to give the same power as existed under the Defence of the Realm Act as originally instituted.

    Now we find the two Acts have got to be quoted. When did these two Acts become correlated so as to enable you to arrest any Irishman, and those not in the true sense of the term Irish, but who were born in this country, though probably of Irish parentage, and as a consequence are English citizens? What authority exists to deport English citizens from their own country to be tried in another country, it may be under martial law, for all we know? Have we agreed that martial law shall exist for English citizens? I suggest that we have amended those portions of the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, in moving my Motion, I ask those responsible for the government of this country to release all those persons who have been domiciled in Great Britain. Let them be tried here for any offence which they may have committed, and let the law of England deal with them as they happen to be English citizens.

  • Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    The speech made by Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in the House of Lords on 10 February 2022.

    My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I was much involved with the Modern Slavery Act and the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Field, so I feel I have some knowledge of this. I do not know whether the Minister, who is not at the Home Office, realises the extent to which all the non-governmental organisations of this country—including the Salvation Army, which works for the Government on modern slavery, together with the anti- slavery commissioner—deplore this part of the Bill without exception. This Minister may not know that but, goodness me, the Home Office does.

    I am very concerned about children, but I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, so I propose to refer specifically to Clause 58. Again, because he is not at the Home Office, the Minister may not have read the statutory guidance on the Modern Slavery Act. I have it with me—it was published this month. I wonder whether the Home Office’s right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, because the requirement to be timely in providing the information needed is totally contrary to the entire work set out by the statutory guidance.

    I do not want to bore the Committee, but I must refer very briefly to one or two points so the Minister can know. Under “Introduction to modern slavery”, the guidance says:

    “It is important for professionals to understand the specific vulnerability of victims of modern slavery and utilise practical, trauma-informed methods of working which are based upon fundamental principles of dignity, compassion and respect.”

    For goodness’ sake, does Clause 58 have anything to do with that? The guidance sets out how you should deal with identifying potential victims of modern slavery. In particular, paragraph 3.6 on page 35 states:

    “In practice it is not easy to identify a potential victim—there are many different physical and psychological elements to be considered as detailed below. For a variety of reasons, potential victims of modern slavery may also … be reluctant to come forward with information … not recognise themselves as having been trafficked or enslaved”

    and, most importantly, may

    “tell their stories with obvious errors and/or omissions”.

    One important aspect—which the Home Office on the one hand states in the statutory guidance and yet is clearly totally unaware of in relation to the Bill—is that a lot of victims who come to this country are given a story by the traffickers. That is the story they tell first, and it will not be the truth. Just think what will happen to them consequently under Clause 58. They will be treated as liars who have not given accurate information. Through the NRM—imperfect though it is—they will probably have got to reasonable grounds, but then they will get this appalling notice and find themselves not treated as victims. This is totally contrary to the Modern Slavery Act. It is totally contrary to the best of all that has happened in this country, in the House of Commons and this House, which will be ruined by this part of the Bill.

    Having worked in this sector since about 2006, I am absolutely appalled that the Government think they are doing a good thing in putting this part of the Bill forward. For goodness’ sake, will they for once listen and get rid of it?

  • Vernon Coaker – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    Vernon Coaker – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    The speech made by Vernon Coaker in the House of Lords on 10 February 2022.

    My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a research fellow at University of Nottingham, in the Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I hope that can be noted as we go through this part of the Bill, rather than me saying it at the beginning of every group of amendments, if that is in order.

    Part 5 of the Bill deals with modern slavery. There are a couple of things to say before I turn to my amendment and some of the other amendments in this large group. It is sad to see modern slavery in what is essentially an immigration, refugee and asylum Bill. That is to be regretted. Notwithstanding that, it is in this Bill, and we have a large number of amendments and important issues to discuss.

    I regret much of what is in Part 5, given that one of the iconic achievements of any Government over the last few decades was that of the Conservative Government under David Cameron, with Theresa May as Home Secretary and then as Prime Minister: the Modern Slavery Act. As a Labour politician, I was pleased and proud to support it. It was a fantastic achievement, and a model for the rest of the world, and indeed the rest of the world has followed it. That should be set down as a marker in this place. I hope that the right honourable Member for Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, hears loud and clear what I think the vast majority, if not all, of this House believe with respect to the Modern Slavery Act.

    I find it therefore somewhat difficult to understand why the Government have come forward with a number of proposals which undermine some of the basic principles upon which that Modern Slavery Act was established. Clauses 57 and 58 put victims on a deadline to give information or evidence and penalise them for late disclosure. They take no account of the realities faced by victims of slavery and trafficking, and will make it harder for victims to access support.

    Like much in this Bill, the starting point for the Minister must be why the Government are doing this. What evidence is there of a real problem here that needs urgently to be tackled? There is none—I cannot find it. I can see no explanation from the Government for why they are doing this, other than a belief that part of the modern slavery legislation—the national referral mechanism, or whatever you want to call it—is being abused and misused by those who seek asylum or get into this country using the devious route of claiming to be victims of slavery when they are not. Where is the evidence for that? Where are the statistical points that the Government can use to show us the scale of the problem, to say that this is what is happening, and that this is why we must deal with it?

    This goes to the heart of the problem. I do not know what the politically correct term is, but the Government have set up this target to justify legislation and legislative change on the basis of attacking some mythical statistical problem—“We have to do this to deal with that”. The first thing to know is what has caused the Government to believe there is such a problem that they need this to deal with it. From memory, about one-third of referrals to the national referral mechanism are from British citizens, so you start to wonder.

    Those are the parameters of the debate. I will return to many of those themes as we go through Part 5.

    It is very unclear what problem the Government are trying to fix with these changes and what is gained by the clauses, because the cost of them is stark. We look forward to the Minister justifying that at the beginning of his remarks. What assessment have the Government done on the impact that these provisions, if passed unamended, will have on the national referral mechanism?

    Clause 57(3) suggests that a slavery and trafficking notice will be used even before a reasonable grounds decision can be made, putting up barriers before a victim has taken even their first step into the national referral mechanism. Can the Minister explain if that is the case? Is that the purpose of Clause 57(3)?

    At Second Reading, the former Prime Minister Theresa May said:

    “It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 728.]

    This is not from some wild, middle-class liberal or a person who is blinded by the belief that refugees, asylum seekers and those fleeing modern slavery can do no wrong; the former Prime Minister of this country outlined one of the deficiencies that many in this Chamber believe is a real problem. Does the Minister agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister? If he agrees, why does he not do something about it? If he disagrees, I think we will come to our own conclusions. How is that reflected in measures that create artificial deadlines, which have not been needed until now, and that penalise victims for not meeting them?

    Also on Clauses 57 and 58, it is not clear, and I ask the Minister to explain, whether slavery or trafficking information notices will be served on all asylum applicants or on only some. It would be discriminatory if they were served on some asylum seekers or certain categories of asylum seeker—for example, the people the Government expect to be captured by these clauses. That point was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

    Clause 58 provides that decision-makers must take account of a missed deadline and that it must damage a victim’s credibility, unless they have “good reasons” for providing information late. Why is the national referral mechanism all of a sudden not trusted to make decisions and give weight to these matters?

    Amendment 154, which I have tabled with the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Hollins, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seeks to find out what the Government mean by “good reasons” in Clause 58(2)—

    “unless there are good reasons”.

    No doubt the Minister will say that this will be clarified in guidance, that we can look forward to regulations and that, when the clause talks about “good reasons”, we can trust them, and that of course “good reasons” means good reasons”, et cetera. We will get into the nightmare situation in which nobody has a real clue what it means. That is why I am grateful to other noble Lords in the Committee for supporting that amendment.

    I particularly highlight paragraph (g) in Amendment 154, which deals with the

    “fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.

    Time and again, you meet victims who are terrified of the system, and therefore will not co-operate, or victims who are coerced into activity that all of us sat in here—in the glory of the wonderful House of Lords Chamber—would think wrong, but which completely misunderstands the coercion that victims or survivors in those circumstances face. It is not the real world to believe that they cannot be coerced into doing activity that we might sometimes think is not right. It is not the real world; it is not their life; it is not the reality of their situation. I say to every noble Lord here, if you were told that unless you co-operated fully with individuals you were entrapped by, your parents, grandparents or family in the country from which you originated would be attacked or worse, I wonder how many of us would say, “Don’t worry, I won’t do it”. It is just not the real world.

    How can the Minister reassure this House that all of that will be taken into account by those who make the decisions? We have trusted them to make these decisions up to now. We believe that the decision-makers will understand this without necessarily laying out in primary legislation that, if information is provided late, there must be good reasons for it or the information should automatically be disregarded.

    So, as I say, the Government have so far given no clarity on what “good reason” will be; let us hope that the Minister can give us some clarity today. How many people entering the NRM who are victims of slavery and trafficking do the Government expect not to have a good reason if they struggle to present their evidence in a neat file by a specified date? Who knows?

    Amendments 151D and 152 again seek to understand why the Government do not disapply any of this automatically from children who are captured by exactly the same provisions as adults. Time and again in our law—it does not matter which aspect; we have some very distinguished Members who are experienced in this—it is a fundamental principle that we treat children differently from adults, that we understand that children have different developmental needs, and that we do not expect a child to act in the same way as an adult. That is a fundamental principle of the legislative system on which this country’s democracy has been based for ever—or since for ever, or whatever the term is; your Lordships understand the point I am making—yet this part of the Bill drives a coach and horses through that principle and takes no account of children at all. That cannot be right. Even if we think that late disclosure and some of these things are right for adults, it cannot be right for children. The Minister will say that the decision-makers will of course take this into account. He will say, “Of course that won’t happen. If we have a 12 or 13 year-old child before us, nobody can expect them to be treated in the same way as an adult”. So put it on the face of the Bill so that there is no doubt about it—so that those who take decisions can have no doubt about what our intention is. Can the Minister explain why children, who made up 47% of those referred to the NRM last year, should be subject to the same provisions in this Bill as adults?

    In closing, let me say that the Government’s own statutory guidance says:

    “Child victims may find it particularly hard to disclose and are often reluctant to give information.”

    I could not agree more with the Government in their own guidance—why do they not follow it themselves? Clauses 57 and 58 are a serious undermining of the current provisions in an Act we are all proud of, and the Government should think again.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    Rachel Maclean – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    The comments made by Rachel Maclean, the Safeguarding Minister, on 15 February 2022.

    Home is not the safe place it should be for domestic abuse victims and their families. The extra support provided today will provide a vital lifeline for victims as they try and rebuild their lives positively while feeling supported and protected.

    These are important changes that sit alongside the new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which will give victims of domestic abuse longer to report offences to the police, so that abusers do not evade justice.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the UK Terrorism Threat Level

    Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the UK Terrorism Threat Level

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has reduced the UK national terrorism threat level from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack in the UK is likely.

    JTAC previously raised the UK national threat level from substantial to severe following two terrorist attacks in the UK in quick succession, in October and November 2021. When the threat level is at severe it means an attack is highly likely.

    JTAC judges that, despite these two attacks, the current nature and scale of the UK terrorist threat is consistent with the level of threat seen prior to the attacks. The attacks in October and November 2021 reflect the complex, volatile, and unpredictable nature of the terrorist threat in the UK.

    The decision to change the UK terrorism threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC keep the threat level under constant review based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.

    Any reduction in the threat level is positive but it must never make us complacent. Terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our national security. The public should remain alert, but not alarmed, and report any concerns they may have to the police.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    I wish to provide details of an independent review I have commissioned into the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) failings identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Akle and Anor [2021].

    This case, investigated and prosecuted by the SFO between 2016 and 2021, resulted in criticism by the Court of the way in which the SFO engaged with third parties and handled disclosure. On receiving the judgment, it was clear to me that swift action was needed to identify how these issues arose and what changes are needed to ensure they are not repeated.

    I have appointed Sir David Calvert-Smith to lead this review. Sir David is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and High Court judge who has led several independent reviews and has significant experience relevant to the issues raised.

    Sir David will consider and provide recommendations in relation to the following matters:

    What happened in this case and why. In particular, the review should assess the two key failings identified in the judgment:

    what occurred as regards SFO contact with third-parties and why; and

    why did the SFO disclosure failures identified in the Court of Appeal judgment occur?

    What implications, if any, do the failings highlighted by this case have for the policies, practices, procedures and related culture of the SFO?

    What changes are necessary to address the failings highlighted by the judgment and any wider issues of SFO policies, practices, procedures or related culture identified by the reviewer?

    Sir David will have the support of a small team including the Deputy Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Anthony Rogers. Sir David will aim to report to me by the end of May 2022 and I will then provide a further update to Parliament on his findings and my response to them.

    The Government are determined to make the UK a hostile environment for all forms of economic crime. It is a priority for me to ensure effective sponsorship of the SFO, which includes supporting and holding the Director to account, as well as safeguarding the SFO’s independence to investigate and prosecute crime.

  • Julian Smith – 2022 Comments on the Attack on Keir Starmer

    Julian Smith – 2022 Comments on the Attack on Keir Starmer

    The comments made by Julian Smith, the Conservative MP for Skipton and Ripon, on 7 February 2022.

    What happened to Keir Starmer tonight outside Parliament is appalling. It is really important for our democracy and for his security that the false Savile slurs made against him are withdrawn in full.

  • Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Modernising Communications Offences

    Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Modernising Communications Offences

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I wish to inform the House that the Government will be accepting the recommended harm-based communications offence, false communications offence and threatening communications offence, as laid out in the Law Commission’s “Modernising Communications Offences” report, published in July 2021.

    The offences will be brought into law through the online safety Bill, which we are committed to introducing to Parliament as soon as possible.

    These new offences will help ensure that the criminal law is focused on the most harmful behaviour while protecting freedom of expression. The current offences are sufficiently broad in scope that they could constitute a disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression. The new offences will protect freedom of expression and, in the case of the harm-based offence by increasing the threshold of harm to serious distress, will ensure that communications that individuals find offensive, such as the expression of a view they do not like or agree with, will not be caught. In addition, the court cannot find someone guilty of the harm-based offence or false communications offence if they have a reasonable excuse. A reasonable excuse would include if the communication was or was intended as a contribution to the public interest.

    We have also accepted the Law Commission’s recommendation to include a press exemption within the general harm-based communications offence and the knowingly false communications offence. While we do not expect the new offences will capture communication made by the media, including this press exemption demonstrates the Government’s commitment to upholding media freedom.

    The Government will repeal the existing communication offences, including section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and sections 127(1) and (2) of the Communications Act 2003, as recommended by the Law Commission.

    Alongside the online safety regulatory framework, the offences will help deliver the Government’s objective of making the UK the safest place to be online.

    In addition, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we welcome the recommended offence on cyber-flashing and are carefully considering it.

    The report recommends a further three offences. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice are carefully considering the remaining offences and accompanying recommendations, including the hoax calls offence, an offence for encouraging or assisting self-harm and an offence for epilepsy trolling. We will continue to assess these offences and issue a full response to the Law Commission later this year.

    I would like to express my sincere thanks for all the work that the Commission has carried out as part of this review over the past four years.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on New Plan for Immigration

    Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on New Plan for Immigration

    The comments made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 26 January 2022.

    This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we will stop at nothing to remove those with no right legal right to be in the UK, including foreign criminals.

    Signing this agreement will strengthen our returns arrangements with Serbia and will crack down on those who seek to abuse our hospitality.

    This landmark deal delivers on our New Plan for Immigration and our commitment to streamline the appeals and judicial process which can be used to frustrate removals.