8/6/2019 LordPalmerLordCarlileSpeeches

1/3

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords, I rise rather hesitantly, because I feelintimidated in talking in this debate, which seems to be populated by QCs. Iam neither a QC nor a lawyer. I rise to give a more layman's viewpoint onbehalf of those, like me, who are not adept in the intricacies of the law.

No one on any side of this debate is trying to stop universal jurisdiction for theprosecution of suspected war criminals. That must be stated clearly. However,as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the amendment is unnecessary and, Iwould say, even unhelpful. As many noble Lords will know, the usual courseat the moment is that the police investigate and pass a file to the CrownProsecution Service if they believe that such an offence has occurred, if thereis a realistic chance of conviction and, as noble Lords have said, if it is in thepublic interest.

I read Hansardcarefully after the previous debate-that is why I was inhibitedby the cabal of QCs who were speaking-and I particularly noted the

comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whom I knowcannot be here today but who has intimated that he is against the amendmentleft on the Marshalled List. He said in Committee that,

"there are two elements in the code for Crown prosecutors. One is thetest as to the adequacy of the evidence and the second is the publicinterest. Both have to be satisfied before a prosecution takes place".-[Official Report, 16/6/11; cols. 1008-9.]

For non-lawyers, it is perhaps useful to say so.

Comment has been made about the current Director of Public Prosecutions,who is universally admired. Those who have inquired of Mr Starmer havebeen given reassurance that, if extra resources are needed to pursueprosecutions, they will be there. If people who are at the moment going to themagistrates' court to seek a private prosecution, in advance of the allegedcriminal coming to this country, were to give that evidence to the CrownProsecution Service, the CPS would investigate the case before that personthen comes to this country. That seems to me pretty good.

I particularly disagree with the amendment-and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,

touched on this-because the DPP does not need to be told, as it says in theamendment, that he "shall give consent". I hope noble Lords have confidence,as I have, in the Directors of Public Prosecutions, both past and present, so todo. I am slightly dismayed that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was unable tobe with us in Committee and, for obvious reasons, cannot be here today. Hewas also a Director of Public Prosecutions and it is very important to knowwhat he would say.

It is worth mentioning the difference with a private prosecution, via an arrestwarrant in a magistrates' court, where a much lower prima facie case needs tobe made. The magistrate is shown the alleged evidence but that court does

not have the facilities to investigate that case in more than a superficialmanner. The arrest warrant could then be issued if the paperwork looks good-

1

8/6/2019 LordPalmerLordCarlileSpeeches

2/3

it is only paperwork. The alleged criminal is not informed. No basic defencecan be submitted and, if that person comes to this country, under that arrestwarrant he could be put in jail for a couple of nights while the DPP decideswhether to prosecute. Many people believe that in the many cases that comeforward, for one reason or another, they would not have involved a

prosecution. The tests used by the magistrate amount to "little more thanasking whether the papers disclose an arguable case" - I take that commentfrom legal advice given in an article that has just recently been written.

This has not been mentioned by other speakers but I would go on to thepracticalities. Can it be right that people who have served in their countries-whichever country - as, say, a Defence Minister, Foreign Minister or amember of the armed forces and who are no longer such, and who come tothis country, should be liable for arrest at the magistrates' court rather than beunder the consideration of the DPP?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I remindhim that we are on Report and this is becoming rather more of a SecondReading speech than a speech on Report, which should be narrowlyconnected to the amendment under discussion.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: Thank you. I am happy to bring it back to theamendment. The amendment supposes that it is right to instruct the Directorof Public Prosecutions what he or she should do. I believe that DPPs past andpresent are able so to do without the amendment.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I have only a few words to add. I am sorrythat my noble friend Lady Tonge has chosen to disobey the normal rules ofthe House and has stormed out in a way which is not appropriate to nobleLords and noble Baronesses in this House. It is something that I, as amember of her party, feel very strongly about, and I hope that none of mynoble friends would normally behave in that way. It is quite shocking.

I would say, and I was about to say in her presence, that she has completelymisunderstood the role of the Attorney-General and the Director of PublicProsecutions. I was involved in some negotiations during the previousGovernment as a person who was keen to extend the cover of the universal

jurisdiction. It was made clear to me as part of the package-there were otherMembers of your Lordships' House of all and no parties involved-that anabsolute requirement to make acceptable the broadening of the universaljurisdiction was a provision of this kind.

The basic reason is that we have only one standard of prosecution in thiscountry. It is a good standard, it is set out in the current version ofthe Code for Crown Prosecutors, and it is completely politically independent.There was a discussion as to whether the provision in Clause 155 should beapplied to the Attorney-General-the noble and learned Baroness at the time-orthe Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided, precisely to emphasise

the principle of political independence, that the Director of Public Prosecutionsshould be the person named.

2

8/6/2019 LordPalmerLordCarlileSpeeches

3/3

Having said that, I absolutely agree with every word the noble and learnedBaroness has said about the role of the Attorney-General. Indeed, I wasfortunate enough to receive an e-mail that winged its way from sunnier climes,where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is busily engaged inunavoidable other activities. I was very flattered to receive the e-mail. In it he

said that he supports this clause and is opposed to the amendment, as hesaid with great eloquence in Committee.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press the noble Lord-

Lord Carlile of Berriew: No, I am not going to give way because I think wehave spent-all right, I will give way to the noble Lord because I like him.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I tried to take a very neutral position when Ioriginally moved my amendment. However, it should be made absolutely clearwhether the Attorney-General could ever be influenced by a political position

taken by a Government in any decision that he or she might take, in anycircumstances.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: The noble Lord knows how much I admire him, so ifI say that is a really silly question I do so in a spirit of generosity. The answeris that we in this Parliament-and the noble Lord has been in this Parliament alot longer than I have-have to make certain assumptions. Those assumptionsinclude what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the formerAttorney-General, said to the House a few moments ago. The sanction forpeople-and Governments -who behave in that way is that they will lose theconfidence of Parliament. The question that the noble Lord puts is sohypothetical as to be absurd, in my experience and, I believe, in his politicallife too.

I do not want to delay the House too long. All I really wanted to say about theamendment is that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, achieved asuperb deconstruction of the amendment, and he has done it again today. Ido not really want to add anything to what he said, together with the supportthat he received from the noble and learned Baroness, and indeed the verycogent summary that we received from a non-lawyer, my noble friend LordPalmer of Childs Hill-thank God we have non-lawyers who are prepared to

speak in these debates. I close by simply saying that this clause from thecoalition Government, which I and my noble friends usually support, has beenintroduced in a continuous thread from what was agreed by the previousGovernment. It brings a single high standard of prosecution to this countryand one that can be changed, as it has been in new versions of the Code forCrown Prosecutors test.

3