---

Susan May

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall communicate to the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission the views that hon. Members have expressed in this debate about the importance of bringing this matter to a conclusion. Of course, that is a matter for the chairman, but I shall ensure that he is made aware of the feeling in the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton mentioned two specific issues relating to the case. The first involved disclosure. I should start by pointing out that the common law disclosure arrangements that applied up to April 1997 were superseded by a statutory scheme in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which pertains thereafter. We have recently strengthened the 1996 Act in part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The relevant amendments came into force on 4 April this year. Although the legislation has been amended, its fundamental principle remains the same: that justice depends on full and frank disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material. Under the Act, the prosecution is under a statutory obligation to disclose to the defence all material which"““might reasonably be considered capable of undermining””" the prosecution case, or of assisting the defence case. This duty applies throughout the trial. This is a strong test designed to ensure that the defence gets the material that it needs and that the trial focuses on the points at issue. To ensure that the prosecutor has all the necessary information, there is a statutory code of practice, which has recently been revised, and which obliges the police to retain, record and reveal all relevant investigative material to the prosecutor. I might add that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 strengthens the scheme of prosecution disclosure. Under the unamended Act, two different prosecution disclosure tests applied, one before the defence had produced a defence statement and one after. We have amalgamated those into a single new test, the effect of which will be to ensure that the defence gets discloseable material at an earlier stage than hitherto. My right hon. Friend’s suggestion that all case material should be handed over to the defence is, I fear, unrealistic in most cases. Many cases generate large volumes of investigative material, and under my right hon. Friend’s proposed arrangements it would fall not only to the prosecutor to consider unused investigative material, but to the defence as well, thereby duplicating effort. Considerable time would be wasted in considering large volumes of material that did not satisfy the disclosure test. It is also important to note that some material cannot be handed over to the defence. This includes so-called sensitive material, such as that relating to the identity of informants. Such material might sometimes have to be withheld from the defence on public interest immunity grounds, provided, of course, that the court had made an order to that effect. To conclude, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 already contains a strong disclosure scheme that provides adequate safeguards for the defence. The key is for practitioners to apply the Act correctly in all cases. We have a responsibility in all aspects of the prosecution service and elsewhere to ensure that it is properly applied.