---

Mr. John Haase and Mr. Paul Bennett

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) not only on securing the debate but on the extensive and assiduous way in which he has pursued this matter for at least 12 years. Anyone who has stood where I stand now during that time must be well aware that my hon. Friend, who is known to be tenacious and inquiring in Liverpool, has repeatedly proved himself to be such in this place, on behalf of his constituents. He has, of course, raised this matter in the House before: in March 2001, when he produced a number of allegations along with information about the men involved—which he made public—and in an Adjournment debate in May 2004. Now, at the end of the most recent court case involving Haase and Bennett, he is here again. I can only congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacity in pursuing his concerns, but he can take some satisfaction, and indeed has done so, from the convictions of the two men at Southwark Crown court last week for perverting the course of justice. I think that the prison sentences of 22 and 20 years imposed on them constitute recognition of not only the seriousness with which he has done his work, but the seriousness with which the criminal justice system treats what has happened. It is clearly a good thing that these two men are back behind bars where, as my hon. Friend said, they so clearly belong. I know my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment too much, or go into too much detail, about decisions made by an earlier Administration. However, it is public knowledge that the initial impetus for the reduction in sentence in these cases came, entirely and properly, from the trial judge, and that in supplying information to the judge, Customs and Excise was properly fulfilling its obligations to the court. My hon. Friend made a number of observations about the way in which that operated in this case, which I intend to take away and look at rather more closely. I hope that he will forgive me for not dealing with them in more detail this evening. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the events that he described could not be repeated, while making clear his belief that, as things stand, they probably could. I want to say something about these matters—to the extent that I can—and particularly about the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy and the way in which it is currently used, given the detailed concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed about it. I also want to say something about the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. My hon. Friend will be aware of some of it, but I also want to respond to a few of his more general points. By constitutional convention, the Secretary of State for Justice in England and Wales is now responsible for recommending to the sovereign the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy; at the time to which my hon. Friend refers, it was the Home Secretary. Three forms of the royal prerogative of mercy are used to grant pardons to convicted criminals. I do not want to discuss the conditional pardon, which is used to commute death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment, because—for somewhat obvious reasons—it is not currently in use. The two main forms of pardon that are still available are free pardons and remission pardons. The form of pardon most commonly understood is the free pardon; in this context it means that the pardon is free from any conditions, rather than ““free”” in the more common usage of the word. Free pardons are rarely granted; the last was in 1996. The Criminal Cases Review Commission now investigates alleged miscarriages of justice and, where it concludes that there is a real possibility that a conviction is not safe, can refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal, the route most commonly used for dealing with these matters. A decision by the Secretary of State for Justice to recommend the use of the royal prerogative of mercy to grant a free pardon is restricted to cases where it is impractical for the case to be referred to an appellate court and, secondly, where new evidence has arisen that has not been before the courts, demonstrating beyond any doubt either that no offence was committed or that the defendant did not commit the crime. The applicant must be technically and morally innocent. These criteria have proper regard to the constitutional position that the courts decide whether a person is guilty of an offence, not the Government. The other form of pardon is the remission pardon, the means by which Haase and Bennett were released early from their sentences in 1996. This type of pardon provides for the release of a prisoner from having to serve some or all of the remainder of their sentence. It also provides for someone who has been subject to a monetary penalty to be released from the obligation to pay all or part of it. Remission pardons are usually considered in cases where the applicant has provided assistance to the prosecuting authorities—the police, HMRC, the Crown Prosecution Service—or to the Prison Service, or in recognition of meritorious conduct; for example, saving the life of a fellow prisoner or member of prison staff. It can also be considered for a breach of public faith where a release date has been incorrectly calculated. For brevity, I will concentrate my remarks on the use of the remission pardon in cases where there has been help to the police or prosecuting authorities, which, until the discovery of the perversion of the course of justice to which my hon. Friend referred, was the reason for the original decision in this case. Remission pardons for help to the police and prosecuting authorities have continued to be granted since the Haase and Bennett case, and five have been granted—my hon. Friend referred to this—since 1997. None has been granted since 2002. No remission pardon has been considered since 2004, when two were refused. These figures contrast with those quoted by my hon. Friend for the years between 1992 and 1996, when I think he said that there had been 192 cases. I hope that the much smaller number of cases now offers some reassurance that such pardons are indeed used sparingly. They are by no means automatic and are granted only after rigorous consideration and in the light of compelling evidence. The tailing off in the use of remission pardons is most probably due to the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. The Act introduced a framework of written notices and agreements to deal with offenders who offer assistance to law enforcement. These range from immunity through to reviews of sentence for assistance provided following conviction and sentence. The provisions for reductions in sentences upon conviction in the Crown court for assistance given or promised prior to sentence are restricted to those who enter a guilty plea. Once sentence has been passed, the Act also allows for that sentence to be referred back to the sentencing judge for review if assistance or further assistance is subsequently given. This provision is not limited to those who have pleaded guilty. In both instances, any reduction in the sentence given in recognition of assistance supplied or promised can be referred back to court by the prosecutor and reduced by the court if the assistance is not forthcoming in accordance with the agreement. These are important provisions and mean that an initial decision is taken by the prosecutor whether to enter into a written agreement that may affect the sentence, and any reductions will, in the vast majority of cases, be at the discretion of the court and not granted by politicians. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance on some of the points he made about the difficulties that the secrecy inherent in the situation have brought, with the decision being taken by a politician acting on advice and somewhat removed, necessarily, from the circumstances. Things are done somewhat differently now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) informed the House in an Adjournment debate in 2004, a review of the use of the remission pardon by the then Home Secretary at that time concluded that the royal prerogative of mercy should not normally be used to shorten sentences in recognition of information supplied to the authorities and known to the trial judge at the time of sentence, which is what occurred in the Haase and Bennett case. The provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act would now almost certainly cover the Haase and Bennett circumstances. One would hope the outcome might be somewhat different, but one could, of course, always envisage the contrary being the case; these people are not stupid, and there are always those who are willing to try to subvert our justice system. It would not be appropriate to say that a remission pardon should never be used in such circumstances, because there may be rare cases where it is important for the Justice Secretary to retain such discretion, but one would hope that that would be much rarer than in the past. May I reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton that the Justice Secretary would consider a remission pardon to be appropriate only in the most exceptional case where there was no other way of dealing with the matter, and even then it would need to be absolutely clear that the person concerned had provided information that was of real value to the authorities? My hon. Friend also raised concerns about the role of the customs officers in this case. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has a proven track record as a successful law enforcement agency and it prevents many harmful and illegal items, such as class A drugs, from being smuggled through UK frontiers. This case was in the mid-1990s and I understand that practices have changed considerably since that time. I shall now set those changes out, while understanding that my hon. Friend is perhaps a little more cynical, with his past 12 years of experience, than some might be. The Butterfield review of criminal investigations and prosecutions conducted by customs was published in July 2003. The report recommended revised arrangements for handling intelligence sources. These new arrangements were put in place in September 2003 and extensive law enforcement training commenced in April 2004. This training focused on improving the systems and control for the classification and handling of human source intelligence. In addition, significant enhancements in the assurance procedures for all criminal investigations have been introduced. All criminal investigation officers now receive regular upskilling and refresher training. In HMRC the following is now the case: no investigating officer is allowed to handle informants directly connected to his case—which happened in Haase and Bennett; specially trained officers handle all informants; HMRC has a group dedicated to professionalism and standards in criminal justice and enforcement; and HMRC is subject to oversight from outside in how it handles such matters. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he considers this to be one of the worst possible cases of corruption in the criminal justice system, and it is certainly a very serious one. There is no doubt that Haase and Bennett managed to corrupt the criminal justice system, but in the end justice caught up with them. My hon. Friend has made a number of specific requests that I wish to take away and consider further, and then come back to him. His call for an independent public inquiry would ensure that the lessons that he perceives to be essential following his long association with this matter can be properly learned. I will consider what he has said on this, but I am not committing the Government. Two sorts of inquiry are open to us. The first is an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. Such an inquiry is usually set up where concern has been caused by particular events or where there is public concern that particular events may have occurred. A number of inquiries have been set up using that legislation, including, most recently, one chaired by Sir William Gage to investigate the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him. Inquiries set up under the 2005 Act have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. However, it is of course the case that inquiries do not determine civil or criminal liability. The second possibility is a non-statutory inquiry, because not every inquiry set up by the Government needs to have statutory powers to compel evidence. Witnesses are often willing to co-operate with the inquiry panel, so the formal mechanisms of the 2005 Act are not always necessary. My hon. Friend may have his views about what kind of inquiry he would seek, and I would be willing to discuss the matter with him further outside the Chamber. Finally, I wish to tell my hon. Friend again how much hon. Members appreciate the assiduity with which he has pursued this matter, which is of public concern, not only in his constituency and in Liverpool, but more widely. He must feel that his efforts have been vindicated, and he should certainly be pleased that justice has, at last, been done, in part thanks to the work that he put in. The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the mid 1990s, and as I hope I have been able to show, the safeguards have been strengthened. One hopes that will enable us to prevent this kind of thing from happening as frequently as his remarks showed he fears it might. I think that the chances of a case such as this happening again are remote, but there is no doubt that there is always a chance that it will. My hon. Friend rightly says that we should remain vigilant and that we should do all we can to minimise the possibility that such a catastrophic subversion of our entire criminal justice system as he has set out, and as Haase and Bennett were clearly able to perpetrate, could take place. The whole House will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts. It is at least something that Haase and Bennett have now got their just deserts in the recent prison sentences handed down to them, which they are now serving. Question put and agreed to.