---

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice for Interviews of Witnesses Notified by Accused) Order 2010

As always, I am grateful to the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for their contributions to this short debate. I am delighted that the consultation process has pleased the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on this occasion. He is right to stress its voluntary nature. It is fundamental to this order. It is not compulsory for a probable or possible defence witness to agree to be seen by the police. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. These are very sensitive areas, and they need to be looked at closely. The alibi notice requirements have been in place for so long that I was practicing at the Bar when they first came in. The noble Lord will know better than me how successful they have been. I do not believe that there has been any proof that they have not been by and large successful, although it is always essential that safeguards are maintained. The code, which the noble Lord was kind enough to say contains quite a number of safeguards, is a more solid piece of work than the original code of conduct intended some years ago. The noble Lord asked why the code has been delayed so long. It is regrettable. The delay has had much to do with competing pressures on resources and the need to settle the detail properly. Police interviews of defence witnesses, like defence interviews of prosecution witnesses, are a sensitive area, and considerable caution is required in regulating them. Following the Warley judgment, I understand that policy and the relevant parliamentary instruments were almost ready by the Summer Recess 2008. Unfortunately, as both noble Lords will remember, in June 2008 there was a major House of Lords judgment in the Davis case on witness anonymity and the ensuing emergency legislation intervened. These developments, the need to re-enact the emergency legislation and the new provisions on witness anonymity in last year’s Coroners and Justice Act had the effect of pushing the code to one side again. It is regrettable, but the matters are now before the Committee. As to the ECHR point, it is possible that any police pressure on witnesses could result in an Article 6 point being taken. However, Section 34 will not alter the position, and we hope that the code will protect police conduct regarding witnesses whose details are given. The usual PACE Section 78 considerations and other provisions are there to protect any defendant, and judges make sure that defendants have a fair trial. The question on monitoring was perfectly proper and sensible. We are considering proposals from the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee relating to disclosure time limits in general. That includes defence statements. We will listen carefully to any concerns raised by the rule committee about the operation of the new provisions. We will be watching how this works closely. Finally, I do not think that the noble Lord chides me, but he has pointed out that there are more important considerations than court management in the conduct of a criminal trial. Of course justice must remain the main consideration, but I think that all of us would agree that there is room for improvement in the way in which we manage our trials, particularly in the Crown Court.