UK Council on Deafness

April 2003 Parliamentary Report

In this Report

• National Emergency Warnings - Lords Written Answers (8 Apr 2003)
• Sexual Offences Bill - Lords Hansard (31 Mar 2003)
• Disabled People (extract) - Lords Hansard (30 Apr 2003)

Lords Written Answers (8 Apr 2003)
National Emergency Warnings

Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 25 March (HL Deb, col. 652), what agreements they have reached with terrestrial, cable and satellite broadcasters that will ensure that any special national warning will be in a format that is accessible by those who have hearing and sight impairment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Our current arrangement for warning the public about major emergencies involves using the broadcasters and their full range of services. This includes TV (with sign language or subtitles as necessary), radio including minority language broadcasts, Teletext, Ceefax and through websites. Such arrangements are appropriate to existing and anticipated threat levels.

These major emergency information procedures are separate from the National Attack Warning System (which my right honourable friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston described on 12 March). This system is maintained by the Government for use in general war to alert the public. However, plans also provide for a considerable amount of public education material to be produced in the period of tension which would precede the need to invoke use of the system. This would ensure that no members of the public were disadvantaged by disability or language needs.

[back to top]

Lords Hansard (31 Mar 2003)
Sexual Offences Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 1, line 18, leave out "Section 78 applies" and insert "Sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply"

The noble Lord said: We now turn to Clause 78. I have been extremely grateful for the discussions I have had with a number of noble Lords inside the House and members of the judiciary outside the House in considering Clause 78. I shall start by explaining why we included these provisions in the Bill.

In its consultation paper Setting the Boundaries, the independent review body proposed that there should be a statutory list of circumstances in which it could be conclusively presumed by the jury that the complainant did not consent to sexual activity. The aim was to clarify existing case law and to incorporate it into statute, thereby allowing Parliament to give a clear indication to the courts and society at large about the circumstances in which sexual activity will not be condoned and in which there can be no doubt that a jury will pass a guilty verdict in relation to any defendant who is proved to have committed the relevant act.

We support the general intention of the review body and agree that making a clear statement in the legislation about the circumstances in which sexual activity is not acceptable will provide juries with a clear framework within which to make fair and just decisions. It would also serve as a clear statement to the public more widely. This should redress the balance in favour of victims. We hope that this will encourage victims to place their faith in the criminal justice system and to bring more cases to trial.

However, we were not satisfied that the circumstances proposed by the review body were all ones in which it could be safely and conclusively assumed that consent was not present. Notwithstanding existing case law, we believe that, in the interests of justice to the defendant, a conclusive presumption of guilt should be allowed only in very narrowly defined circumstances in which it is impossible to conceive that the complainant could have consented to the alleged sexual activity.

In our view, there are only two circumstances in which it can be conclusively presumed that consent was not present—namely, where the prosecution is able to prove that the defendant practised deception about the nature or purpose of the sexual act or where the defendant impersonated someone known personally to the complainant in order to obtain consent. In such cases, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the activity was non-consensual.

In addition, where someone claims that he believed the complainant was consenting solely on the basis of what he was told by a third party, we are of the firm view that he should be conclusively presumed to have acted unreasonably. Assuming that the prosecution proved that the complainant did not consent, the defendant will be found guilty.

Beyond this, other circumstances suggested by the review body may give rise to serious doubts about the ability of the complainant to exercise a free choice. However, in those cases, we believe that the defendant should still be given the opportunity to rebut any presumptions made against him. Where, for example, someone engages in sexual activity with their kidnapper while being held hostage for a ransom, empirical evidence suggests that we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, that the sexual activity might be truly consensual. The kidnapper would still be guilty of abduction but not of the sex offence if he could establish that he truly believed the complainant consented and that it was reasonable in the circumstances so to believe.

By way of further example, where a person is physically disabled and his normal means of communication is by means of sign language that only a trained person could understand, this does not rule out the possibility that the disabled person may have communicated his consent at another time using an intermediary.

In light of these concerns, should we limit ourselves to listing in statute the two sets of circumstances in which it should be conclusively presumed that consent is not present and that all other cases should be left to the prosecution and defence to argue as they do now, without making any statutory changes to that process? We think not. That would ignore all the evidence that indicates that victims currently do not have faith in the court process and that the attrition rate in rape and other sexual abuse cases is too high. We discussed that before the supper break. We need to take steps to raise the public perception of the ability of our courts to deliver justice.

[back to top]

Lords Hansard (30 Apr 2003)
Disabled People (extract)

Lord Morris of Manchester rose to call attention to initiatives to enhance the well-being and status of people with disabilities in the context of the European Year of Disabled People and the Charter for the New Millennium for disabled people worldwide; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords,

"I wept because I had no shoes",
said the poor orphan -

"until I saw a boy who had no feet".

This debate is about people with no limbs at all; others who are both blind and prelingually deaf; and those trying to cope with often devastating effects of chronic mental ill-health or severe learning difficulties, among Britain's 8.6 million disabled people.

I am delighted the debate has brought together so many specialists in this policy area. Others would be with us if they could have been, including my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Healey, to whom I shall refer again as I proceed. Among them, too, is my noble friend Lord Jones, who worked with me in the service of disabled people as a fellow Minister in the 1970s, and whose friendship I value deeply.
I am especially glad that my good and noble friend Lord Ashley is here. We have been close friends and parliamentary colleagues for 37 years now, and his contribution to improving the quality of life of disabled people is immeasurable.

The Motion calls attention to the European Year of Disabled People (EYDP) and the Charter for the New Millennium, because it is in the context of their objectives that initiatives here will ultimately be assessed. Thus I want briefly to summarise their aims. In the case of the charter, I do so having chaired the World Planning Group appointed by Rehabilitation International (RI) to draft the document. RI is the co-ordinating body for disability organisations in over 100 countries. Its affiliates in Britain include Rehab UK, RADAR and the Disability Rights Commission.

[back to top]

[back to Deafness in Parliament]

UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448

Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy Statement

© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.