文書ID
モデルID
要約
Q
Summarize the discussion about the law as it presently stands.A
According to Barry Hughes, the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be changed to reflect the way in which people behave within society. In respect of children in particular, the Children Act 2004 did make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment. By way of contrast, it was not available for an offence involving an adult.Q
Summarize the discussion about the divergence between the law in England and Wales from Barry Hughes.A
Barry Hughes explained that there was a spectrum of offending in England and Wales, and the CPS recognised this. There would be more cases that would pass the evidential stage in Wales than there would be in England, but it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. In terms of how they would approach it within the Crown Prosecution Service in Cymru-Wales, Barry Hughes said they would build themselves up to come up with the appropriate guidance according to the circumstances.Q
What did Barry Hughes think about the divergence of criminal law?A
Barry Hughes thought that it was probably the first time that there had been an obvious divergence between English and Welsh law, so it would be necessary to update the guidance. However, he did not see a need to update or amend the guidance because it went back to the application of the evidential stage, before the public interest stage. He thought they would need to develop more with respect to that.Q
What did the meeting discuss about the public interest test?A
Barry Hughes said that the public interest test was not as of the present day, but it was under way and they had regular interchange of prosecutors between England and Wales. They would need to make sure that those people were brought up to speed on the fact that there were some aspects of Welsh law that diverge from English law.Q
What did the meeting discuss about the burden of proof if the defence was removed?A
Barry Hughes explained that the burden of proof was going to work if this defence was removed, providing that it was clear that contact with a child had happened. The change in the law would afford children a degree of protection that they didn't presently have, but which they did have when they attained the age of 16.Q
What did the meeting talk about the implementation of the Act?A
Barry Hughes thought that they needed to maintain the type of dialogue that they had built up with the Welsh Government and colleagues there. They needed involvement from Iwan, for example, and the strategic implementation group. They had other members of my staff who were involved in the other work streams that feed through to that, and they believed that that involvement would ensure that they were sufficiently interconnected. Moreover, they had got a network of contacts built up here that was adequate for the purpose.Q
Summarize the discussion about the practical and possibly financial implications for the workforce in this legislation.A
Suzy Davies AM asked about the practical and possibly financial implications for the workforce in this legislation. Barry Hughes answered that there would be minor financial consequences for them and no significant financial consequences in the period between now and the Bill becoming law other than the time of themselves in discussing this today. Moreover, the numbers would be very small, which means they would be able to keep a clear track on those and, obviously, they would wish to keep the situation under review, and they would reach a period of time after whatever—12, 18 months, maybe 24 months—where they would look back to see how they were doing.Q
Summarize the discussion about the interests of the child when applying the public interest test.A
According to Barry Hughes, the essence of the public interest test was about proportionality, and trying to come up with an approach that was proportionate to the offending. There was a long list of matters that they took into account. Some of them were fairly obvious, such as previous convictions. If someone's got previous convictions for doing something wrong, it's more likely they're going to be prosecuted the next time. However, there was no part of the law that said that prosecution would always follow. So, they would tailor it to the circumstances of the particular incident to assess how the child felt about it.Q
Summarize the discussion about out-of-court disposals.A
According to Barry Hughes, there were a great many offences or reports of crime that did not reach the CPS because they were dealt with by way of an out-of-court disposal. However, it was more unclear as to what was a more appropriate disposal than a prosecution. There was a spectrum of offending, and life would be simpler and clearer to have fewer types of disposals with more clarity about what each one of them involved.Q
What did the meeting talk about the unintended consequences?A
Barry Hughes thought that raising awareness was important, and he was pleased to see that the media publicity surrounding this proposed legislation, which was now going through, reached as far afield as New York and had widespread media coverage across England and Wales, and the Government would be well placed here to take advantage of that willingness of the media to explore something potentially divisive, andQ
What did the meeting talk about the unintended consequences of introducing the new law?A
Barry Hughes thought that the unintended consequences of introducing the new law would be very unlikely because they had had a pretty helpful canter through most of the circumstances here that might happen. The numbers, again, would be tiny, and dwarfed by the number of cases where they had to deal with the fallout between a relationship breakdown between partners—whether they be living within the same house or living in different houses. And, in his experience, the police were much more sensible these days than they may have been 20 years ago, in terms of trying to get cases charged in order to meet some notional target.Q
What did the meeting discuss about the costs of prosecuting cases made possible by the Bill?A
According to Barry Hughes, there is a huge body of legislation out there that outlaws certain offences, and they probably prosecute 5 per cent of those in any given year. So, the fact that they might not have many prosecutions is, for him, not a reason not to signify that certain behaviour is or is not acceptable. The criminal law provides a general framework within which to operate, which most people tend to understand.