Edmond Campbell, Senior News Coordinator

Legislation requiring an accused person to disclose the nature of his defence to the court before trial will have to return to the drawing board after being rejected on Tuesday by Members of Parliament on both sides of the political divide in Gordon House.

Dr. Peter Phillips, the Minister of National Security, who introduced the The Law Reform Notice of Alibi Evidence Act 2006 for debate, said the "perfect defence" available to an accused was an alibi or the declaration that "it was not me, in answer to an allegation against him".

He argued it was the most difficult defence to destroy, especially when the prosecution had no opportunity to investigate because it was raised for the first time during the trial.

Dr. Phillips said several jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, have introduced this law moving away from the common-law position of the "right to silence".

However, Opposition justice spokesman, Delroy Chuck, warned that the bill could infringe on a criminal trial.

He charged that the legislation might provide an opportunity for the Crown not only to determine whether there was an alibi witness, but also to interview the defence witness.

"The defence cannot interview the prosecution's witnesses, and if the defence can't interview the prosecution's witnesses, I don't see why we should even allow that opportunity for the prosecution to interview the defence's witnesses," he said.

Call for review

Opposition MP, Clive Mullings, suggested that the legislation should be sent back to committee for further review.

"The intent is good, but we are running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water," Mr. Mullings said.

Government backbencher and attorney-at-law, K.D. Knight, said he had never felt comfortable with the act and what it sought to achieve.

He questioned why the defence should have a duty to assist the prosecution to prove his own guilt.

"Any assistance to the prosecution in relation to guilt must come from a plea. When called upon, the accused persons say 'guilty', that's assisting the prosecution, but that is as far as it should go," he said. "We have to tread very cautiously in breaking this new ground, lest the medicine doesn't actually fit the illness."

Mr. Knight urged his colleagues to not pass the legislation without further consideration "lest at the end of the day their Lordships find that there has been an erosion of certain protections and the bill itself becomes nothing more than a document with words on it."

Dr. Phillips suspended the debate to allow for further consultation on the bill.