Standing Committee B
Thursday 30 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Clause 126
Purposes of sentencing
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 516, in
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 531, in
No. 640, in
No. 600, in
clause 126, page 73, line 15, after 'must', insert 'in particular'.
No. 63, in
No. 641, in
clause 126, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) Any court or youth offender panel dealing with a child who is aged under 18 at the time of conviction in respect of an offence must, in addition to having regard to section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, have regard to the welfare of the child as a primary consideration.'.
No. 492, in
clause 126, page 73, line 24, leave out subsection (a).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): Good afternoon, Mr. Illsley.
I am happy to confirm that judicial independence, including judicial discretion in sentencing, albeit subject to the law as laid down by Parliament, is a bedrock of our legal system. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) recognised that when he said that that is how it is now. I entirely agree with the sentiments behind his amendment, as do other members of the Committee, and concur that it reflects the current position as understood by the Government, the Committee and members of the judiciary.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he does not propose to press his amendment to a vote. The wording, if included, might raise eyebrows among
Column Number: 722
members of the judiciary, who do not doubt that they have discretion on sentencing. In other quarters, it might have the opposite and unintended effect of raising doubts about other parts of appropriate legislation. Having said that, we may well return to this issue when we discuss the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. As my hon. Friend said, many issues relating to the operation of the council will have an impact on the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. His extremely helpful amendment has flagged up this issue, to which I am sure we will return.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who is not here now, raised the question of the welfare of offenders under 18. Of course, we recognise that that is an important consideration in the sentencing of juveniles. However, the clause currently applies only to adults, and neither amendment No. 63 nor amendment No. 492, which would remove the age restrictions, would be appropriate. Amendment No. 641, which is similar to amendment No. 63, also falls into that category.
The amendments are unnecessary. We intend the clause to apply only to young people over 18, for two reasons. First, the Government are working on a Green Paper on the needs of children, which we hope to publish later in the spring. Following the outcome of that consultation, we aim to propose legislation to bring together the purposes of juvenile sentencing in a way that is similar to what we are seeking to do for adults. Secondly, I reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 requires courts to have regard to the welfare of juveniles when sentencing, and there are also the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Finally, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) expressed a concern about clarity of explanation about what a sentence means. Clause 157, which we will debate later, addresses that point.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): With the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey out of the Committee, there is a great temptation for me to hurry up. It is a temptation to which I will succumb. Given the Minister's kind words and open mind in agreeing to look at the matter afresh, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No.61, in
clause 126, page 73, line 18, leave out from 'crime' to end of line 19.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 603, in
clause 126, page 73, line 21, after 'of', insert 'financial'.
No. 601, in
clause 126, page 73, line 21, after 'to', insert 'the community and'.
No. 532, in
clause 126, page 73, line 21, after 'persons', insert 'and communities'.
No. 62, in
Column Number: 723
No. 602, in
No. 667, in
Mr. Allen: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley.
Clause 126 refers to purposes of sentencing, and subsection 1(b) refers to one of those purposes being the reduction of crime, which is something we all support. It becomes unnecessarily complicated when it refers to its reduction by deterrence, and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders. Both those ideas are important. I would argue—and I ask the Minister to consider this—that in view of some of the amendments to come from all points of the Committee, rehabilitation should stand alone as a criterion under which a discussion of sentencing should take place.
The question is a philosophical one that could take up another full sitting—I hope that it does not. People referred earlier to their own values concerning crime and punishment, which may come from a Christian, liberal, socialist or Conservative point of view. Many ideologies refer to rehabilitation making people better. Given the crisis in our prison system, I feel that what we are currently doing is not working. One of my themes later will be to draw a distinction in the Prison Service between containment of offenders who must be put away for public safety reasons and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of offenders, where practicable, is the best crime prevention measure there is. We should seize that opportunity.
I have views about all criminal law. As a green Member of Parliament, within about two weeks of arriving in this place, an horrendous case of sexual abuse was brought to my attention. I was heavily involved in sorting out the problems associated with that multi-generational case. Some of the children involved had received appalling treatment. We all feel anger about any criminal act that comes to our attention, and I felt anger about those wasted lives. I came to an understanding that some people are heroic in their ability to resist the treatment meted out to them as children, but sadly some cannot overcome it, and in turn become abusers and perpetrators. It is important to intervene early and ensure some form of rehabilitation of such individuals before they can become abusers. That had a profound effect on me as a young Member of Parliament. If we can stop crime being committed, it will relieve the courts, and the many citizens who suffer from the activities of criminals. Given the current crisis in criminal justice and our prisons, rehabilitation is extremely important.
I shall return to those points later, but for now I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I am sure that the Minister will express sympathy with the concept of rehabilitation. I know from my correspondence with him how much he cares about this part of his ministerial responsibility, so I ask only that he
Column Number: 724
considers re-examining the drafting to see whether he can send the signal to the community at large and those in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation has as much priority as any of the other items mentioned in the list. If he looks at that with an open mind, we may be able to build on Report or in another place a serious foundation in the criteria for the purposes of sentencing that includes rehabilitation exclusively.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): I will speak to amendments Nos. 603, 601 and 602.
We are still discussing the important clause on the purposes of sentencing. Amendment No. 603 is a probing amendment designed to draw from the Minister confirmation about subsection (1)(d) on
''the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.''
The amendment would require financial reparation. I think that clause 126 envisages convicted defendants having as one purpose of punishment not only the need to perform community work or be involved in restorative justice that we heard about earlier—a face-to-face discussion and apology—but the issue of financial compensation. However, that is not spelled out, and I would like confirmation that all those matters are encompassed by the word ''reparation''.
I should say in passing that currently if a court does not award compensation in a case, it has to say on the register why it has not. There is an increasing tendency to award compensation, particularly in the assault cases that regularly come before the courts. Many courts find the process of inquiry into the defendant's means before making a compensation order difficult and lengthy, and it is all too easy for magistrates and district judges to say, as they sometimes do if the defendant is on benefits, that they will make no compensation order because the position is too complicated or the matter would be better handled in a civil court or by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. By saying that, judges often mean, ''I've got a busy list and I must move on to the next case.'' It would be helpful for the Government to draft new measures to make it simpler for a magistrate or district judge quickly to get the court's hands on a defendant's assets—for example, a car—to ensure a payment from the defendant to the victim.
I applaud work that has been done on restorative justice. I have not recently come across a case in which a community punishment order—what used to be the community service order—involved working for the loser. Some losers like that; some do not. It is an area that needs examining and perhaps strengthening, and the Minister will probably confirm that all reparations, including financial, are envisaged in the clause.
My amendment No. 601 refers to ''the community'' and would ensure that offenders make reparations to the community as well as to those directly affected by their offences. A defendant is often told, when he is sent to prison, ''You have committed a series of offences. Now you are going to pay your debt to society.'' That is a standard sentencing phrase. Of course, defendants do, in a sense, have a real debt to
Column Number: 725
pay to society at large, and the community at large, for their offence. It is not a big point, but I wonder whether a reference to the community and society, with respect to the purpose of punishment, should be included somewhere in the clause.
2.45 pm
Amendment No. 602 would insert a new paragraph (e) into subsection (1), detailing a further purpose of sentencing to which the court should have regard. It would have to take into account the restoration of public confidence and the prevalence of the offence in the locality in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) mentioned earlier how vital it is that public confidence in the criminal justice system should be preserved and maintained. He is right, and perhaps the amendment could help in that process.
It is very important that courts should take into account the issue of the prevalence of a crime in a community. Judges and magistrates often pass much harder sentences than would otherwise have been the case because they want to ''stamp out'' a particular offence in their community. For example, in the King's Cross area of London a tremendous number of minor drug offences are committed, of which a harsh view is taken. Indeed, different courts around London have different sentencing practices, depending on the prevalence of a particular offence there.
In Covent Garden there is a lot of pickpocketing. Mobile phone theft is particularly prevalent in some areas of London. Another issue is cleaning up the streets. The offence of being a common prostitute—something that I regard as pretty trivial, which clogs up the courts unnecessarily and produces absurd problems for sentencers—is nevertheless prevalent in some parts of London, and causes offence. It is a rarity in parts of the countryside, for obvious reasons. Magistrates would be amazed by a prostitute touting for hire in West street, Dorking, but it is par for the course, on the other hand, on the Commercial road.
Courts need the flexibility to be able to say, ''We are going for this offence, because it is very hot in our area, and we want to drive it out.'' Perhaps, therefore, there is an argument for including in the purposes of sentencing—in addition to the restoration and maintenance of public confidence in the system—the provision of the necessary flexibility to deal with the prevalence of an offence in any area, which results in the need for the relevant courts to stamp it out and to sentence accordingly.
|
