|
Column Number: 869
Standing Committee B
Thursday 6 February 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]
Clause 151
The Sentencing Guidelines Council
Amendment moved [this day]: No.518, in
clause 151, page 84, line 22, at end insert
'which shall include as deputy chairman the Secretary of State for Home Department, or a person whom he nominates in his stead, and the chairman of the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, or a person whom he nominates in his stead, who, together with the Lord Chief Justice, shall comprise the Executive Committee of the Council'.—[Mr. Allen.]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 519, in
No. 520, in
clause 151, page 84, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The other members of the council will include at least one of each of the following—
(a) a Lord Chief Justice of Appeal;
(b) a judge of the High Court;
(c) a Circuit judge;
(d) a District judge;
(e) a District judge (Magistrates' Courts);
(f) a lay justice;
(g) a Police Officer;
(h) a Probation Officer;
(i) a Prison Governor;
(j) a representative of a Victims' Organisation;
(k) a representative of the Business Community;
(l) a teachers' representative;
(m) three lay members of the public one of whom shall be over the age of 60 and one of whom shall be under 18;
(n) a representative of exoffenders' institutions;
(o) a local government/crime and disorder partnership
representative;
(p) a legal professional, alternately a barrister or solicitor;
(q) a social services representative.'.
No. 521, in
clause 151, page 84, line 31, leave out subsection (5).
No. 541, in
No. 638, in
clause 153, page 86, line 17, at end add—
Column Number: 870
No. 687, in
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): I welcome you to this afternoon's sitting, Mr. Cran. I was getting on to amendment No. 520 and talking about the need to broaden the sentencing council so that it commands more widespread support, which all the various people involved in sentencing want. However, they are all mistrustful of the others involved in sentencing, and not prepared to give a little bit of their sovereignty in order to be stronger in the sentencing council.
As is often the case in Committees, a lot of discussion goes on outside Committee. One or two colleagues have expressed strong support for the concepts contained in the amendments, but have said, ''I wonder what the judiciary will make of this.'' That is why I have attempted to reassure the Lord Chief Justice by proxy through the amendments—there are other amendments later that seek to reassure the judiciary. It is incumbent on us all here, including the Minister, when he is in a position to discuss such matters with the judiciary, to give them the reassurance about their role that they require. No one that I have spoken to on the matter intends to undermine the judiciary or rob them of the final power.
The very first amendment that I moved to kick off this part of the Bill—it was probably over a week ago and seems a long time now—sought to ensure that the judges would continue to have discretion in individual cases. I was pleased to hear the reassurances that the Minister gave on that. I hope that that will help the judiciary to come to terms with the fact that we are all trying to feel our way towards something that will unite the various people involved in sentencing, and who will therefore all be a lot stronger when the sentencing proposals are finally put into the public domain. The public will feel more trust in the criminal justice system because of that process.
On amendment No. 520, I was talking about one or two of the ideas that members of the Committee have put forward about who might be on the council. It has been suggested that it include a representative of the business community or a teacher's representative. That could be important, because we have all had the same experience of talking to teachers and head teachers in our constituencies who say, ''Yes, we can spot, within three or four weeks of their going to primary school, the children who will be difficult for us, who will be underachievers at secondary school and who might eventually go into a life of crime.'' It could be extremely valuable to feed their pre-emptive views, taken well before any child comes before the courts, into the broader process.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested to me the possibility of having an older person and a younger person on the council, and I have put that idea into
Column Number: 871
amendment No. 520. The perceptions of our society of the person over 60 will be different from those of the young person who is under 18. It was interesting how, almost without noticing it, hon. Members took cognisance of the fact that earlier in the morning we had a Gallery full of young people. The mere fact that they were here made us think about how they might respond on drug questions and whether there should be testing at 10, 14 or 18. The Home Secretary, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Lord Chief Justice might experience a similar, beneficial effect if a young person from a group associated with drug misuse was seated at the table when sentencing was discussed—it certainly would not do any harm for such people to take part.
A representative of an ex-offenders institution is another obvious suggestion. I bow to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in this regard, but many of us have talked to ex-offenders and ex-drug users about the best way to tackle the problem of sentencing, and some have very interesting and innovative ideas. It may be a matter not simply of a harder sentence, but of a more difficult sentence. Often, that could be prescribed by someone who had been through a similar horrendous experience and come out the other side. That would leaven the view of the professionals and experts, among whom we would probably number ourselves and certainly the judiciary. Ministers would also fall into that category.
The amendment also suggests that we include someone from the local government area or the crime and disorder partnership—I hope that Labour Members are very proud of that innovation and its beneficial impact. Partnerships have pulled agencies together and promoted multi-agency, group working. That is proving incredibly effective—certainly in my area. Perhaps sentencing is not simply a matter of deciding between a custodial and a community sentence, and such individuals might bring a mix of social service intervention, probation intervention and health intervention to the party. They might be able to bring such things to bear in terms of more effective sentencing.
The list goes on to propose a legally qualified professional and someone from social services. Each of us would have our own list, and I hope that the Minister will ponder this particular list to help him figure out whether we could do the job better.
The objective in tabling all the amendments is simple. As a nation, we have lost faith in the criminal justice system, particularly sentencing. The Committee has a tremendous opportunity to give my hon. Friend the Minister some background and some ideas that he can discuss with colleagues in the Government and with the judiciary. We could then have a credible, broad-based Sentencing Guidelines Council that reassured everyone involved in sentencing. Its decision-making process would be protracted, and I shall explain in later amendments why that should be. We should never again introduce poorly presented sentencing guidelines a few days before Christmas on the back of a single case or issue an edict about
Column Number: 872
sentencing on the back of a murder that took place only a couple of days before. We should have a protracted process that involves, networks and reassures everyone who has an interest. We need such a process above all because we must reconnect the public with sentencing. In that respect, the Committee has a fantastic opportunity, and I hope that we will seize it this afternoon.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a particularly good turn by drafting his amendments and initiating the debate. When he first sought my views on his amendments, I said that they were not without difficulty. I shall return to those difficulties in a minute, but they do not mean that we should not discuss the amendments.
Of one thing I am certain: the current sentencing framework and the way in which we set out guidelines or deal with principles is deeply unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman is right; it does not command public respect. In particular, although the judiciary are supposed to be independent in fixing the guidelines within the parameters laid down by Parliament on maximum and sometimes minimum sentences—usually maximum—the public perception is that they are not. First, it often appears that they allow events, whether a particularly notorious case or the simple fact of prison overcrowding, to dictate sentencing policy. The concern that was expressed at the recent pronouncement of the Lord Chief Justice on burglary was that it was perceived by the public—rightly, I fear—to be entirely dictated by the crisis in prison numbers and not by any other analysis as to what was appropriate in order to reduce burglary or deter burglars.
Although judges are not supposed to be subject to political interference, it is abundantly clear that lines of communication run between Ministers and the judiciary that can be, and are, used to indicate areas of concern. That is not necessarily illegitimate, because judges would not be doing their job properly if they were not receptive to what they heard from those around them as to what was appropriate with regard to sentencing. However, there is an absence of transparency in that process. In particular, people gain the impression that the judges have dreamed something up out of thin air, albeit that is the impression that is sought to be given to them, whereas the reality is totally different.
If I say this now, I hope that it will avoid debate later. The Government's broad brush proposal for setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council in the form that is proposed in the clause is a step forward in clarity. One only has to look in ''Archbold'' at sentencing guidelines under the broad heading of sentences of imprisonment, to see how arcane and complicated it is to cross-reference between the various dicta of judges in individual cases and the incremental development of standards that should be applied. They are sometimes mutually contradictory, always difficult to understand and frequently not properly applied by the judges themselves—probably because, in many cases, they do not understand them.
Column Number: 873
It is also noteworthy that it is clearly established that judges are not completely free and independent to disregard parameters. I shall come back to the matter later in respect of a further group of amendments, but I hope that it is appropriate to mention it here in relation to my amendments that concern Parliament. I refer again to ''Archbold'', which says, at paragraph 5–91, on the most serious example of the offence:
''The fact that the sentencer considers that Parliament has set the maximum sentence for a particular offence too low is not a ground for imposing the maximum sentence when there are relevant mitigating factors such as a plea of guilty (see R v Carroll, 16 Criminal Appeal reports 488 CA)''.
Therefore, as an issue of principle, it is clearly wrong to say that the judges are not fettered by what other people—particularly Parliament—are saying. The argument that judges must be left in their ivory towers in order to be seen to be entirely free from any pressure or interference is not tenable, even in respect of the existing state of affairs. However, I accept that it is important that the judiciary should not feel that they are being pressured into impossible positions within the ambit of their discretion.
One of the areas about which we shall need to hear from the Minister is how the Lord Chief Justice views the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Some indication of how the judiciary are reacting to the proposals is needed.
2.45 pm
I now turn to the specifics. I found myself attracted by the proposal, so I signed the amendment. We should consider whether the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be widened to include individuals other than judges. There is always a slight danger of tokenism if we go down such a route. Nevertheless, it seems perfectly practical to put together a council to come up with sentencing guidelines that consists of those who are interested in the workings of the criminal justice system. It may be thought that judges object to having to sit with others in determining those guidelines. However, at present the judiciary are fettered by the guidelines that other judges have drawn up. That is effectively what is happening, and not necessarily happening on the basis of an individual case decision. Therefore, as I have said, I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
We can discuss in detail—other members may wish to do so—exactly who should sit on the council. Broadly speaking, however, the hon. Gentleman identified the sorts of people who should be on it. How will those guidelines in practice, once they are issued, tie down the judiciary? That is where the issue will become more difficult. That is the area in which I foresee scope for conflict. To what extent will the judge, who wishes to recommend a sentence that may depart from the guidelines, be constrained by public pressure from within the guidelines council? We shall need explanation and guidance from the Minister about how the judiciary views that issue. The judiciary must be listened to carefully, but it should not have an overriding veto.
|
