| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Simon Hughes: I accept what the Minister says about the figures and, as I made clear, I do not undervalue the job of parole boards. Does he accept, however, that there is one inevitable disadvantage, which is that the process takes place behind closed doors with no apparent public accountability? Hilary Benn: Yes, I accept that the process takes place in private. Of course, extensive information is placed before the board— Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): It is confidential. Hilary Benn: Indeed, that is the case. As the hon. Gentleman says, much of the information is confidential because it covers the circumstances of the person in question, as well as their history, possibly going back to their childhood. It would not be possible Column Number: 913 to make all that information public, and in the absence of all the information, how could anyone make an assessment?I recognise the difficulties and acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about transparency and public confidence. Sometimes, the public do not like it either way. Whether the board does or does not grant release, people assume that its decision was or was not fair on the basis of very limited knowledge about the offender's circumstances and history. However, for the reason just given by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), it would not be possible to make such decisions in the public arena. On accountability in a wider sense, the board must satisfy the public that the systems work and that it is doing a more effective job—as demonstrated by the figures that I have cited—of balancing the absolute requirement to make an effective assessment of risk against the wish to allow those who have changed and whose risk has been reduced to show that they are capable of living in a different way and getting on with their lives.
9.30 amI recognise that the amendments are probing. It is better to set out clearly, as the clauses and the schedules do, the offences that can be taken into account for the purposes of considering the application of the Bill. We prefer the clarity offered by the schedule. It will be clear which offences fall under the scheme and which do not. That is important as a matter of principle. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but the difficulty with the wording of the amendment is that it requires us to define ''of a serious sexual or violent nature''. My second reason for resisting the amendments is that we would not want to raise the threshold for the sentence of public protection to a higher level, as it is our intention that all offenders who have committed a sexual or violent offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, and who have been assessed as dangerous, should, in the interests of public protection, receive the new sentence. It is important in debating whether it is important, as the Government believe, to list the offences in schedule 11 or to adopt the alternative approach advanced by the hon. Gentleman, to hold on to what it says in clause 205(1)(b)—the court has, in all cases, to be of the opinion, having regard to what the trigger offences are,
That is the protection. There is a trigger system that is clear about what is covered and the court must apply that test, the precise wording of which we shall debate shortly. The Government believe that the combination of the court's assessment of
and the schedule will give a framework on which we can make the provisions work. Column Number: 914 Simon Hughes: I completely understand that it is not just a list, but a list plus criteria. It is right that there should be criteria. Does the Minister accept that there are two weaknesses in putting lists of offences in legislation? First, they rapidly become out of date and have to be amended and, secondly, they have the potential to be politicised—the political offence of the day, week or year can be added. It is a relatively cheap way of adapting the criminal justice system. If the criteria are always to apply, what is wrong with allowing the courts to determine whether a certain offence should qualify as a serious violent or sexual offence? Hilary Benn: The difficulty is that different courts might interpret that in different ways, affecting the trigger. The hon. Gentleman's point about the transparency of the process reinforces the case for clarity, which schedule 11 provides. As we have learned during these debates, there is no guarantee that our successors will not change the offences and add to the list. The system will have to cope with that. All that we can do is to list the offences that we are aware of in order to try to cover all eventualities. There are also some technical deficiencies in the amendment, but I recognise that it was intended to be probing, and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Simon Hughes: I am very grateful to the Minister. My amendment was a probing amendment. We must deal with 13 clauses between 9.10 am and 11.25 am, so to assist the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 683, in
I can tell the Minister straight away that this is a probing amendment; unless the Opposition are seriously provoked, it is unlikely that we shall press it to a Division. The Minister is not in the habit of severely provoking us, so I think that this will be more of a probing morning. I pause, Mr. Illsley, to tweak the Minister's arm a little. Unless I am grievously mistaken, the Government tabled more than 150 amendments to their own Bill on Thursday and Friday of last week. That was not especially helpful to those of us who read slowly. Moreover, I cannot help but feel that Parliaments nowadays tend to pass a law one year and change it the next, which is a pity. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was passed not very long ago, and changes to extended sentences were made two years ago. Now we are changing the law again. This Bill is an example of how we sometimes rush so fast that we find ourselves changing the law too soon. The purpose of my amendment is to change subsection (2)(b)(ii) to make offences trigger offences under the schedule. We are dealing with dangerous offenders, so there are some important general issues. However, my amendment deals with a specific point. Under the Bill as drafted, an offence becomes a serious offence if it is a specified offence and if it carries a 10-year sentence. There are no fewer than 62 specified Column Number: 915 violent offences in schedule 11, and 36 specified sexual offences. I have concerns over whether 10 years is an appropriate level to set because, under clause 205, if one commits a serious offence and the court thinks that
the sentence becomes an indeterminate or life sentence. The first principle is that that sentencing provision is draconian. It is tough, and I imagine that it would be used sparingly, and for limited offences. I propose that it would be more appropriate to raise the threshold slightly to make a serious offence one that is specified and that carries a sentence of 14 years rather than 10. In schedule 11, some offences are caught by the 10-year rule. There are some that would not be caught by the 14-year rule, but some would be. However, many offences in the schedule do not carry a sentence of either 10 or 14 years. I had a look at one or two, and we shall debate them later. Interestingly, although a section 18 arrestable offence—grievous bodily harm with intent—carries a life sentence, the lower form, which is a section 20 offence, carries five years. Section 20 offences can sometimes be very serious. ABH carries a five-year sentence and arson carries life. However, what I found most interesting was the offence of threats to kill: it carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. If the amendment is accepted, a threat to kill would incur a sentence of 14 years, not 10. The offence of threat to kill is often, in my experience, tried summarily and not punished with imprisonment. That is because the common-or-garden offence of threat to kill is regarded as one made in the heat of the moment during a domestic fracas. Someone may say, ''I'll get you for this; you are a dead man'', only to find himself charged with having made a threat to kill. It sounds serious, but in real terms it is usually not. Is there an argument for my proposition that we should raise the 10 years to 14? The Bar Council thinks so. It has reservations about the clause; it believes that 10 years is too low a maximum. It compares and contrasts the types of offence in the 10-year range with those in the 14-year range or life. Maximum penalties err greatly on the side of the worst-case scenario. The Bar Council believes that 14 years is a less inappropriate figure. We must ask ourselves how often such measures will be used by the courts. The answer is very rarely indeed. The clause envisages the maximum penalty for an offence not being deemed sufficient by the courts. What research have the Government done into how often the maximum sentence for an offence is imposed by the courts? My experience is that that happens only rarely. One can hardly think of any occasion when a maximum sentence has been imposed. When it does happen, once in a blue moon, it makes the headlines. I wonder whether the provisions in the clause will make a material difference to the sentencing practices of the courts, given the strong powers available to them. It is a narrow amendment, which recognises that we are dealing with a draconian power that will be used sparingly. I hope that the Minister finds merit in my Column Number: 916 argument, which is supported by the Bar Council among others, that it might, in a specialised case like this, be more appropriate to have the definition read that an offence is a serious offence if it is a specified offence under schedule 11 and that it therefore carries a 14-year sentence rather than a 10-year one. Debates on whether the schedule will be extended to cover other offences may come later, but for the moment I leave that thought with the Minister. I hope that if the Minister rejects the amendment he will explain why.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 February 2003 |
