| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lilley: I asked the hon. Lady to say whether she has an answer to the simple question: why do the Opposition think that these measures would reduce unemployment in this country when they have increased it in the only countries where they have been applied? What other explanation do the Opposition have for that high unemployment? The hon. Lady has none.
Early this week in a speech to the CBI the Leader of the Opposition tried to set business men's minds at rest about the social chapter. He said that it was not a matter of concern for business men and he continued:
Today, in addition we should be discussing welfare state reform because that is one of the key issues--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday 20 November.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central):
I am grateful for the opportunity of this short debate to raise issues relating to the Crown Prosecution Service's actions and to my constituency. In the past 12 months, I have become increasingly concerned about complaints that I have received from constituents who have been the victims of crime, but who have seen the case against the perpetrator of that crime dropped by the CPS. In some of the cases, the charges were dropped or not pursued before a court hearing and the victim was informed by a standard letter, either from the CPS or the police. In other cases, the victims have never been informed.
Many people not only in my constituency but throughout the country are alarmed at the continual increase in crime. Many victims of crime have lost faith in the police service, which they view as powerless to prevent the increases. It is becoming apparent, however, that many people are losing faith in the Crown Prosecution Service and in the criminal justice system as the CPS drops cases where the police have successfully caught and identified the culprit and brought charges.
Some of the letters that I have received in the past 12 months bear witness to some people's despair at the actions of the Crown Prosecution Service and to my constituents' loss of confidence in it. I shall quote from three of those letters to show my constituents' depth of feeling, one of whom writes:
It is apparent that the police force is becoming increasingly frustrated by the action--or inaction--of the Crown Prosecution Service because, after all, its hard work in detecting crime and in prosecuting criminals is thrown away by the CPS when cases are not pursued in court. The police are criticised by the public for not being able to identify criminals and for rising crime. When they do identify criminals, they are criticised again when the CPS drops a case. It appears that the police force is between the devil and the deep blue sea.
In some cases, the decision not to pursue a case is justified. The two main areas are set out in detail in the code of conduct for Crown prosecutors: lack of evidence and cases where a prosecution would not be in the public interest. Some cases are impossible to prove--for example, because no witnesses are available or because their attendance would involve tremendous expense. Unfortunately, I am becoming increasingly convinced that some cases are dropped because it is convenient for the
Crown Prosecution Service to do so, because of the cost to the public purse or because of an unwillingness to pursue a case in court unless a conviction is assured.
A case has been brought to my attention that concerns a defendant who was due to appear in court on the same day as he was due to face charges for earlier offences. The two sets of charges were brought together at one hearing. The defendant agreed to plead guilty to the original charges but informed his solicitor, who then informed the CPS, that he would plead not guilty to the latter charges. The latter charges were then dropped. It was thought by the Crown Prosecution Service that the earlier charges gave a full range of sentencing options.
I do not see how the earlier charges could have provided a full range of sentencing options in relation to the latter charges, as the magistrates were not aware of those charges because they had been dropped on that day. The defendant could be charged only with the original offence, and therefore could be sentenced only for that. Because the two sets of charges were combined on the same day, the defendant walked out of court scot-free of the latter charges. Had there been two distinct court hearing dates, by the time the second charges were brought and the court appearance made the defendant could have faced even more serious penalties--perhaps imprisonment--because of the earlier conviction. In the circumstances, however, he walked from court entirely free of the latter charges. I fear that the Crown Prosecution Service simply could not be bothered to pursue the latter charges.
I suspect that cases are also being dropped because it is too costly to pursue them through the courts. Whether they are of a complex or minor nature, the question arises whether the CPS should pursue them because of the cost involved.
Certainty of conviction is an issue that is beginning to worry me substantially. The code of practice states that the test on certainty is that a jury or bench of magistrates properly directed in accordance with the law is more likely than not to convict a defendant of the charges alleged. I fear that the Crown Prosecution Service is interpreting that definition to mean that it should pursue cases only if there is certainty of conviction.
Cases that pass the evidentiary and public interest tests, but where the evidence is finely balanced, are not pursued because there is no certainty of conviction. It is up to the magistrates or the jury to decide on the evidence and weigh up the pros and cons of a case. It is not for a jury or bench merely to concur with the certainties referred to it by the Crown Prosecution Service in cases where a conviction is assured. The idea of a criminal justice system is that a magistrate or jury has the right to judge each case on its merits.
I shall illustrate one or two of those points by reference to actual cases and to the code itself. I am unable to raise one case because of the sub judice rule, but the Solicitor-General is aware of the case and of my concern.
A constituent of mine, Mr. S. Doherty, was involved in the case, where two charges were brought. A man was charged with criminal damage and theft from Mr. Doherty's vehicle. The man had been arrested after being chased by a police constable at 4 o'clock in the morning. As luck would have it, the incident occurred less than a quarter of a mile from Barnsley police station and the police constable was on duty in the vicinity and was able
to apprehend the defendant. The police constable was alerted by the alarm from Mr. Doherty's car or from his neighbour's car.
The culprit was caught in possession of stolen property from the vehicles and in possession of tools for breaking and entering. He was charged to appear in court on the same day as he was due to appear on other charges for driving with a forged instrument and driving without insurance. The defendant agreed to plead guilty to the charges of driving without documents and insurance, but not guilty to theft and criminal damage. The guilty plea was accepted and the theft and criminal damage charges were dropped. The Crown Prosecution Service says that the prosecutor decided that it was right for him to accept the guilty plea because he was aware that the magistrates had a full range of sentencing options. I do not agree. The court had not heard the charges of theft and criminal damage, because they had been dropped, and it could not pass a sentence to reflect those charges. The full range of sentencing options was available only in relation to the earlier charges.
The evidential and public interest tests were satisfied, but the reason given for dropping the theft and criminal damage charges was that
What about the public interest in deterring theft? Car crime is as bad in Barnsley as anywhere else in the country. In Barnsley, car thieves are called the "twoc" squads--taking without the owner's consent. Young guys wearing full-face crash helmets steal vehicles solely for the purpose of racing against police cars. A constituent of mine stole the Home Secretary's car while he was visiting a police conference in Sheffield--that is how rife car theft is in my area. Paragraph 6.4(n) of the code states that
What about compensation for Mr. Doherty for the hundreds of pounds worth of damage to his vehicle and property? That was not even considered by the prosecutor when he took the decision in court. I believe that for reasons of convenience, cost and uncertainty, those charges were dropped, and no thought whatever was given to the victim of the crime. The defendant already had a court date for the charges of driving without insurance
and documents, but the magistrates were not aware of the theft charges and could sentence only on the earlier charges. So that chap has got away scot-free, which is disgraceful.
I shall briefly mention two other cases that have been brought to my attention. First, Mrs. Edith Clegg of Kendray was assaulted, but the case was not pursued; the individual concerned was not even cautioned. That was a weaker case than that involving Mr. Doherty, and it was dropped on the evidential criteria. None the less, it was another crime of violence not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service--hence Mrs. Clegg's loss of confidence in the CPS.
Mr. Crossland intervened to try to stop another person assaulting a girlfriend. Unfortunately, the assailant turned on him, and beat him so severely that he was hospitalised. Despite the fact that there were witnesses--the offence took place in a public park--that case was dropped too.
Yet paragraph 6.4(b) of the code of practice refers to
"The social chapter is not detailed legislation. It is a set of principles. Each piece of legislation will be judged on its merits. (I have no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the European Union)."
That is simply false. The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty is not just a list of principles: it is a transfer of the power to make decisions from this country to the European Community institutions. It means that, once we have transferred such power, decisions made by a sufficient majority of Ministers voting in Brussels would become the law of the land, even if the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the whole Government and every hon. Member voted against them. That is a fact. It cannot be denied. It was tacitly admitted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in debate with me on the "Today" programme. We demand that the Leader of the Opposition comes back to the House, sets the record straight and ceases to try and mislead this country's business men, who, reading the article by Stanley Kalms in The Times, are not misled by what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Barnsley Crown Prosecution Service
2.30 pm
"Because we are pensioners the CPS must think we do not deserve justice".
Another writes:
"I am a British citizen and up to now had complete faith in the British system of justice--my faith in the justice system has gone".
The final one writes:
"By now I am dissatisfied and have no faith in the legal system."
Those quotations are alarming and sad. It is depressing that people are losing their faith in the criminal justice system and the CPS.
"the prosecutor was rightly conscious of the public interest in securing the defendant's disqualification from driving at the earliest opportunity."
However, I do not understand the public interest in disqualifying him from driving when he had been charged with theft and criminal damage. That is equivalent to saying that it is okay for the defendant to steal what he wants as long as he does not drive to do it. He was on foot when he was caught. How disqualification from driving has any relation to the theft charges is beyond me. Why was it in the public interest for the defendant to be merely disqualified for driving with a forged instrument-- I presume, a forged driving licence--and with no insurance. It is beyond me that anyone can believe that a disqualification order for two years will stop that individual driving in defiance of the ban. He has walked away from court scot-free on the charges of theft and criminal damage because they were dropped.
"the offence, although not serious in itself,"
can be classed as serious if it is "widespread in the area". My view is that car crime and theft from vehicles is widespread in my area. That factor should have been taken into account when the decision to drop the charges was made.
"violence . . . during the commission of the offence",
and sub-paragraph (h) refers to someone's having
"suffered personal attack". Those are given as reasons for a prosecution to be brought.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |