| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is enunciating the concerns that I was trying to address, and we have had conversations on the subject. Does he agree that the law is different in Scotland and that because the law is more flexible there it has had a significant effect in reducing the knife culture?
Sir Michael Shersby: I agree entirely. The Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 is an excellent example of my hon. Friend's point. That legislation relies on an officer having reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has a prohibited article, and in Scotland the meaning of that phrase is not constrained by the guidance contained in the codes of practice introduced by order in England and Wales alone under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On its implementation, the Scottish legislation had an immediate and positive effect on crime levels, especially in the Strathclyde area, which was undoubtedly due to police officers' ability to use the power given to them. That power is necessary in England and Wales. In terms of destroying the rapidly expanding knife culture in England and Wales, it is a pity that the Bill will not amend the current legislation and allow officers the power to stop and search, in a preventive manner, in order to protect defenceless and innocent citizens and to allow all members of the public services to perform their duties safely.
One change since the 1984 Act was very welcome and received wide support in the House. That change was contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 60 of which gives limited powers to a police officer
to authorise stop-and-search powers in a specific geographical area for a specific period of time. The powers can be used to search for "dangerous instruments", which are defined as
Welcome though the Bill is, I hope that there is still time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government to consider, before the Bill reaches the statute book, whether the time is right to take a further step to restore to our police service the powers of stop-and-search that police officers enjoy in Scotland and which they operate without any difficulty whatever. The Government should have the courage to address the problem, difficult though I realise it is. It is important for the ethnic minority community to understand the importance of restoring to the police the powers that they had before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and now have in Scotland, because that would be in everyone's interest.
I have one simple message: we have to trust our police. They are highly responsible individuals whose expertise and training are the envy of the world. They should not be restricted by the outdated provisions of the 1984 Act and the codes that have been drawn up under that Act and which every constable has to learn by heart as they go through training school.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
I consider it to be something of an honour to be a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in bringing forward such an important Bill. Throughout all stages of its consideration, we have heard many cases that exemplify why the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, it came as something of a shock last week when I read the judgment in an especially horrifying case involving some of my constituents. The case was heard at Maidstone Crown court on Thursday last week.
The case concerned four of my constituents, who went out for an evening's entertainment. They were involved in an incident in which they were all stabbed. One of them died. A 23-year-old lad called Mark Simpson, with his young brother Lee and two friends, went out for the evening. The boys were described by a detective sergeant as decent, hard-working young men.
My constituents saw a young girl being harassed by a youth outside a pub in Gillingham. In a public-spirited nature, they intervened to try to save her from harassment. As a result of the affray, all of them were stabbed and, as I said, one of them died. I shall give the House an idea of
the nature of the wounds that were inflicted. As for the wounds of my constituent who died, two of the blows were delivered with considerable force, enough to pierce his breastbone and strike his heart, and he had knife wounds to his stomach, ribs and lower spine. What of the three other young lads? It was reported that Lee Simpson had been knifed in his left shoulder blade. Mr. Higgins suffered three stab wounds, one of which damaged his liver. Mr. Shea suffered wounds to his shoulder, back, arm and chest.
Who delivered such grievous wounds? The accused was a certain Daniel Latham, aged 21. He was a chef in a local restaurant. Apparently, he thought it necessary to carry a knife about his person to act as a deterrent because, he said, he had been beaten up in the neighbouring town of Sittingbourne. He thought that he should carry a knife as a deterrent, to show to his mates and to anybody else that he had a knife and that he would use it. And use it he did. It left one of my constituents dead and three others badly wounded.
That incident shows so graphically what remains wrong with the criminal justice system. It shows graphically also why the House needs to pass the Bill. The young thug to whom I referred would not have been carrying a knife if the provisions set out in the Bill had been in force.
What was the sentence that befell the young thug, having been proved to have killed one of my constituents and grievously wounded three others? He received a five-year sentence. My constituents and the grieving family of the boy who died are horrified at what they deem to be a travesty of British justice. Not only did the villain receive a mere five years for having killed a man and grievously wounded three others, but he will serve a prison sentence of only 20 months, by which time he will be eligible for parole. He will serve 20 months for a life.
I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his announcements on honest sentencing because of such cases. Five years' imprisonment in this case patently is not sufficient. When that sentence means only 20 months, I say: how we need honest sentencing.
I was completely flabbergasted at the leniency of that sentence. Mr. Justice Wright, in Maidstone Crown court, told the accused that he, the judge, had a duty to "reflect the public revulsion" over the use of knives. He went on to say:
Nevertheless, the sentence was a mere five years.
Could it be that, as I suspect, some kind of plea bargaining had something to do with the sentence? The villain admitted manslaughter. I should have thought that carrying a knife and killing a person was murder, but I am not a lawyer. What irritates me and so many of my constituents is that there currently appears to be some type of grand judicial game-playing in the courts and legal system, which takes no account of the interests of justice or of public protection.
Mr. Michael:
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on a helpful and positive measure, which we have supported from the start. Some of the debates on the Bill have been constructive and interesting, and have had a positive effect, as did the amendment that was tabled and agreed in Committee.
I must make one serious point about the violence that is being experienced in British society. We have heard speeches today about how violence is increasing and about how tough we need to be to tackle it, and I agree with the general thrust of those remarks. In recent months, however, we have heard from the Home Secretary, time and again, that the level of crime is going down, and that there was a drop of 2 per cent. in crime last year. He has exhibited a degree of complacency that is probably shocking to the Conservative Members who have taken part in today's debate.
We have had a serious and important debate on an important Bill, and I share the worry that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the dangers of a growing knife culture. I also share the sense of urgency with which we should seek to nip that culture in the bud.
It is particularly important to realise that each attack involves a person's injury or death. Events such as Dunblane and the death of the head teacher Mr. Lawrence bring home to us our responsibilities as Members of Parliament in getting legislation right.
The statistics make some extremely important points: last year, the level of violent crime in England and Wales went up by 2 per cent., and the figure for robberies--some of which involve the type of weapons that we are talking about today--increased by 14 per cent. That is not happening only in some parts of the inner city.
The increase in total violent crime in Kent last year was 4 per cent. and robberies in Kent increased by 23 per cent. The figures for London are also very worrying. They show an increase of 2 per cent., which is quite considerable when one considers the size of the metropolis. Robberies in London increased by 17 per cent. Such increases in recorded crimes of violence are extremely worrying. It is important to understand them and not try to brush them under the carpet.
We have debated some of the ways in which the Bill could be extended. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has succeeded not only in promoting an important Bill, but in having it improved without delaying its passage through the House. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to her for that.
I am a little disappointed that we have not managed to go a little further. We need to target those who encourage or incite people under 16 to purchase weapons. The encouragement and incitement of youngsters to become involved in violent activities does occur. Football hooliganism, gang fights and racial violence do not just happen--they come about because impressionable people, and especially impressionable young people, are encouraged to get involved in violence and are drawn into the culture of violence. We need to tackle those issues as well as implementing the Bill's provisions.
We also need to target those who advertise weapons for sale in a way that incites or condones the possession of a weapon for violent purposes. I shall not rerun our
previous debate, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today and read not only my comments, but those of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge and others, which have drawn attention to the horrific nature of some advertisements.
"of or above the rank of superintendent"
"instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed".
"If you and those like you had the sense to realise the stupidity of such behaviour you would not find yourself in the position you now do . . . It is the kind of offence I cannot treat leniently. As a result of your folly and stupidity in carrying that weapon, a man lies dead."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |