| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.30 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not want to take up the time of the House repeating the argument on this matter--to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) referred--that I made in Committee, but we are no further forward than we were then. I agree with hon. Members who have suggested that this matter is a very important part of the Bill. The heart and soul of the Bill is minimum sentences, and the issue we are debating is whether judges have a large or narrow gate to pass through if they want to avoid the consequences of minimum sentences.
In this debate, we are talking about whether the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is better than the phrase "in the interests of justice". The answer depends on the point of view with which one begins. If I were a judge, pure and simple, and shared the views of the previous Lord Chief Justice and some other senior judges, I might feel very distressed at the thought that my judicial discretion had been curbed in this manner, and I should like as big a gate as possible to avoid the consequences of minimum
15 Jan 1997 : Column 385
My experience in politics tells me that the Government are right to introduce minimum sentences, and that they are reflecting the wishes of the people. The people have a right to have their wishes respected, and they have said that the sentences that the courts have been apt to pass on persistent professional offenders--whether they are drug traffickers, burglars or violent criminals--have been inadequate to protect them.
Therefore, I approach the matter in a manner different from that of some senior judges and judges--although not all senior judges, and certainly not all judges. We must provide as small an opportunity as we can for judges to brush away the Bill's provision of minimum sentences, which I anticipate that the House should like to pass into law. The question is whether we should provide a big or a small gate through which exceptions may pass.
In Committee, I expressed the view, which I shall not repeat in detail, that "exceptional circumstances" was still too vague a term, without elaboration, for judges to understand its meaning. More importantly, it is too vague for villains to understand that the commission of a third burglary or drug offence, or a second rape or serious violent offence, will lead to certain consequences. I expressed that view even after attempting to consider the matter through the eyes of the Government and through the eyes of those of us who support the Government's view that the minimum sentences provisions are vital, and that there should be as little opportunity of avoiding them as possible.
I am a believer in deterrence. I believe that the certainty of consequences is important, and that we would be making a mistake if villains thought that there was sufficient possibility of avoiding the consequences of a three-years, seven-years or life sentence.
Mr. Beith:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman did not stop my train of thought now, because I am not reading from notes, and I cannot return to a previous note. In a moment, I will of course give him an opportunity to intervene.
I am concerned that we provide sufficient guidance for villains and deter them by letting them know in advance the consequences of their second or third wrong action. As a recorder, I am also concerned that I should know--when I have to apply it--the meaning of "exceptional circumstances". In practice, with time, judges and the Court of Appeal will establish guidelines on the meaning of "exceptional circumstances", because they will have to.
When we direct a jury, we will have to open our red book and state what we mean by "exceptional circumstances", because the jury may also want to decide whether the case's circumstances are such that they should convict. The issue of "exceptional circumstances", however, must be dealt with by the sentencer; lack of clarity is no help to the sentencer.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 386
Goodness knows how long it will take judges to work out the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" or--if we change the phrase--"the interests of justice". Meanwhile, while confusion remains in the minds of the judges, the Bill's purpose may not always be effected.
I had hoped that, between Committee stage and today, my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have consulted senior judges, and particularly the Lord Chief Justice. Once the Lord Chief Justice had been convinced that the Government knew their own mind and the intentions of Parliament, he would honourably help to fulfil those intentions. Perhaps we could have debated the proper meaning of the phrase "exceptional circumstances", or--had the Lord Chief Justice persuaded my right hon. and learned Friend that it was a better form of words--the phrase "the interests of justice" . But that has not happened, and we are none the wiser and not even better informed.
We will have to say to their Lordships in another place, "Please help yourselves and help to express the intention of Parliament, and therefore of the people, by suggesting a form of words that the Government can accept as realising Parliament's intention. We can then write it into the Act, and we will not have to go through the business of waiting, over many years, as guidelines are developed, during which time many villains may go on committing repeat offences because they are not certain that the consequences of minimum sentences will follow." So all is not lost, because the Bill still has another stage to go--during which time, hopefully, the most brilliant legal minds in the land will give their input.
I should tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am as dissatisfied now, during this more advanced stage of the Bill's passage, as I was in Committee. If it is defined in a certain way, I do not think that "the interests of justice" will have any different effect from "exceptional circumstances". The meat is in how the phrases are defined. The substance will be in their Lordships accepting that it is the will and intention of the Government--with the support of the Opposition, and therefore with the support of the entire House of Commons--that we should introduce tough minimum sentences which more closely reflect the people's desire to deter villains. Unsatisfactory though the proposal is, it is not completely unsatisfactory. I only hope that the other place will not only assist the Government in carrying out the intentions of Parliament but clarify the law, so that there is no confusion in the courts or in the minds of villains.
Mr. Michael:
Now that we are debating serious amendments, it is a pity that we no longer have with us a single one of the phantom soundbite warriors--the supporters of new clause 14--who did not even have the courage to vote on their spurious proposal. They are not interested in the serious business of scrutinising and improving legislation.
There have been some serious contributions to today's debate, not least that from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He has just made a thoughtful and considered speech, which the Minister should take seriously, as it builds on comments that he made in Committee.
We heard an entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a good, hard-working
15 Jan 1997 : Column 387
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton that there is a cross-party wish to achieve more consistent sentencing. Indeed, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, who identified the fact that people who commit a second and third very serious offence are often no more likely to receive a longer or tougher sentence than they did on their first conviction. There is no sense in that. The emergence of the right hon. Members for Fareham and for Witney from the chrysalis of office and their being born again as radical reformers is damaged by their record in office.
Mr. Michael:
Of course I shall allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend himself.
Sir Peter Lloyd:
I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one small fact, although I do not suppose that he wants facts to spoil his flow. While I was the Minister responsible for prisons, reported crime fell. The point that I directed to him was that we are discussing important issues that go to the heart of the Bill, and that I hope that he will bring his party out in support of them and not leave it to others.
Mr. Michael:
I am coming to the amendments, but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in some unjustified knockabout, and his comments require a response. There was a minimal fall in recorded crime, but that fall has been reversed in certain categories--violent crime, for instance. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman was talking about recorded crime. It is not the subject of this debate, but he cannot defend the Government's record, or even his period in office, by saying that the Government succeeded in tackling crime--they did not. The Government have an appalling record, and the Bill does little to recover any ground for them.
7.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |