| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The Attorney-General was asked--
Race Hatred
30. Mr. Gapes: How many prosecutions his office has sanctioned for incitement to racial hatred; and how many it has decided not to pursue in each year since 1990. [12640]
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1990, 41 consents have been granted for prosecution of incitement to racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Five applications for consent have been refused and one has been withdrawn. I am arranging for a breakdown to be placed in the Library.
Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Attorney-General share the widespread concern felt by people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds about the dissemination of race-hate and anti-Semitic material, which is being widely distributed? Will he assure the House that the Government will do far more than their predecessors to act rigorously and with determination to take legal action against the producers of such material?
The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will act vigorously to ensure that the behaviour that
he describes, which I am sure the whole House regards as repulsive, is dealt with. I hope that the police will continue vigorously to investigate any allegations of incitement to racial hatred. Where such inquiries result in submission of a file to the Crown Prosecution Service and where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the public interest will almost invariably justify proceedings, and I will accordingly give my consent.
Mr. Burnett: The Government have announced their intention to provide extra penalties for a guilty party when racism is proved as a motivation for a crime. In order that the appropriate evidence may be gathered, what training resources and practice guidelines will be given to the police to secure a tangible result?
The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made proposals to introduce new offences of racial violence. In my professional experience, the Court of Appeal has long said that such matters should be taken into account by sentencing judges. I am sure that the enshrining of such matters in statute will be welcome. The primary duty to investigate such complaints lies with the police, who will approach the problem vigorously, although so far the majority of identification has, successfully, been in the hands of the CPS.
Mr. Grieve: In the first question to the Attorney-General, the suggestion was made that past Governments had been dilatory in prosecuting in racial hatred cases. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service--ultimately, they are matters for the Attorney-General, but they are usually taken by the CPS--and involve no political input?
The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a quasi-judicial function of my office. In the earlier years, from 1990, only two or three such consents were granted each year, but since 1995 there has been a rising curve, with seven in that year and numbers in double figures thereafter. Our best hope is that such matters will not arise, but if they do they will be approached quasi-judicially.
Lenient Sentences
31. Mr. Flynn: What plans he has to extend the period allowed for appeals against apparently lenient sentences. [12641]
The Attorney-General: The statutory time for an application for leave to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency is 28 days. That is mandatory and cannot be extended. That strict time limit was imposed to meet the concern that it would be intolerable if those whose sentences were subject to a procedure had to endure a long period of uncertainty about whether it would be used. Any consideration given to extending the time limit would need to take account of those concerns, as well as the practical implications of any other changes in the regime.
Mr. Flynn: The concerns of convicted murderers or other offenders obviously have to be taken into account,
but should we not also consider the anxiety and anger of the families of those who have suffered? I brought before the Attorney-General a murder case in which an apparently lenient sentence was given. The short period in which the processes have to be undertaken means that a decision often has to be made in the final hours of the final day. Is it not true that rushed judgments are often poor judgments?
The Attorney-General: I have explained why there has to be a balance. There was great concern when the proposal was first brought into operation. Time is short, as I am sure my predecessor would be the first to agree. There are often only days for consideration--perhaps only hours in some cases, although in only a few, I hope. However, the cases are considered in time. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to disseminate the information that 28 days are available from sentence.
Crown Prosecution Service
33. Mr. Yeo: What are the current staffing levels of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [12646]
The Attorney-General: On 30 September 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the full-time equivalent of 1,975.5 lawyers and 3,612 other staff, the majority of whom are case workers supporting lawyers at branch level to prepare cases for court.
Mr. Yeo: Is the Attorney-General aware that unless there is an immediate and substantial increase in Crown Prosecution Service staffing levels, his Government's much-vaunted aim of speeding up the workings of the criminal justice system will be just one more item on the ever-growing list of Labour's broken promises?
The Attorney-General: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of recalling that we stated during the election campaign that we would put to the people--as we did successfully--the policy that in at least our first couple of years in office, we would operate within the spending constraints laid down by the previous Government. Within that policy, Sir Iain Glidewell is conducting his review and I am sure that he will point out any difficulties that arise from the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr. Dismore: I visited my local Crown Prosecution Service branch during the summer and found there a highly motivated group of people working hard, obviously in trying circumstances. I was very pleased that when I raised a specific case, the service was prepared to review its decision and to agree to prosecute a case that it had previously not prosecuted. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's point about the review by Sir Iain Glidewell. When will it be completed?
The Attorney-General: On the first matter, I welcome very much my hon. Friend's visit to his area office of the CPS. I hope that all hon. Members, when they were given the branch reports during the summer, were invited to visit their area office, and I hope that those visits were carried out.
I am glad to know that the Crown Prosecution Service listened to my hon. Friend's representations. Ultimately, however, the service has to have regard to the independence of the prosecutor in reaching its determination. On the last matter, I hope very much that Sir Iain Glidewell's report will be published in the new year.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
I welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said about the motivation and good quality of the Crown Prosecution Service in his area. In light of the Attorney-General's decision to put more senior staff into the front line in the sense of having 43 chief Crown prosecutors--one for each police area--is he satisfied that he has sufficient staff to carry out other functions, such as caring properly for victims and witnesses, about which I am sure he would have told us if he had had the opportunity? That requires not only motivation but staff, including support staff, to assist the Crown prosecutors in court on the day. In that context, will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is somewhere for victims and witnesses to be cared for when the time comes?
The Attorney-General:
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Victim support has a high priority. I am sure that, if there are deficiencies in the CPS in terms of staff, Sir Iain Glidewell and his review team will point them out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced only recently that there will be additional money available for victim support. These are matters of great importance. Frequently, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are practical problems in ensuring that witnesses are properly informed and properly cared for in the courts. The Lord Chancellor is fully aware of that and of the importance of carrying out obligations under the victims charter. The CPS plays an important role, with the police, in ensuring that those obligations are carried out.
34. Mr. David Heath:
What plans he has to introduce local accountability in respect of the prosecution policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. [12647]
The Attorney-General:
The Crown Prosecution Service is already exposed to substantial local scrutiny. Each branch, for example, now publishes its own annual report, commencing for the calendar year 1996. We are taking the process further through the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas.
Mr. Heath:
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer, which touches on management if not accountability. Does he, however, understand the dismay and frustration of communities, such as those in the Martock and Wincanton areas of my constituency, when high-profile police action takes place and the result is either a decision not to prosecute or, worse still, no decision on whether to prosecute after more than 12 months? Does he agree that there is a need for far greater transparency and far greater local accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service?
The Attorney-General:
Matters involving the police are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Bermingham:
Does the Attorney-General agree that accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service--in which I declare a family interest--is very much dependent on the quality of the people employed in it? The quality is undoubtedly very high. If we are to have consistency between one area and another, we must obviously have a central and not a local direction.
The Attorney-General:
The people at the coal face carry the primary responsibility to the public, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who tabled the question is concerned with something greater. Whether the CPS should be a national service and whether there should be local scrutiny in the form of committees,
Mr. Greenway:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just confirmed the central point about which I wanted to ask him. Will he therefore assure the House that, in whatever changes his Government decide to implement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS, its independence from local pressures will remain the central point of its operations?
The Attorney-General:
I took part in the debate when the Crown Prosecution Service was set up, and made loud and clear my view that there were difficulties as regards local accountability, which were enumerated by example. It is important that local communities are aware of what is happening. It is important that there is liaison at the highest level locally with the chief constable. It is important that local communities can discuss and debate whatever is happening--hence, I hope, as an input into the public domain, the branch reports. Further than that I will not go.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |