Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lords amendment: No. 203
Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof; Lords amendment No. 431 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
Paul Goggins: As we have said before, we believe that it is necessary to include juveniles in the murder sentencing framework laid down in schedule 19. We have considered the issue carefully, as we undertook to do in debate in the House earlier this year. Our conclusion is that the principles as they stand incorporate sufficient flexibility in respect of juveniles for appropriate tariffs to be reached in individual cases. As hon. Members will know, in the other place concern was expressed about the application of these provisions to juveniles, and juveniles were removed from the framework last week.
We do not accept that juveniles should be dealt with outside the sentencing framework. Their inclusion is desirable, both in providing the clear, simple and transparent sentencing structure necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system and in ensuring consistency and fairness in setting minimum terms for murder.
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is serious concern in this House as well about the minimum sentencing framework for juveniles convicted of grave crimes? There is only a very short time available for this debate, and further legislation on juvenile sentencing may be introduced in the next Session. Surely this would be a good opportunity to follow the other place and leave this issue until the next Session of Parliament.
Paul Goggins: I acknowledge that similar concerns have been expressed in this House, and my response to them is the same as to those expressed in another place. However, I shall conclude my remarks fairly quickly, and so give my hon. Friend and others an opportunity to contribute to this short debate.
We understand the concerns expressed about juvenile tariffs. To allay them, we propose to reintroduce juveniles into the sentencing system, but we will specifically set in the statute a lower starting point for juveniles, to recognise the special needs of that age group. The juvenile starting point will be 12 years, which
reflects recent guidance from the Lord Chief Justice. We think that there is nothing in the proposal to detract from the court's ability to set appropriate tariffs in each case, given that there will remain flexibility to aggravate and mitigate upwards and downwards.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister describes 12 years as a starting point. Will he confirm that 12 years is not the minimum starting point but a median starting point that can be reduced as well as raised?
Paul Goggins: I am happy to confirm that to the House. Throughout the Bill, the starting points are just thatstarting points, not minimum tariffs. They can be raised or lowered depending on the circumstances of a case. That is true for the 12-year starting point for juveniles. The actual tariff for a juvenile may be lower or higher than 12 years.
Mr. Dawson: Does not the Bill also introduce a new provision, whereby children under 16 could end up with a 12-year sentence? In the past, that has not been possible.
Paul Goggins: The Bill gives the court the power to deal appropriately with what may be a very serious offence, whether or not it is committed by a juvenile. It makes it very clear that there should be a starting point for juveniles, as there is for adult offenders, but at the lower level of 12 years.
Although hon. Members may wish to comment on that proposal, and even disagree with it, I hope that my brief remarks have made the Government's position clearthat we wish to reintroduce juveniles into the framework, with a starting point of 12 years.
Mr. Grieve: I am well aware, from our previous debates and especially from the debate on Report, in which the Home Secretary participated, that divergent views about the correct way to approach children under 18 who commit very serious offences are perhaps inevitable. Clearly, there is always public anxiety about the matter. As I said to the Home Secretary on Report, we may have to accept that a person at the upper limit of the age group who commits a very serious offence, with attendant cruelty and signs of a psychopathic tendency, will have to serve many years in prison. That person may have to serve as long as an adult for the offence, and may never be released. In such circumstances, I suppose that a 12-year starting point may have some relevance.
The Minister will recall that I spoke about children at the bottom of the age range, who have only just reached the age of criminal responsibility. However grave and serious their crimes may be, there is always the possibility that their personalities will change as they mature, aided by the active input of those looking after them. That will often mean that a 12-year sentence will be completely inappropriate.
I shall not criticise the Government for adopting this course of action. I am grateful that they have reconsidered the starting point. However, my slight concern about the provision is that I suspect that, in reality, the children who commit serious offencesfor that is what they are, childrenwill serve nothing like as
much as 12 years. The public may then express concern about why they are so far below the starting point.I recall the Lord Chancellor saying, when he was a Home Office Minister in the other place, that he thought that no sensible judge would have difficulty discounting the starting point sufficiently to arrive at a fair outcome. However, that seemed to me to be a slight sleight of hand, as if we would be asking the judiciary to bend the rules to adapt to particular circumstances.
It is a personal view, but I remain somewhat troubled. Although I think that the Government are right to revisit the starting point, I worry that we may be creating a system that the judiciary will observe more in the breach, instead of following it. If that is so, this exercise will have been rather pointless. Worse still, peoplewho get very anxious about such matterswill criticise the provision and believe that the starting point is not being observed.
I hope that I am wrong about that. I do not wish to leave the matter on a bad note, as I accept that the Home Secretary has taken on board many of the anxieties that were expressed.
Mr. Dawson: I am afraid that I cannot accept this provision, and hope that the House will follow the sensible lead given by the other place. We are talking about children who have committed very grave crimes, but they are children in extraordinary circumstances. Invariably, children in that sort of predicament will have been victims themselves, often of the most gross and appalling abuse. They often have major issues to resolve in their lives, and face huge problems.
The House will recall the case of Mary Bell. When given the appropriate level of support she was able to change her life, and some of her very serious problems were addressed. We should acknowledge that children and young people are very resilient and can make huge changes. Often, when these children are given the intensive support that they invariably need, they can change fairly quickly.
It is wrong to present a tariff of 12 years as normal. It is inappropriate to take that decision away from judges, who will need every ounce of their wisdom, discretion, learning and sensitivity to these cases to decide on the appropriate sentence. There may well be cases where a judge decides that a much shorter sentence than 12 years is required. There may well be cases where the reform of and change in the young person under an intensive regimeno doubt, within a secure settingwill lead all those charged with their care to believe that they should be released from custody and helped back into the community much more quickly than any tariff set down in the wake of what was no doubt a heinous and appalling crime.
The Government are wrong on this matter. The other place is right, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on that.
Simon Hughes: This is a difficult and sad subject on which to end our debates on the Bill. It is extremely difficult for all those concerned. I share the view of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that the House of Lords was right in its decision. I also share the concerns expressed by those on the Conservative Front Bench in previous debates.
Clause 254 in chapter 7 provides for a determination of minimum term in relation to a mandatory life sentence. Lords amendment No. 203 states that that should
I shall reinforce what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said by again quotingI have quoted this in a previous debatewhat the Lord Chief Justice said in the memorandum that he submitted on mandatory life sentences for murder on 16 June in connection with the House of Lords debate on the Bill. In paragraph 33 of that memorandum he says:
Sentencing, particularly in relation to murder, should be removed from the political arena. The present proposal will have the effect of increasing political involvement."
The rest of paragraph 62 of the Lord Chief Justice's memorandum states:
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |