---

Service Personnel

24. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): What supervisory responsibilities the Attorney-General has for the law as it relates to service personnel. [194087]

The Solicitor General: The service prosecuting authorities are subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. Regular meetings are held with the service prosecuting authorities, especially the Army prosecuting authority. I refer the House to the statement that I made on 15 June, in which I set out the Law Officers' responsibilities for prosecutions of people subject to military law.

Mr. Prentice: What is the mechanism for calling in a case for trial in the civilian courts? Is the commanding
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1578
 
officer obliged to follow the advice of the Army prosecuting authority? If he does not follow that advice, is the case automatically referred to the Attorney-General?

The Solicitor General: The vast majority of offences committed by Army personnel are dealt with by courts martial, following investigation by the military police. In some cases, notably serious ones, there is concurrent jurisdiction. That means that a matter could be tried either in a court martial or in a Crown court. Normally, the most appropriate jurisdiction is agreed between the CPS and the Army prosecution authority. If there is no such agreement, it is for the Attorney-General to decide in which jurisdiction the matter should be tried.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1577
 

 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1579
 

Reform of Laws on Murder

12.32 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)(Urgent Question): May I ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on his proposals for the review of the law of murder?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate to you and to the House the apology that I issued last night for the way in which this matter has been handled. It had been my intention to address the issue of the review on homicide during Third Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill—a debate that did not take place. The press release issued by my Department was premature, and steps have been taken to prevent anything similar from happening in the future.

There has been a long-standing debate over many years about the need to review the laws on homicide. The Law Commission has produced a report on partial defences to murder. In the Standing Committee considering the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, amendments were tabled and there was substantial debate. An amendment was tabled yesterday for the Bill's Report stage, but it was not selected for debate.

Many people, including a wide range of those in the judiciary, have called for clarification of the issues involved, which include provocation, partial defences and the interface between murder and manslaughter. I therefore propose to establish a review, the terms of reference for which I shall lay before the House shortly.

I want to make it clear that the starting points for murder, agreed by Parliament and set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, will remain. It is our intention that the review should take no more than 18 months and I will, of course, lay its findings before the House when it is complete.

Mr. Hogg: It would be ungracious of me not to welcome the Home Secretary's apology, but does he accept that what he did was an abuse of the House? First, Third Reading debates are limited to the Bill's content. Surely he knows that. Secondly, important statements on policy should be made in circumstances when he can be questioned, not in a tightly timetabled speech when he can refuse interventions. In any event, to release a press statement before making a statement to the House was contrary to Mr. Speaker's repeated instructions to Ministers.

Turning to the review, does the Home Secretary accept that it is to be welcomed? Will he accept that there is a considerable case for a single offence of homicide? Will he accept that the offence of murder comprises within it offences of varying degrees of gravity, at the lower end of which they merge on manslaughter? Given that a mandatory sentence of life is inappropriate and that a trial judge should have the right to impose sentences varying from whole life through determinant sentences to non-custodial sentences in certain circumstances, a discount should be available for a timely plea of guilty and, at the expiration of the determinant sentence, there should be a judicially driven
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1580
 
process for either restricting a person from release if that person is a threat or even recalling them in such circumstances.

Mr. Blunkett: On procedure and the House, provocation and partial defence, which are central to the review, were part of the debate on the Bill and were raised on the back of the Law Commission report. In fact, amendments sought to draw down on that report. Therefore it was apposite for the Third Reading debate to reflect the debate in Standing Committee. [Hon. Members: "No."] Opposition Members shout "No", but there has been a tradition in the House for Third Reading debates to reflect on the debates in Committee and on Report, pulling together the various aspects of the Bill. In the 17 years that I have been in the House that has been a pattern for both the Opposition and ourselves. Secretaries of State have responded to the amendments that were moved, the debate that took place and the concerns that were raised, especially if it was not possible to respond to the concerns raised in Committee.

If a member of the Standing Committee thinks that that is inappropriate, I would be happy to take an intervention, but those who were not on the Standing Committee and who did not participate in the debate should reflect on the fact that if the issues of provocation and partial defence have been raised, and the Law Commission review has been drawn on for debate, it would be totally wrong for the Home Secretary not to reflect on that, had the Home Secretary had the opportunity to do so had there been a Third Reading debate.

On the substantive issues raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is precisely in order to address those complex issues, including those that relate to diminished responsibility, to some of the issues raised by the Law Commission about the fear of violence, to the interface between manslaughter and murder—to which he rightly referred, as I did in my response to the urgent question—and to the long-standing wish of the judiciary to have total freedom, that we established the review. I take this opportunity to ask right hon. and hon. Members to submit their comments on that and tell us what they would like included in the review. It was because we wanted to allow people to contribute to the terms of reference that we put the statement out yesterday.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): On behalf of a constituent whose twin sister, Madeleine Humes, was brutally stabbed to death by her husband, may I ask my right hon. Friend to try to ensure that as a result of the review killers will no longer use provocation or other technical defences to get away with grossly inadequate prison sentences, and that in future anger and jealousy at the breakdown of a relationship will never be accepted as an excuse for killing one's partner?

Mr. Blunkett: I accept the latter point unequivocally. It is because of the complications in trying to do the right thing, and finding that other aspects of the behaviour and the relationship with the law would be detrimentally affected, that we want a review rather than simply a response to what was described as the patch on
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1581
 
the system that the Law Commission recommended. We have decided that a review is necessary so as to avoid a partial solution, which might lead to other complications.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I agree with the Home Secretary: this matter was raised in Committee, not least by me. I am grateful for his statement today. My only comment on yesterday's events is that his press release should have said, "Check against delivery," in case the delivery never happened.

Murder is a uniquely abhorrent crime and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. The Law Commission review of partial defence suggested further work in four different areas: the definition of the offence; whether it should be categorised on grounds of aggravation and/or mitigation; in light of the above, consideration of the application of a mandatory life sentence; and cases in which the offender is a child. Is the Home Secretary ruling out the work that the Law Commission wants to do on the third category, the mandatory life sentence, taking into account the fact that it may preclude proper prosecution or conviction in the case of some murders involving a high level of mitigation?

On provocation, does the Home Secretary agree that the present law is deeply unsatisfactory in two ways? As the Law Commission says:

"It is morally offensive to regard as 'provocation' conduct by a victim which in truth calls for society's protection".

On the other hand, again quoting the Law Commission:

"It affords . . . no defence to a person in an abusive relationship who acts in genuine fear of serious violence".

Will the review consider self-defence? It is clear from recent cases that there is a lack of clarity as to what is an appropriate level of self-defence.

Finally, press reports suggest that there are concerns in other Departments about the application of the review of murder to matters with which they are concerned. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that there will be no restraint on the review's terms of reference that will prevent it from looking at deaths in, for example, military service or railway accidents?

---