Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-298)
12 FEBRUARY 2004
MR KEIR
HOPLEY AND
MR PAUL
MCGLADRIGAN
Q280 Paul Flynn: Through all the evidence
we have had has come this call for some kind of environmental
tribunal. Professor Malcolm Grant did a Government-backed report
and came out on balance very much in favour of some kind of environmental
tribunal and Professor Macrory last year did another report which
asked for an environmental tribunal. The arguments for this seem
very powerful. What is your view?
Mr McGladrigan: I think from the
DCA's perspective that raises lots of logistical questions.
Q281 Paul Flynn: Is it—if this
is a phrase that you wish to use—in an area of policy development
and about which we will not be able to do anything in our life-time?
Mr McGladrigan: I think there
are a number of issues to address. As it stands today, cases have
to be heard in the area where they take place, so that which is
actually needed is some form of tribunal for auditing EEC. You
would then have to have sufficient numbers of magistrates trained
to hear cases that come up infrequently. So there would be an
awful lot to manage through there before you can actually—
Q282 Paul Flynn: You have given us all
the negative arguments. The positive one—again coming through
from all sides—is that magistrates, worthy as they are,
cannot fulfil this function efficiently because of the rarity
of cases and unusual cases that come up—the need for specialist
knowledge—and if not one environmental tribunal, why not
one within the devolved countries of the United Kingdom, or, indeed,
regions of the United Kingdom, or others ideas for making sure
that the courts have the specialist knowledge that much of the
evidence before us says is required?
Mr McGladrigan: I certainly recognise
the advantages in terms of expertise and skills and addressing
concerns about whether the cases are being taken seriously, but
as it stands today, we would have a lot of logistical difficulties
in arranging that.
Q283 Paul Flynn: Very few worthwhile
things can be achieved without difficulties. Whose responsibility
do you think it could be for introducing this concept of the two
professors?
Mr Hopley: Well, it depends how
one wanted to do it. If one were simply going to set up a particular
area court, then I guess that could be done when the Unified Courts
Administration comes into being. If you wanted to take that slightly
further and perhaps say that particular offences ought not to
be dealt with in the general magistrates' court but perhaps at
an environmental tribunal, then there would need to be separate
legislation to set that up.
Mr McGladrigan: I think the organisation
that we would have to take that before would be Defra.
Q284 Paul Flynn: We are hoping to see
Defra later on. In the intervening period, before we have the
environmental tribunal, if we have a new array of alternative
sentences that magistrates and the judiciary have at their disposal
but with higher limits for fines, however, what would you think
would be the best way of ensuring that the courts imposed those
fines? Do you think it is a job for government to ensure that
the sentencing more approximately fits the crime?
Mr Hopley: I think the Government
has a role to play there. I understand that Defra are going out
with various campaigning organisations to run seminars in each
of the nine government regions of England, which will include
magistrates and environmental prosecutors, and so on. These are
due to take place in April, and the aim is to make sure that magistrates
are fully up-to-date and aware of what is available to them.
Q285 Paul Flynn: Your memorandum ends
on a very brief note. The final sentence says that "the Sentencing
Guidelines Council will have a heavy work load"—of
course—"and is unlikely to be able to turn its attention
to environmental offences in the near future". Is it going
to stay permanently in this purgatory in the area of policy development,
do you think?
Mr Hopley: I am not sure that
policy development is purgatory.
Q286 Paul Flynn: Perhaps purgatory is
too optimistic, because people come out of purgatory after a limited
period. This sounds like a more permanent sentence?
Mr Hopley: I thought you were
asking for longer sentences a moment ago. No. The Sentencing Guidelines
Council is brand new. It has been set up by the Criminal Justice
Act 2003.
Q287 Paul Flynn: This is not one of the
priorities, you say?
Mr Hopley: It is not going to
be a priority over the next, I would think not for a couple of
years.
Q288 Paul Flynn: Well, the near future?
Politicians chose phrases: soon; very soon; very, very soon, and
so on; everything is going to happen tomorrow, sometime, never?
Mr Hopley: Well, the sort of period
I had in mind when we said "in the near future" was
over the next two years.
Paul Flynn: Okay; thank you.
Q289 Chairman: What are the priorities
going to be instead?
Mr Hopley: The first priority
is going to be to look at the new Sexual Offences Act, which was
passed last year and completely reforms the structure of sexual
crimes. There has been no guidance issued on that and the courts
urgently need it. The second area that we have asked them to look
at is the use of the new generic community sentence, which is
one of the new sentences created under the 2003 Act. It brings
together all the various options of community rehabilitation orders,
community punishment orders and drug treatment and testing orders,
etcetera, and it is important that the courts have got clear guidance
as to how to use the very many possibilities that that sentence
will offer.
Q290 Chairman: Clearly there is a heavy
work load, as you say in your memorandum, but in the absence of
any specific initiative on environmental crime via the new Sentencing
Guidelines Council, what other options are available to government
to move the agenda forward on environmental crime? You will be
aware there is a growing feeling in the country that more needs
to be done. It is not going to happen through the Sentencing Guidelines
Council. Are there other ways in which you can achieve that?
Mr Hopley: I think that is very
largely a matter for Defra rather than for the Home Office and
that is something you will no doubt take up with them; but I think
what they are doing in terms of going out trying to sort through
some of the practical issues—why is it difficult to prosecute,
why are fines not adequate if they are not adequate—and
dealing on the ground with those who are involved and trying to
raise the levels of education is important. I also think it is
important to prosecute all those offences that need to be prosecuted:
because, as I said previously, the fact that something will happen
is a deterrent, and that is what we need. I think we are on an
upward curve, but we need to maintain that and to sharpen the
gradient.
Q291 Chairman: Mr McGladrigan, very briefly.
I think this is one for you. Do you think there is any more that
could or should be done to ensure that environmental crime, and
in particular sentencing, is highlighted in the process of judicial
training?
Mr McGladrigan: I think there
has already been a fair bit of work done over the last few years
to highlight environmental crime. It is not necessarily unique
to environmental crime, but there is a lot being done in terms
of getting impositions right, getting the sentence right, so that
the other important part of the equation—enforcement—can
happen in reality; and that will help with the deterrent if people
actually believe that the penalties are going to be pursued and
are going to have to be paid. I think that is an impact that we
are taking very seriously at the moment and doing an awful lot
about.
Q292 Chairman: Have you heard what we
have heard, which is that there is a feeling out there that these
crimes are not very well understood in court?
Mr McGladrigan: I think we have
already said that the guidance that people think is necessary
is out there. I think there is an issue about people not dealing
with these cases very often but I'm not aware that they are taken
any less seriously than other crimes that come before the Bench.
Q293 Chairman: There is a difference
between taking something seriously and understanding it properly?
Mr McGladrigan: Yes.
Q294 Chairman: We need both.
Mr McGladrigan: Yes.
Q295 Mr Challen: Looking at the very
local environment, perhaps a council estate or some area suffering
multiple deprivation where we may find graffiti, fly-tipping and
whole range of other forms of environmental anti-social behaviour,
do you think there is a greater role for the NCJB or local justice
boards to be involved in developing strategies to deal with that:
because where people suffer from very low self-regard or low sense
of worth clearly there is a need for local bodies to develop strategies
to try and lift the whole area out of it, not, as you say, "Well,
here is a couple of fines. Go away and do not do it again"?
Mr Hopley: I think that is a very
fair point, if may say so. I am not sure it is the local Criminal
Justice Board or whether it is the crime and disorder partnerships
that we would look to in the first instance, given that they are
dealing with crime prevention and general environmental crime
issues. I think they do have a role to play. I think the youth
offending teams probably also have a role to play in looking at
this, not just as individual crimes, but, as you rightly say,
the environment as a whole and how people behave and live their
lives.
Q296 Mr Challen: But is there enough
local joined-up thinking? We heard earlier on you saying that
magistrates may not force somebody to remedy a situation if they
felt that that person did not have the means to do so; but if
they worked in partnership with the local council, the council
may be able to provide certain facilities to help these offenders
go ahead and remedy the situation. Do you think there is enough
of that kind of partnership happening at the moment, or does it
need a bit of encouragement?
Mr Hopley: I think we are getting
there. I think that the way in which youth offending teams now,
for example, go across a range, looking not just at the crime
but at the circumstances behind them, the way the crime and disorder
partnerships have brought together police, social services, local
authorities and others and with the new fine payment pilots about
to start in the courts, I think we are getting there. I would
not say we have gone as far as we ought to, no, but we are certainly
improving.
Q297 Chairman: Finally, if I can go back
to an exchange we had earlier. You chose not to comment when I
expressed some doubt as to whether or not environmental crime
really had any meaning for you as a discrete area of the criminal
justice system. Can I invite you to comment on that now?
Mr Hopley: We certainly are aware
of the importance of some of the offences, and we are in dialogue
with Defra over when we need to change things or are receptive
to suggestions that the position is not as good as it might be;
but to be absolutely honest in terms of my day-to-day job and
life, environmental crime is not at forefront of my agenda, no.
Q298 Chairman: Well, thank you very much
for that straightforward answer and also for your evidence today.
Mr Hopley: Thank you.
| 
