Clause
100Sentencing
Council for England and
Wales
Alun
Michael: I beg to move amendment 150, in
clause 100, page 60, line 17, at end
insert— ‘(1A) The purpose of
the Council shall be to issue guidance to sentencers, having particular
regard to the effectiveness of each form of sentence in reducing
re-offending.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: clause stand
part. Amendment
160, in
schedule 13, page 148, line 20, at
end insert— ‘(c) 6 members
appointed by resolution of the House of
Commons.’. Amendment
161, in
schedule 13, page 148, line 20, at
end insert— ‘(c) 6 members
appointed by the Prime Minister (“independent
members”).’. Amendment
158, in
schedule 13, page 149, line 2, after
‘to’, insert
‘their experience and capacity for
evaluating evidence on the effectiveness of different sentences, and
to’. Amendment
162, in
schedule 13, page 149, line 7, at
end insert— ‘(5) When
appointing independent members, the Prime Minister shall have regard to
their experience of and capacity for assessing evidence especially in
relation to the effectiveness of sentences in terms of reducing
re-offending.’. That
schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the
Bill. Clause
101 stand
part. Amendment
153, in
clause 102, page 60, line 33, at
end insert— ‘(1A) In
proposing sentencing guidelines the Sentencing Council must have
specific regard to the comparative effectiveness of different sentence
options and indicate the data, research findings or other evidence on
which the Council has relied in preparing its
guidance.’. Amendment
151, in
clause 102, page 61, line 25, at
end insert— ‘(aa) The
relative effectiveness of different sentences in preventing
re-offending;’.
Amendment
152, in
clause 102, page 61, line 28, leave
out ‘and their relative effectiveness in preventing
re-offending.’. Clauses
102 to 118 stand
part.
Alun
Michael: It is my pleasure to have tabled
amendment 150, which introduces a group of amendments that I
am sure Ministers will find constructive and helpful. My amendments are
intended to provide clarity and focus in the work of the sentencing
council, whose establishment under the Bill I welcome and applaud. All
that I will say about the Opposition amendments that would prevent the
establishment of the sentencing council is that I disagree profoundly
with that approach. I agree with the Government that there should be a
sentencing council and that sentencers should not only hear a case
objectively and fairly before reaching a judgment, but have a good idea
of the outcome that will follow from the sentence that they give. That
is the fundamental reason for having a sentencing council, but if that
is to work, the council needs to be genuinely objective and focus its
work on real, hard evidence. The Bill as it stands does not achieve
that sort of clarity or give that sort of role to the sentencing
council. I
suspect that Ministers will share my general frustration that the
so-called explanatory notes that accompany any Bill are rarely clearer
than the Bill itself: they rarely provide any explanation and
contribute only to the recycling targets in this House—indeed,
they ought to be recycled as opaque and unhelpful notes. That is not
the fault of the officials who draft them, but there is a degree of
paranoia about saying anything useful that might affect the
interpretation of the Bill
itself. 12.45
pm Although
the notes on this clause are as useless as ever, they unintentionally
reveal a defect in the Bill. Paragraph 528
says: “When
it draws up guidelines, the Council must have regard to current
sentencing practice, the need to promote consistency in sentencing, the
need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system, the
cost of different sentences, their effectiveness in reducing
re-offending and the Council’s monitoring of the application of
its
guidelines.” The
problem is that we get to item five of six before we find a reference
to the effectiveness of “reducing re-offending”. The
order of priorities is wrong. Even if it is argued that each of the six
items is of equal importance, the effectiveness of sentencing in
reducing reoffending is not given the high priority that it needs. Such
an item is essential and should be the focus of the sentencing
council. My
amendments are intended to address two key questions, which are not
answered by the Bill as it is drafted. First, what is the sentencing
council for, and what is it meant to achieve? That is not dealt with in
the Bill as it stands. Amendment 150 provides clear purpose for the
Bill. It
states: “The
purpose of the Council shall be to issue guidance to sentencers, having
particular regard to the effectiveness of each form of sentence in
reducing
re-offending.” That
means not that other considerations must be cast to one side, but that
effectiveness must be the clear first focus, the first thing that
enters the mind of members of the sentencing council when they reach
their conclusions.
The second
big question is who should be on the council and why? I have made two
contributions in that regard. Amendments 160 and 161 propose that there
should be additional members. Either amendment would improve
considerably the membership of the sentencing council. Amendment 160
proposes: “6
members appointed by resolution of the House of
Commons.” Amendment
161 proposes an alternative or complementary approach. It
says: “6
members appointed by the Prime Minister (‘independent
members’).” I
then address the issue of who such people should be. Amendment 158
would insert the
words “their
experience and capacity for evaluating evidence on the effectiveness of
different
sentences”. That
is important because judges, who are to be members of the sentencing
council, bring experience of the courts and of judgments. They do not
bring experience of the effectiveness of sentences once they are
passed.
I wanted to
clarify the purpose of members appointed by the Prime Minister, so in
amendment 162, I propose the
following: “When
appointing independent members, the Prime Minister shall have regard to
their experience of and capacity for assessing evidence especially in
relation to the effectiveness of sentences in terms of reducing
re-offending.” That
is to ensure that the people appointed are capable of addressing the
key question of how to reduce reoffending, which has to be at the core
of what the criminal justice system is about, but is currently not at
the heart of what the criminal justice system thinks it is
about—if I can address such a complex organisation in that
way. Amendment
153 places a similar responsibility on the sentencing council itself.
It
says: “In
proposing sentencing guidelines the Sentencing Council must have
specific regard to the comparative effectiveness of different sentence
options and indicate the data, research findings or other evidence on
which the Council has relied in preparing its
guidance.” I
will touch on the Carter review in a moment, but there is a case for
arguing that a link between the evidence and the conclusions is
something that should be made compulsory. My point is that we should
ensure not only that the right people are on the sentencing councils
and that they have the right skills but that they are told what their
priority is with regard to reducing
reoffending. Amendments
151 and 152 would, by deletion, extract
“and their
relative effectiveness in preventing
re-offending,” from
low down the list of priorities and make the provision the first
priority on the list of elements that the sentencing council would take
into account when making its
recommendations.
Mr.
Garnier: Judges have some experience of the effectiveness
of their sentences, because, all too often, they see offenders again
and again. Judges therefore takes a close interest in the effectiveness
of their sentence, for fear that it will not prevent, or help to
prevent, reoffending.
Alun
Michael: I understand the hon. and learned
Gentleman’s point and respect his belief in judges’
capacity to evaluate the impact of sentencing. However, his belief is
not well placed. The problem is that, in
seeing before them people who constantly reoffend, judges see the
outcome of failure, not of effectiveness. I shall give an example of
that in a few moments.
Mr.
Garnier: On drug treatment and testing orders, judges
review the individual, who comes back at two to four-week intervals,
and one can often see the progression from drug addiction to health. It
is one of the few occasions on which a relationship builds up between
the judge as a human being and the defendant as a human being, rather
than a statistic flowing down the criminal justice stream. That is
something from which we can really benefit.
Alun
Michael: I am happy to agree with the hon. and learned
Gentleman, but he makes my case for me, because that, in his own words,
is the exception when it comes to sentencing. It is a valuable and
useful one, not only for the person who undertakes the rehabilitation
and whose situation the judge reviews, but for the judge, who can see
its progression.
I used to
chair the youth court—then the juvenile bench—in Cardiff,
and I felt that the engagement of the sentencer with what happened
after the sentence was particularly useful. My experience was informed
by the fact that I was a youth worker with young offenders, and those
whom I had sentenced often appeared on projects I ran. It was a
salutary experience, because I thought that when I had told youngsters
precisely why a particular sentence had been decided upon, they would
understand every word; by and large, however, they had either not
understood or not heard a word in the court situation.
The link
between the sentence and what happens afterwards is often not available
to sentencers—I hasten to add that I never sat on a case
involving a youngster about whom I had prior knowledge, because that
would not have been right. On occasions, however, I saw the
consequences of the sentencing process and its limitations, and that
has encouraged me in the approach I propose.
In response
to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s interventions, my point is
that the relevant experience of judges, to which he referred, is
already available to the sentencing council. At present, judges are to
be on the council and in the majority, which is fundamentally wrong.
Their experience should form a part of the council’s
deliberations, but not the whole of it; there is more to it than that.
My basic belief is that the sentencing council should be about
evidence, evidence, evidence. I do not mean court evidence or evidence
heard in court, or evidence about the nature and seriousness of a
specific offence; I mean evidence of what works.
Judges are
influenced by the media and by political debate in the media, as they
acknowledge. They tell us so, and sentences demonstrate that they are
influenced by the wider media debate. I am thinking of, for instance,
the increase in prison numbers. The public think that courts are
extremely lenient, yet in fact the evidence is that by and large courts
take the decisions that the public would take if they were passing the
sentence. The reality is closer to what the public think is just and
right. The
sentencing council needs to balance the tendency to be influenced by
wider public and media debate, by having the guiding principle
that it is informed by what actually happens as a consequence
of different sentencing options.
David
Howarth: I agree with every word that the right hon.
Gentleman has said, as other Committee members will be able to tell
from the fact that I have signed nearly all his amendments. I would
like to illustrate the point about judges not knowing. I once had a
conversation with a High Court judge—I will not name
them—who said to me, “We should go back to the short
sharp shock. People come before my court and I see them not responding,
so a short sharp shock would work.” The evidence shows that
short sharp shocks do not work. The social science evidence on that is
very clear, but eminent judges have never been exposed to that sort of
evidence and they need to
be.
Alun
Michael: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and I
am grateful for his support for my argument. In the course of visiting
a number of penal institutions in America, I found attending a boot
camp a salutary experience. For the first half-hour that I was there, I
thought I was seeing all the characteristics associated with a short
sharp shock. The young men in the boot camp were being marched around,
barked at, made to smarten themselves up and all the rest of it.
However, I thought that something different was going on when
I saw the number of people, including volunteers, who were engaged with
those young men when they went into the educational part of the
establishment. There, they were made to pay attention, but they were,
in effect, being dragooned into learning to read and
write. The
headline “Short Sharp Shock” had the subscript of
“Let’s make sure that these young men go from this place
with the ability to read and write, because then there is a chance of
them becoming useful members of society.” That is why it is very
important to get under the headlines of what sentencing is about, into
the detail, and in understanding that detail, to understand that
sometimes a headline can be combined with something that works, and
sometimes something that works can be combined with a headline that
reassures the
public.
Mr.
Garnier: The more I listen to the right hon. Gentleman,
the more I think that he must have read our paper “Prisons with
a Purpose”, published last March. I want to make a helpful
intervention in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for
Cambridge. I am sure that what the High Court judge said was what he
thought was right, but by and large High Court judges tend to try the
most serious criminal cases and therefore they do not deal with the
sentencing options that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth as a magistrate or I as a recorder have to deal with. For what
we are talking about, the evidence will most usefully come from the
general infantry of Crown court judges and magistrates, rather than
from the High
Court.
Alun
Michael: Listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I
think that his contribution is informed by his experience as a defence
barrister, rather than a recorder—I am sure that the judges will
be very pleased with their advocate here. I am not talking against
judges; I am merely trying to define the limitation on the sentencing
council if only judges bring their issues to bear. At the top end of
danger—the most dangerous criminals—I am not too bothered
about that, because that is where the public need to be protected and
where the focus of the court system is quite good. It is the
generality that I am concerned about. We have ended up with numbers of
people who do not need to be in the criminal justice system or do not
need to be in it in the long term and who could be taken out of it by
interventions at the right stage.
1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
