Examination of Witness (Question Number
36-85)
LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON
14 DECEMBER 2010
Chair: Welcome, Lord Justice
Leveson. Apologies that your nameplate is inaccurately designated.
You are obviously familiar with this Committee from earlier encounters.
In your role as Chairman of the Sentencing Council, we want to
explore the new draft sentencing guidelines on assault and also
one or two wider issues around the Sentencing Council and the
sentencing process. I am going to ask Claire Perry to open the
questioning.
Q36 Claire Perry:
Sir Brian, thank you so much for joining us today. I declare my
interest as a non-lawyer, so forgive me if the questions are not
perfectly phrased in judicial language. What I am struck by is
that this is a relatively new system, introduced I believe in
2009, in terms of the changes. It was introduced, I suppose, without
a very significant fact and evidence base that this would be both
cost-effective and more effective in terms of sentencing, which
doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. I am interested as
to whether these guidelines and any future guidelines will have
to be revised, as your evidence base improves, based on the application
of the current framework.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Thank you. I have no doubt that they may very well fall for revision,
but I think it is quite important to put the Sentencing Council
into context. Our tradition of sentencing practice has been to
use decisions of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division as examples
of the appropriate sentence to pass in specific cases. It was
in the 1970s that I think Lord Justice Lawton first put together
what was thought to be a novel idea, namely, to give some general
advice about sentencing in bank robberies. Then in the early 1980s
Lord Lane—the then Lord Chief Justice—did the same
in relation to drugs offences in a case called Aramah,
which we still cite regularly today. That created the practice
of the Court of Appeal providing guideline judgments that were
intended to influence judges across the range.
The problem, of course, is that the Court of
Appeal has no research arm and consists of judges who are deciding
the cases in front of them. In 1998 Parliament legislated to create
the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which was a research arm for the
Court of Appeal, chaired by an academic. They provided material
for the Court of Appeal to inform them and so assist in the devising
of better structured guidelines. That worked very well. Indeed,
I sat in a Court of Appeal that adopted a Sentencing Advisory
Panel guideline on handling stolen goods. The case is Webbe
and others. In 2003, in the Criminal Justice Act, Parliament
decided that we ought to let a body devise guidelines. That led
to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, chaired by the Lord Chief
Justice, predominantly consisting of judges but with some non-judicial
input for the first ever time. Those guidelines have been recognised
and used by judges and lawyers consistently thereafter. The law
required that the judges have regard to the guidelines, but in
that way the idea was to create a greater consistency of practice.
In 2009, by the new Act, the two bodies were
put together. That allowed us to look again at the way in which
we promulgated guidelines to see what worked and what didn't work,
and what might work better. I have no doubt at all that this is
an iterative process. As we get more evidence, so we will be able
to revisit guidelines. Indeed, with regard to the guideline on
assault on which we are consulting, there is a previous guideline
from the SGC. We are seeking to learn from the experience and
develop both a new approach and modify it. I think the development
of guidelines will be a very good example of the iterative process,
Q37 Claire Perry:
Thank you very much for the helpful explanation of the evolution.
I think all of us would agree that having consistency in sentencing
and also a commitment to evidence collection and iteration of
policy is a good thing in general. I notice that one of the current
ways of collecting evidence is through the one-page questionnaire
that is dished out to Crown Court judges. They are asked to fill
it in. Do you think that is the most effective way of getting
feedback on the current sentencing thinking and process, or do
you suspect that there might be other methods used in the future?
Lord Justice Leveson:
The Crown Court Sentencing Survey is the first ever national collection
of evidence covering those factors which influence judges when
they pass sentence. There are a number of ways in which the data
could be collected. I suppose it would be possible to have somebody
who understood the system sitting in every single court in the
country ticking off or creating a far more comprehensive survey,
but nobody would suggest that that was a system which would not
be extremely expensive. In an attempt to try to get information
about what factors influence sentencers we have created this form,
which is completed by the judges themselves.
The background to it was work done by Lord Justice
Gage, who was part of the Sentencing Commission Working Group.
You will remember that Lord Carter started the process off when
he was looking at the problems of the prison population. He suggested
a grid-like approach to sentencing. The upshot of that was that
a working group was set up under Lord Justice Gage to look at
the Minnesota grid, and others, and to make some recommendations.
They are the body that recommended the Sentencing Council. To
get some evidence, they tried in 10 courts to get some information
about sentences. I remember seeing the original form that they
produced. I think it was 30 pages long. The prospect of getting
a judge to fill in a 30-page form was not high. The form was reduced,
but even then it was 10 pages and met a lot of resistance, understandably.
Judges are going to court to sentence and to deal with the cases
in front of them. With very pressured lists and the problems of
coping and trying to deal with all the aspects of the case in
front of them, it is a very real issue to ask them to fill in
a substantial document as well.
Q38 Claire Perry:
What was the response rate like on the one-pager?
Lord Justice Leveson:
On the 10-pager not as high as I would have liked. On the one-pager
which the Sentencing Council produced, the information we've got
to date—and it's very soft information for a reason which
I will explain—is that we've had a response rate of 70%.
In some courts it has been very much higher; in some courts it
has been rather lower. The data is quite difficult to analyse
because, when I was last told, we hadn't got actual figures for
the cases that had gone through the court in the various categories.
All we had was last year as a comparison. The 70% is the return
rate based on last year's case throughput and we are waiting for
information from HMCS in order to get the like-for-like comparison.
In the meantime we will be seeking to persuade those courts, where
the response rate was not as high as we would have wished, to
help. The Lord Chief Justice has been very much behind it. It
is the only way we will really learn what factors influence sentencing.
That will improve our understanding and thereby improve the quality
of the guideline that's the next iteration. This is not going
to happen overnight; it is going to take a long time to get the
data that we really need that will make a difference.
Q39 Chair:
Isn't there more important evidence that is needed—not just
how judges come to pass sentences but what the effect of sentences
is, both in terms of cost-effectiveness and in particular in terms
of reducing reoffending?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Yes. We have to be rather careful about what our role is. We are
required by section 120(11) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
to have regard to the cost of different sentences and their relative
effectiveness in preventing reoffending.
Q40 Chair:
You need some evidence on that, don't you?
Lord Justice Leveson:
First of all, we have to decide what it means. We interpret it
to mean that in formulating the guidelines we must take into account
the current state of the evidence on the effectiveness of different
types of sentence. We have tried to do that in the formulation
of the draft assault guideline. What we are not required to do,
as I read the legislation, is to try to forecast the impact of
guidelines on reoffending rates. If one considers it, that is
a tremendously difficult job. It not only requires us to think
about what impact our guidelines might have on sentence requirements—on
probation and prison places—but also, down the track, whether
a particular sentence changed somebody's offending behaviour as
opposed to a different sentence. I'm not sure how we can necessarily
reflect that in a guideline. What we have to do is look at effectiveness
of sentences, but that is rather different from looking at how
guidelines actually alter behaviour six months or two years down
the track. We will use whatever data is available for that, but
I am not sure how we can collect data or analyse for ourselves
the material that causes people to turn away from crime. We can
look at whether probation is effective or whether prison is effective
in certain cases, and reoffending.
Q41 Chair:
Do you mean cases or types of offence?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Cases and types of offence. Types of offence are easier than individual
cases because the micro is extremely difficult. But I do doubt
that the Sentencing Council can answer the enormous question of
whether a guideline will affect reoffending down the way for any
individual, or even necessarily for any offence, as opposed to
making best use of the evidence that there is about what causes
reoffending.
Q42 Chair:
Clearly you can only use evidence which has been collected by
research bodies and others as it is. If the sentencing guidelines
made normative a sentence which had been shown to be particularly
ineffective for that type of offence, then surely you have to
take account of that when revising the guidelines, do you not?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I agree. One of the things that the Act requires us to look at
is the relative effectiveness in preventing reoffending. If a
sentence is not at all effective in preventing reoffending, then
one would have to look at that. But, on the other hand, it is
important to bear in mind that we are not just concerned with
effectiveness against reoffending. We are looking at punishment.
We are looking at the range of purposes of sentencing that are
set out in section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which
is: punishment; the reduction of crime (including reduction by
deterrence); reform and rehabilitation; the protection of the
public; and the making of reparation. There is a whole range of
issues that go into the mix that we have to take into account
when we devise sentencing guidelines.
Q43 Chair:
Let me just take another example from your list, which is deterrence.
What is your evidence base on the deterrent effect of particular
sentences?
Lord Justice Leveson:
All we can do is look and see what's in the academic literature.
Q44 Chair:
Do you? I am generally trying to establish what the link between
the evidence and the Sentencing Council's decisions is.
Lord Justice Leveson:
The link between reoffending and sentences, absolutely.
Q45 Chair:
No; I was asking about deterrence.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Certainly; I am sorry, yes. If there was no evidence that a particular
sentence had a deterrent effect, that would be relevant when we
come to devise a sentencing guideline. I can think of a particular
example that we are presently considering, so I am not prejudging
what the Council will eventually decide. As you are probably aware,
the Sentencing Advisory Panel issued some advice to what was the
SGC, but which we've taken up, in relation to drugs. One of their
issues was the sentences for mules—people who bring in drugs
from foreign countries. One of the questions which we will have
to consider is what the evidence is that the type of sentences
presently handed down for that offence deter those who are in
these foreign countries from committing these offences. What drives
the prospect of persuading them not to?
Q46 Elizabeth Truss:
I wanted to move on to talk about the efficacy of the Sentencing
Guidelines Council in terms of reducing inconsistency in sentencing.
Is there any evidence, since the Sentencing Guidelines Council
was introduced, about where the most inconsistency and discrepancy
was?
Lord Justice Leveson:
There is evidence about the different patterns of sentencing behaviour
in different parts of the country. One of the most important features
of the work of the Sentencing Council as far as I am concerned
is to create a consistent approach to sentencing across the country
so that the same approach is adopted to sentencing—whether
you are being sentenced, if I move from west to east, in Bristol,
Bolton, Birmingham or Basildon, the approach will be the same.
Every individual sentence will always be an individual exercise
of discretion, but one of the things that we are trying to do
is to find a way of encouraging a greater consistency of approach
which is likely to lead to a greater consistency of actual sentence.
If you are approaching it the same way, then you should get to
broadly the same result.
Q47 Elizabeth Truss:
Can I ask you how it differed between the different regions of
Britain? Is there information about that?
Lord Justice Leveson:
There are statistics about the sentences passed from different
areas. There is no doubt that in some parts of the country the
use of imprisonment is greater than in other parts of the country.
I don't know whether that is because of specific local problems,
which is one possibility, or it may be because of slightly different
approaches to the same problem. It might also be that there are
different problems in different parts of the country. One of the
values of the sentencing survey is to try and iron out the differences
so that we can see from the aggravating and mitigating factors
in any case whether the actual cases are being approached differently.
There may be a number of reasons for this. Sitting in the Court
of Appeal Criminal Division, I am very conscious that when barristers,
as they do frequently, cite guidelines, they always take us to
the table in the back of the guideline. As I encourage them to
look at the pages of script that are descriptive, that is rather
more difficult. One of the approaches that we've sought to
adopt in this guideline on which we are consulting is to cut out
a lot of the script but to drive everybody to the circumstances
of a particular offence— consider culpability and harm,
and then the aggravating and mitigating features—to try
to make it clear how lawyers should approach the task of mitigating
and how judges should approach the task of sentencing. I earnestly
hope that it makes it clearer for everybody else—for victims,
for the police, for anybody interested in sentencing.
Q48 Elizabeth Truss:
Do you think there is any cost to moving to this system in terms
of perhaps sacrificing the judgment that is exercised in cases
and also mitigating against other forms of accountability for
judges, the more that it's a one-size-fits-all national approach,
particularly given that in the Home Office we're moving to more
local accountability through Police Commissioners and so on? If
particular crimes are being pursued to different extents in different
parts of the country, then is it right to have an absolutely one-size-fits-all
approach to sentencing?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I absolutely reject the notion that this is one size that fits
all. The guideline creates an approach and within that approach
judicial discretion is entirely preserved. I have no difficulty
with differing parts of the country, having different problems,
generating slightly different sentencing solutions, provided they
have applied a consistent approach. I'm not sure that it would
be sensible that a robbery or an act of violence should receive
a different approach to sentence in one part of the country to
another. I believe that we should be consistent in our approach.
I think there is ample room within the guideline for a judge to
sentence the particular offender for the particular offence that
is in front of him. If, in any particular case, that is not right,
the Act specifically permits the judge to say, "In the interests
of justice I am not going to follow the guidelines."
When academics and judges have said to me, "We're
very concerned about this provision in the Act that says we must
follow the guideline," I retort by asking, "When did
you, as a judge, last pass a sentence which you did not believe
was in the interests of justice?" to which they say, "Well,
actually, I never pass a sentence which I don't believe is in
the interests of justice." I think the guideline provides
the main part of the bell curve of sentencing. There will always
be extremes, there will always be special cases and there will
always be the room for a judge to exercise his discretion within
those special cases. So I don't accept the premise, because I
think that actually this preserves the discretion.
Q49 Elizabeth Truss:
What is, and has been, the reaction of judges to the new proposals?
Lord Justice Leveson:
We are waiting to see the responses to the consultation, but I
can tell you that we road-tested the proposals before they became
a guideline. I took the draft, before we published it, to a meeting
of the Criminal Sub Committee of the Council of Circuit Judges
and showed it to them, and asked them to think through the process.
We sent it to a number of judges. There are a number of judicial
members of the Council, who took the guidelines draft back to
their courts and discussed it with judges. One of the judges is
a tutor judge on the continuation board for the Judicial Studies
Board. He took the guideline and tested it at a continuation seminar.
We've tried it out on academic lawyers and given them case scenarios
to see whether they're consistent in approach. We did a fair amount
of work before we actually let it loose on the world to see whether
it worked.
I'm absolutely not in the business of wanting a guideline
where people say, "Actually this just doesn't work."
One of the reasons we chose assault to start with was because,
first of all, there was a guideline so there was something for
people to compare it with. Secondly, it was a guideline that judges
were unhappy with. The classic example of why they were unhappy,
and the one that I've given, is the guideline on assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, where three of the four categories required
premeditation. The common example of an assault occasioning actual
bodily harm is a fight outside a public house at 11 o'clock on
a Saturday night, where premeditation doesn't come into it. All
of a sudden the guideline was constraining how judges could approach
that very, very common sentencing picture. That's why we chose
it.
Whether judges come out and say, "This works"
or "This doesn't work" I am very, very keen to see.
If we get sufficient adverse response in the consultation—and
that's not what I presently understand the position to be, I hasten
to add—then we will revisit it. If we promote this guideline
as the guideline, I will want to keep an eye on it very, very
closely, because we've started with a new system of approaching
the concept of guidelines which I would like to take into other
guidelines, but only if it works. It is critical that it works
for judges, because they are the primary audience. It is also
to my mind critical that it can be understood more widely. We
have spent some time with other key players in the criminal justice
arena—with Victim Support, with the Criminal Justice Alliance
and others—on explaining our approach in order to learn
from them as to whether this works for them as well. It is very
important, and that's why I'm very pleased that the Select Committee
has chosen to respond so vigorously by taking evidence, by inviting
me to come along and speak to you and to think about whether this
works. I would not only encourage the Committee to respond, but
I would be happy for individuals to respond and certainly for
you to encourage your colleagues in Parliament. After all, they
have a wonderful window through their constituents on what affects
people and what response this sort of approach would have. The
more views we get, the better.
Q50 Elizabeth Truss:
If I can put one more question to you, can you explain how the
relationship works with the Court of Appeal and also with legislation?
How do the sentencing guidelines fit in with the appeal decision
and also legislation?
Lord Justice Leveson:
The oath that I have taken twice, both as a High Court Judge and
as a Judge of the Court of Appeal, is to try cases according to
"the laws and usages of this realm". Parliament actually
defines our remit. The sentencing legislation, which I would be
happy to comment on if I am asked, and the mandatory provisions
within the sentencing legislation, provide the legislative framework
within which we will always work. I see absolutely no tension
between the Sentencing Council, or indeed the Court of Appeal,
and Parliament. Parliament will ultimately decide what the law
is, and if they pass a provision then we will provide appropriate
guidelines, because the ultimate decision as to the approach to
sentencing is for Parliament.
Q51 Chair:
What about the relationship of the Sentencing Council and the
Court of Appeal? A sentencing decision on appeal could upset your
apple cart.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I am coming to that. The Court of Appeal is slightly different
but in one sense not really different. First of all, you ought
to appreciate that the Lord Chief Justice is the President of
the Sentencing Council, and I sit in the Court of Appeal and am
one of the judges who sit on criminal appeals.. The Vice-Chairman
of the Sentencing Council is the Vice-President of the Court of
Appeal Criminal Division, Lord Justice Hughes. So there is a very,
very close link between the Court of Appeal and the Sentencing
Council.
The Court of Appeal is also required to follow
the law. Part of the law which sets up the Sentencing Council
is that judges "must follow" guidelines. In other words,
the Court of Appeal is also a court that must follow the sentencing
guidelines unless it is in the interests of justice not to do
so. I don't see a tension between the Sentencing Council and the
Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal is concerned about a guideline,
then doubtless that will come out in a judgment and we will take
it on board. I would hope that I've taken into account the likely
concerns of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division where I have
been sitting as a presiding judge for four years. Lord Justice
Hughes would not be shy about coming forward with a concern. Therefore,
that is how it works.
On the other hand, we do slightly different
things. We are there to provide a framework within which sentencers
approach sentences. The Court of Appeal decides in a particular
case, in relation to a particular appeal, whether that particular
appellant was either under or over-sentenced. That is not to say
the Court of Appeal can't affect the wider picture. A very, very
good example of that came in Saw where a court presided
over by the Lord Chief Justice—in which I think rather unusually
there were another two members of the Court of Appeal as members
of the Court—revisited the earlier guideline in McInerney
in relation to burglary. One of the requirements that the Sentencing
Council has to meet is to have regard to the decisions of the
Court of Appeal. If we are to look at burglary, we won't be suddenly
waging war in relation to the Court of Appeal decision in Saw.
That is not our job either. I think there is a mutual regard and
process which will work to improve the approach of sentencing.
Could I just come back to an earlier question
that you asked, because I have been passed some information which
I'm very keen to make public? We have had 45 formal, written professional
responses to the consultation so far; 500 people have accessed
the online questionnaire and 100 have completed it. The consultation
responses so far from the judges, which was your question, have
been universally positive. That is not because I've told the judges
who aren't positive not to respond; I have wanted responses from
everybody.
Q52 Mr Llwyd:
Sir Brian, can I take you back to something which Ms Truss referred
to earlier on? I think everybody would accept that consistency
in sentencing is a very good thing, whilst accepting that there
has to be discretion because there are cases at the margins and
so on, as you referred to. Does the increase in consistency reflect
itself in a reduction in Attorney General referrals and appeals
against sentence?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I would hope that it would, because I would hope that a consistent
approach to sentencing would lead to broadly consistent sentencing
within the parameters, which then would reduce the number of occasions
when counsel advised their client that a sentence was "manifestly
excessive or wrong in principle", which is the test for interference
to the Court of Appeal on appeal, and equally affects the very
small number of occasions in the great scheme of things when the
Attorney General considers it appropriate to refer cases that
are unduly lenient. It won't ever exclude them, because every
single offender is different. Although judges are trying their
best to pass the appropriate sentence, because it does involve
an exercise of discretion I have no doubt that there will always
be hard cases where an appellant will say, "Well, actually,
he or she has just got it wrong," or where the Attorney may
say, "I think the judge has overplayed the mitigating features
and not taken sufficient account of the aggravating features."
I think that is a good thing. The task of passing sentence is
extremely onerous. Nobody undertakes it lightly. Therefore it
is right that there is a mechanism for review, both upwards and
downwards.
Q53 Mr Llwyd:
Certainly, I don't disagree with you on that point at all. I was
just wondering whether there was any research work recently undertaken
on this area. It seems to be that it does have a tangential effect,
or at least there is a link between the work that you are doing
and, I would guess, fewer referrals and fewer appeals against
sentence. Perhaps that will come in the course of time.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I don't know whether there has been any research on the numbers
of appeals, although I would apprehend that there are fewer appeals
pro rata. I am just trying to remember the graph I get every term
with the number of appeals outstanding and the number of appeals
disposed of, as contrasted to the number of disposals in the Crown
Court. I think that's stayed broadly even, while the number of
cases disposed of in the Crown Court has gone up. Whether that
is because of sentencing guidelines, I don't know. I would be
very interested to see whether our guidelines did affect the number
of cases going to the Court of Appeal. I am not quite sure how
we will test it.
Q54 Mr Llwyd:
The new guideline requires sentences to focus on culpability and
harm rather than premeditation with regard to assault. I listened
to what you said earlier, Sir Brian, about the classic case of
an assault at 11 on a Saturday night, and so on. Why did the Council
take this decision, and does it intend to extend this approach
to other offence-specific guidelines?
Lord Justice Leveson:
First of all, section 143(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
says, in terms: "In considering the seriousness of any offence,
the court must consider the offender's culpability in committing
the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended
to cause or might foreseeably have caused." We decided to
focus on culpability and harm for assault because we thought they
were a very good discriminator for categories. We then put the
question of the degree of premeditation later in the guideline,
as you have seen. I have no doubt that culpability and harm will
be the appropriate categorisation for other crimes, but this must
be done on an offence-by-offence basis because I can equally think
of other offence types in which culpability and harm as concepts
do not quite fit. What I want to do is to make it work rather
than straitjacket a particular offence type into the language
of the legislation, although culpability and harm will always
focus even if those aren't the precise words used.
Q55 Mr Llwyd:
Could you possibly give us an example when it might be appropriate
for a sentencer to move above and below the identified category
range?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Why am I reluctant to start thinking of cases? I will give you
one above, which I will take from assault. Section 18 is causing
grievous bodily harm with intent. We will approach it on culpability
and harm and aggravating and mitigating features. I could visualise
a torture case where an offender, or gang of offenders, deliberately
set about torturing somebody, not intending to kill them, intending
to cause them serious injury—and causing them serious injury—but
wanting to do so in a way that maximised pain for some other advantage.
I could visualise that being a case off one end of the bell curve.
It will happen, and indeed one can take historical examples where
very, very substantial sentences were appropriate for that offending
outside the sort of category ranges and sentences that we are
talking about here. If I go to my bell curve, I draw the lines
not at the very ends, because if I draw them at the very ends
then I provide less value on the 99.9% of the cases. But there
is an example of one that is off the end.
Q56 Mr Llwyd:
That is very helpful. You referred in an earlier answer to having
road-tested guidelines on the Council of Circuit Judges, amongst
others. Has that road-testing been attempted on practitioners:
for example, applying hypothetical scenarios in order to see whether
things are working out with them?
Lord Justice Leveson:
At the continuation seminar for the Judicial Studies Board there
will have been practitioners who are Recorders, because Recorders
also have to attend these seminars. I have no doubt that they
participated. There have been, and there are, events going on
to test this. I expect and hope the Bar Council will respond.
I know that the council of the Law Society intend to respond.
Indeed, I went to the Criminal Sub-Committee of the Law Society
and sought to introduce them to the consultation, not least because
it is very important not only that judges find this valuable but
that solicitors and barristers advising their clients can see
their way through the guideline, the better to be able to advise
their clients as to the likely sentence for the crime for which
they are then before the court.
Q57 Mr Llwyd:
I hope this isn't an unfair question. Were the police and other
interested parties consulted on the reduction in the starting
point for assault against someone in public office?
Lord Justice Leveson:
There is a police officer on the Sentencing Council. The Deputy
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Tim Godwin, is a member
of the Sentencing Council. I am aware that other parties, including
all police forces, are being encouraged to respond as part of
the consultation process. We have received some responses from
police forces and I don't believe this has been a problem. But
let me make it clear—I don't want there to be a misunderstanding
about this—that assaulting a police officer in the execution
of his duty is a common assault. It need not involve any injury
of any sort. We are still considering it a more serious offence
than common assault. If there is an injury I would expect an offender
to be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm or with
causing grievous bodily harm. One of the aggravating features
in those offences on our guidelines is that it is committed against
a public servant. That would be an aggravating feature, whether
it's a police officer or a nurse in a casualty department, or
equally those working and providing a service to the public, in
which regard I would include publicans, bar staff and shopkeepers
serving the public who, by the nature of their employment, come
into contact with the public.
I am not in any sense seeking to reduce the significance
of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. What
we found as we researched it was a lack of proportionality between
the potential aggravating features of other assaults and the sentencing
guideline in the original assault guideline on assaulting a police
officer in the execution of his duty. I hope that answers the
point that you raised.
Q58 Mr Llwyd:
It does. Finally, can I ask you about the concept of maturity?
The Council proposes adding youth and/or lack of maturity as a
mitigating factor in determining lesser culpability in terms of
sentencing. You will be aware of John Thornhill, the Chairman
of the Magistrates' Association.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Yes, of course.
Mr Llwyd: He agreed, as
I think we would all agree, with the general thrust of this. But
he questioned how maturity would be measured, by whom and what
information would be given to the courts to inform sentencing.
Lord Justice Leveson:
This is something we've done for ever. It comes out in pre-sentence
reports, as it used to come out when I started at the Bar in what
were called "social inquiry reports", prepared by probation
officers who make assessments of maturity, and in extreme cases
it may very well come out in psychiatric or psychological reports.
Those are not uncommonly prepared in exceptional and appropriate
cases. Judges have been assessing the maturity of defendants as
long as they've been passing sentence. If there is a trial, of
course, they get an opportunity to see the defendant give evidence,
if he does, and so can make a judgment about maturity. If it is
a guilty plea, of course, you don't get a chance by interacting
with the defendant; you just hear him say the word "guilty".
Then you rely on others.
There is not only the information from a probation
officer. Frequently one can also obtain that material from the
prosecution papers, because one gets a flavour of what happened,
and also in the material that comes from members of the family
if they write, as they frequently do—and sometimes from
other sources as well. It is a judgment that we make all the time,
and I have no difficulty in trusting judges to make that judgment.
Of course it is individual and it depends upon the judge. That
goes back to the question which I was asked about discretion.
We can't ever, and we shouldn't be trying to, eliminate that element
of discretion in the judge, who is charged by society with the
difficult task of passing a sentence on another member of society
that reflects all the circumstances.
Q59 Mr Buckland:
Sir Brian, you referred to the words "must follow",
and it is absolutely right that we do focus upon them. A question
was asked about whether the number of appeals would decrease.
What about this proposition: that the number of appeals could
increase simply upon the basis that appellants, or those advising
them, see a failure to follow the guidelines and, no matter how
carefully the judge puts his or her arguments, it will de facto
be a ground of appeal? How are we going to combat that, because
that could lead to an explosion in appeals on the basis of the
new legislation?
Lord Justice Leveson:
It might very well form part of the picture, in the first rush
of enthusiasm as members of the Bar and solicitors cast around
for grounds of appeal. I have absolutely no doubt that when these
cases start to come through the system the Court of Appeal will
choose a few cases to lay down what is meant by this language,
because it is the Court of Appeal's task to interpret it. I think
you will find that the picture will emerge very, very quickly
as to the approach to be followed.
Q60 Mr Buckland:
So you think it will be a bit like the old chestnut about disparity:
defendant "A" and defendant "B". He got two
years and defendant "B" got a suspended sentence. The
Court of Appeal has dealt with that pretty comprehensively over
the years, hasn't it?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Absolutely. Would a right-thinking member of the public think
something had gone wrong with the administration of justice? That
is the test. That is quite a hurdle. I think you will find that
we will work through an initial legitimate requirement to define
the four corners of the legislation. What judges are required
to do is "must follow" unless it is in the interests
of justice, in which event they have to explain themselves. I
would have thought that judges would find perfectly adequate language
to explain themselves. The Court of Appeal pays great attention
to what judges say when they pass sentence, and won't be deflected
by submissions that "must follow" means something very,
very different to "must approach the case on the basis of
the guideline and then decide within the guideline how it fits".
Q61 Mr Buckland:
It follows on from that that there is a body of opinion that would
say these guidelines are more prescriptive than the previous regime.
Looking at it, it could lead to either sentencers, or anybody
involved in the criminal justice system, thinking, "Well,
this is a little bit of an assault course and if I make a mistake
at point 'A' or point 'G' then the whole thing falls down."
You will remember that there was a television show called The
Krypton Factor where various hapless contestants had to do
all these appalling things through assault courses, and so on.
Are we not setting a judicial equivalent to The Krypton Factor
by all of this?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Mr Buckland, I certainly hope not. I hope that you don't find
that that is the position when you are called upon to follow the
guidelines. "Greater harm" and "higher culpability"
are concepts which judges understand, as are "factors indicating
greater harm" and "factors indicating higher culpability".
One of the great things about this draft to me is that it's on
three pages. It is not, in my view, an assault course. There is
a bit of an assault course, which is the third page, steps three
to eight, but, with great respect, that is the law. In other words,
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 requires a reduction
of sentence for assistance to the prosecution. A reduction for
guilty pleas: section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires
that. Totality has to be considered. Dangerousness is required
by Chapter 5 of the 2003 Act. Reasons are required—
Q62 Chair:
Page 3 is an aide memoire, is it?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Absolutely, to make sure that the judge jumps through the hoops
which Parliament has set, not which we have set.
Q63 Mr Buckland:
I am entirely in sympathy with that point, which is evidence-based.
Can I deal with that third page? It seems to me that when it comes
to the more serious offences that could attract a life sentence,
IPP or extended sentence, we are putting "dangerousness"
down at step six. Is that really the right place for it? Shouldn't
we be thinking about that much earlier on in the process?
Lord Justice Leveson:
It is an interesting question and I've been asked the question
before. I believe it might have to move up a bit but nothing like
as much as I know has been suggested. I think it possibly comes
before "Totality", which is step five.
Mr Buckland: I agree.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Let me tell you why I don't think it comes any earlier. The question
of "dangerousness" falls to be considered before the
court passes a sentence of imprisonment for public protection,
or indeed a discretionary life sentence. In relation to those
sentences, when the concept was originally introduced of course
any sentence that was either of a particular type or fell within
a certain band could attract imprisonment for public protection,
which meant that you could have a very short minimum term but
still be considered dangerous. In other words, Parliament was
telling us that the court had to consider in every case not merely
the gravity of the particular offence but also dangerousness.
If somebody was dangerous, however lacking in gravity the actual
offence, a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was
or could still be appropriate. Parliament has since changed that
and imposed a threshold sentence at the moment of four years,
i.e. a minimum term of two years. I know it is proposed to increase
that yet again by the Green Paper, but Parliament will decide.
That is entirely a matter for you, not for me.
Therefore, I believe that the specific consideration
of the question of "dangerousness" for IPP purposes
should only come after the judge has considered that the threshold
minimum term has been passed; otherwise there is a risk that you
think about "dangerousness" and then maybe adjust the
sentence upwards to move somebody up, which I don't believe would
be appropriate. That is not to say that "dangerousness"
is not actually considered earlier. The assessment of seriousness
at step one and step two—culpability and harm—will
inevitably inform the assessment of "dangerousness".
There are also issues in relation to imposing an IPP or an EPP
without having first reached, as I say, that notional determinate
term.
Q64 Mr Buckland:
I take your point when it comes to IPPs, and you are right that
with a threshold going up to 10 years really the distinction between
them and a life sentence becomes more blurred. When it comes to
extended licences, the "extended sentence", as we call
it, so in other words a sentence with a determinate term and then
a longer licence, which of course has effects on release, and
so on—and automatic release doesn't apply so that everybody
knows what we are talking about—it is still going to be
difficult, isn't it, for a sentencer to sub-divide that assessment
of "dangerousness" in the way suggested? Surely it is
part and parcel of the overall approach to length of sentence?
Lord Justice Leveson:
But don't you agree that one has to decide what this particular
offence deserves first?
Mr Buckland: Yes.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Of course, in this draft it is all called "steps", but
you can't approach judges as if you were looking at them through
a CAT scan. We are not taking slices of a judge's brain at each
step to see where they've got to. The idea is to provide a consistent
approach and then to make sure that before you get to the end
of the process you've thought of everything. If the gravity of
the offence has "dangerousness" bells ringing, that
is fine. You know you are going to get to it provided you have
first decided, "What do I think this sentence deserves?"
Then, "Well now 'dangerousness'. Do I want an IPP or do I
want an extended sentence?" Provided the whole thing comes
out at the end—I think one can be over-analytical. What
bothers me about moving it right up to the top, and I know Nicola
Padfield has suggested it should be much higher, is that one gets
confused between what this crime deserves and whether it is appropriate
to impose, in the interests of the public, some longer sentence
because of IPP, in other words not released until the Parole Board
say so, or some additional supervision in the form of an EPP.
Chair: I am advised that
the heating in this corridor has failed. Unless it is reinstated
quite soon, I shall make sure that we adjourn this Committee in
about 15 to 20 minutes' time. That imposes a certain discipline
on us, because there are a couple more topics I do want us to
cover. If we fail to cover them all we might have to write to
you, but I am not prepared to see Members and staff in a constantly
declining temperature until we get below freezing.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I wasn't aware of it at all, Chairman.
Chair: I have taken advice
on the subject, so I am therefore going to turn at this point
to Helen Grant.
Q65 Mrs Grant:
Sir Brian, can you explain how the guidelines better manage victims'
expectations? How do you explain the use of fines and community
sentences or, rather, how would you, to a victim of a violent
offender?
Lord Justice Leveson:
This is one of the reasons for making this simpler than the Sentencing
Guidelines Council's admirable effort—I am not criticising
what they did; they started the ball rolling and they created
a very good model. This is just, I believe, at the next level.
One of the things that we were very keen to do was to make the
regime simpler for everybody, including victims, and to make it
easier for those who talk to victims to explain how the judge
will approach sentencing. As I say, the old Sentencing Guidelines
Council had a number of pages of closely-typed script, which it
would be very difficult for anybody to follow. Of course we are
used to these concepts but victims will not be, and I believe
that somebody can help talk through how the judge is going to
approach the job. I would be very, very keen to make the process
of sentencing clearer to victims so that they understand more
clearly what goes on. As regards community sentences and other—
Q66 Mrs Grant:
Could I just ask: at what point would that be explained to the
victim, who might be sitting in court as a witness?
Lord Justice Leveson:
That is a slightly different problem, because that problem goes
back to responsibility. When you say that the victim might be
sitting in court, in my experience, save in the most serious crimes—in
homicide cases where the victim's family may be present—the
victim is often not in court. The victim gives evidence and then
goes about his or her life and does not sit in court. Of course,
sentencing after a trial is always slightly uncertain. One doesn't
know quite how long the trial will take. One doesn't know how
long the jury will take. Therefore there isn't a fixed time, unless
the case is adjourned off. So victims are not in court.
Q67 Mrs Grant:
But the person is going to be sitting waiting, somewhere, whether
it is at home or in court.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I understand. Therefore it is not the judge's job. The judge is
not going to phone up the victim, and it would be wrong for the
judge to phone up the victim because of the need to be seen to
be utterly impartial. I am very clear in this. Somebody should
explain to the victim, and to others, why sentences are passed.
When victims understand why sentences are passed, our understanding
from them, and I think there is some material from Victim Support
on this, is that they are far more readily prepared to accept
a sentence which is not punitive. What victims seem to be most
keen on at the lesser end—I am not talking about the homicides—is
that it doesn't happen to somebody else. If they can be persuaded
or if it is possible to explain the rationale for a sentence which
leads to that conclusion, then I think, or so I am told, that
will be satisfactory.
Q68 Mrs Grant:
But who is going to explain that to them?
Lord Justice Leveson:
The people who can explain and manage a victim's expectations
are, I suppose, the police, prosecutors, and indeed Victim Support.
We've got to do what we can to make sure they understand why a
sentence is passed. It is not just of course the victim; we want
to explain to the defendant. That is very difficult because the
defendant, who might have just been convicted after a trial, will
not be in the best psychological state to listen to a long explanation
for a particular sentence. When I started at the Bar I vividly
remember a judge saying: "Stand up, Snooks. Congratulations.
Double figures, 10 years," and that was it. That would never
happen today and it wouldn't be acceptable today. Judges do explain
why they pass sentence. Whether it is always heard is another
question. I think getting that communication across is very important.
Q69 Mrs Grant:
I have one more supplemental question. The guidelines propose
more severity for offenders who target vulnerable people. How
would you define a vulnerable person, and might a vulnerable person
include, for example, a victim of domestic violence?
Lord Justice Leveson:
It might indeed. I am rather keen not to provide a definition
that somebody is going to say is all-embracing and therefore excludes
other things, but it is those under a disability, those vulnerable
by reason of age and those vulnerable by reason of circumstance.
Each case will be judged, and, in the same way as I say that maturity
is something that judges are very used to recognising, so vulnerability
is something that judges are very used to recognising. My concern
about domestic violence is getting it to court and getting it
dealt with quickly enough to provide some measure of protection.
Q70 Mrs Grant:
But would you say a victim of domestic violence could be classified
as a vulnerable person for the purposes of this sentencing guideline?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I believe that some victims of domestic violence will be categorised
as vulnerable. It depends on the circumstances. I absolutely do
not exclude it, and I include it, but with that caveat.
Q71 Chris Evans:
Sir Brian, you have said: "As a Council, we are keen to focus
not only on developing and monitoring the effect and impact of
sentencing guidelines, but also on raising public awareness of
the practice and realities of sentencing." How have you done
this?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I am very, very keen to raise public awareness, because I believe
it's absolutely key that we build public confidence in sentencing.
We are seeking to build relationships with and engage with the
public in a wide range of activities. We have updated our website
to ensure it contains accessible information. We have recently
completed work on a leaflet with the Metropolitan Police Service
and London Probation to provide police officers with information
about sentences. We are going to launch a sentencing competition
for law students to arrange awareness of both sentencing and guidelines.
What we would also like to do, subject of course to finance, is
develop a suite of information for victims and witnesses to increase
their understanding of sentences. We find that when people understand
sentences their confidence in the criminal justice system increases.
It is not sufficient merely to publish a vast array of statistics:
so many burglars got this; so many anti-social offenders got that.
You require the detail to understand. Throughout the country there
have been a series of events, which some of you may have heard
about, called "You Be the Judge" events.
Chair: We know about those.
Lord Justice Leveson:
What that demonstrates is that confidence in the criminal justice
system, if they are asked before they start this, is 30%-odd.
They are then given five sentencing scenarios and four options,
with a "Who wants to be a Millionaire" keypad to vote.
They then find that they've actually either sentenced at the same
level as or under-sentenced the judge. Once they realise that,
their confidence in the criminal justice system increases. I believe
that we will do a great deal to improve public confidence and
reduce clamour if people do understand what we are doing and why
we're doing it. I have taken the responsibility for the Council
of trying to promote that, which is only one of the things we're
supposed to do, but putting it right at the top of the agenda.
Q72 Chris Evans:
Do you have any fears that the message isn't getting through?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Yes. All I can do is everything I can do. I hope that we will
get the funding to be able to produce material that can be shown
to victims and witnesses. I would very much like to find a way
of engaging the wider public in these issues and not just have
to rely on "You Be the Judge" events, which only have
120 or 150 people in a community hall. I would be very keen to
encourage you to do what you can—and we'll provide some
material if you're willing—to help persuade the community
that our sentencing system is rational, that it does take into
account people's concerns and that we are doing what we can do
to be effective within the constraints of any penal system.
Q73 Chris Evans:
What are your media relations like? I am thinking at the moment
that, when it seems to be a quiet news day, the newspapers seem
to jump straight away on the judges and some sort of sentence
they have picked up in the courts somewhere. How effective do
you think the Council is in dealing with the media? When you see
these wild headlines, which seem to be strictly scare stories,
how are you rebutting and dealing with those headlines?
Lord Justice Leveson:
No judge will ever comment on an individual decision, which answers
part of the question. We are very keen to increase our profile
with the public and thus the media, because the media is a key
channel with which to engage with the public. We are trying to
find as many ways as possible to do it. We took a proactive approach
to engaging with the media when we launched this consultation
paper. I don't think the Sentencing Guidelines Council had a press
conference on the day of the launch and there was a reasonable
amount of coverage on the topic. A lot of it was positive in relation
to raising the profile of guidelines, but not all of it positive—I
understand that. We have to seek to address the concerns that
people have and show that we're listening.
Q74 Chris Evans:
Has there been a headline that you can think of, that comes to
mind, where you have been personally angry, and that you felt
was unfair and untrue?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I can think of a number of headlines which I think were unfair
and not entirely balanced, although when one read the piece, the
piece was not always reflected in the headline. We have a small
communications team in the Sentencing Council which does include
a senior press officer.
Q75 Chris Evans:
Do you think there is enough capacity there for dealing with the
media and doing the public exercise as well, or do you think you
need more people involved?
Lord Justice Leveson:
The Council is a comparatively small body. I think there are 19
people working within the Council. We have to cover a wide range
of expertise. We have to cover policy, law, economics, social
research, statistics and communications; and we have to manage
the office as well. We are doing as much as we can, but we are
very conscious that public finance is such that a request to increase
our complement is not going to be visited with great favour.
Q76 Chair:
Would you anticipate a headline which says, "Sentencing Council
tells judges to soften up on assault"?
Lord Justice Leveson:
Did I anticipate such a headline?
Chair: Would you anticipate
such a headline?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I think there were some headlines that weren't a million miles
away from that but were rather less polite.
Q77 Chair:
And your response to that is?
Lord Justice Leveson:
We can only explain what we're trying to do. The impact assessment,
or the resource assessment, that went with our guideline, which
was online, certainly revealed that at the top end some sentences
might go up a bit, but at the bottom end they may go down. One
has to be very, very careful to treat all this material with real
caution because, with all the expertise that we have within the
Council, we do not employ a fortune teller.
Q78 Chair:
Isn't there rather a danger in using the term "down"
that, for example, a community sentence with tight supervision
and alcohol or drug treatment might not be "down" in
the eyes of an offender as compared to a limited jail sentence
with three square meals a day and not much to do?
Lord Justice Leveson:
I entirely agree with you. I absolutely entirely agree with you.
That's a message which I'd be very, very keen to get across. More
than a few offenders come back before the courts because, in terms,
they find compliance with a stringent community order rather tough
and three months is perhaps not quite so tough.
Q79 Ben Gummer:
This has all been far too harmonious. I would like to say that
I, for one, am far happier with the level of inconsistency across
sentencing, or maybe I should say "variation", than
other members of the Committee might have said. This is not the
place to talk about the intellectual justification for that, but
I wanted to probe a few issues between the Council and the Ministry
of Justice.
First of all, in
evidence yesterday with the Ministry of Justice there were some
interesting comments about work they are doing on the relative
costs of different sentences and their efficacy. In your instructions,
as you pointed out earlier under the Act, you have taken into
account the costs of different sentences and their effectiveness
in reducing reoffending. I speak again and make a declaration
as a non-lawyer, and therefore this might seem a very silly question,
but I wonder whether there is a place for the Council giving that
information to judges so that they understand, in the round, what
the cost of a sentence typically is and what its effectiveness
typically is so that they can have a balanced assessment, when
they make their assessment, of the impact on the public purse
and also within their consideration of its effectiveness in rehabilitation.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I am sorry to want to come back to the opening comment that you
made. I have no problem about different sentences in different
places provided there are reasons for it. If, for example, a particular
crime is prevalent, then I can well understand why a particular
court might want to "up" the sentence for it. What I
am against is an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Maybe it
is a debate for another time.
Q80 Ben Gummer:
I am happy with many different approaches. I think this produces
a variation of view.
Chair: Let us deal with
the question that you asked.
Ben Gummer: I wanted to
put it on the record. I didn't want you to feel this was a unanimous
view amongst the Committee.
Lord Justice Leveson:
That is fair enough. It's a debate for another time. In relation
to your particular question, we are planning to produce a briefing
for practitioners, including judges, on the current state of the
evidence on the effectiveness of sentencing. It is difficult to
conduct research that will enable more robust conclusions about
the effectiveness of different types of sentence. You may be aware
that our consultation document puts a slightly different perspective
to that which has been published in the Green Paper by the Ministry.
One of the problems is controlling for differences
in the characteristics of offenders. The other problem is that
you also have to take account of the fact that judges might actually,
even between two apparently similar offenders, be able to detect
those who may respond to a community sentence and those who won't.
Judges sometimes might get it right, which could lead to the conclusion
that this community sentence was more effective than that sentence.
But even though they've got the same number of previous convictions
and they've failed the same number of times, the way in which
the offender's determination to change behaviour comes across
in the sentencing exercise may very well mean the judge makes
a sensible choice. That is not to say that judges don't always
make sensible choices. But I do believe that it is appropriate
for sentencers to know what sentences involve, how much they cost
and how effective they are, provided it isn't thought that cost
is going to drive a sentence. Among the purposes of punishment,
as I identified earlier in this session, are other requirements
beyond the rehabilitation of the offender, very important though
that is. There is a whole mix of dynamics that go into the determination
of a particular sentence.
Q81 Ben Gummer:
Yes. The second and third mandate is reducing crime and rehabilitation,
which some might argue is more or less the same thing. I can see
that you are edging towards it, but are there any plans to be
able to give a menu to judges saying, "This punishment—a
prison sentence—typically will cost this amount of money
and gives this outcome under current research. Another sentence—a
community sentence of a different type maybe—costs X amount
with a typical outcome"? Of course, most judges will know
the circumstances of community punishments in their own area,
because they will be well aware of how good one particular community
sentence is as against another.
Lord Justice Leveson:
Correct.
Q82 Ben Gummer:
So they will be able to modify it. But it seems that the evidence
with which they are dealing, given the fact that the Ministry
of Justice is only just getting round to having a rigorous approach
to assessing the cost-effectiveness of various sentences, should
be fed through as quickly as possible to judges so that they can
make judgments themselves based on that.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I agree. I do believe that judges who sit in their local Crown
Courts know exactly what the benefits and demerits are of particular
non-custodial options that are available to them. It may be that
Recorders are less familiar, but I would hope that they would
make themselves aware of it because it's an important part of
their job. As I say, I am very keen that we do produce a briefing
on the current state of the evidence on the effectiveness of sentencing,
but that will only be at a macro level; it won't be at a micro
level. It is going to be quite difficult to produce statistics
saying, "This particular option in this particular locality
has had this result compared to all the different types of community
sentence that might be available." One has to balance how
granular the information is in relation to any particular disposal
in any particular area as opposed to what the bigger picture is,
either in an area or a region, or nationally.
Q83 Ben Gummer:
But a movement to payment by results will produce that data.
Lord Justice Leveson:
If we are getting the data from other places, I have absolutely
no problem with it. I am not against as much information as possible,
provided it is borne in mind that judges will not sentence to
financial constraints. They will do what they believe is right
in the interests of justice every single time. Ultimately, if
that becomes unaffordable for other reasons, it is up to Parliament
to decide how that should be approached. Our approach to the guidelines,
with its emphasis on evidence and effectiveness, will encourage
everybody to understand the effect of the sentences that they
pass.
Q84 Ben Gummer:
You have moved neatly on to the issue of the Ministry of Justice
having its own review of sentencing. You have your own process
at the moment. Are you happy with those two processes running
parallel and the relationship between them? Have you been consulted
by the Ministry of Justice? Describe how that is going at the
moment.
Lord Justice Leveson:
There is no question but that we work closely with the Ministry
of Justice. Helen Edwards, the Director General of Justice Policy,
sits as an observer on our Council. She doesn't merely observe.
With encouragement from the Chair, she participates and provides
information. There are regular meetings between senior officials
in the Ministry—Helen Judge of the Ministry—and officials
within the Sentencing Council, to exchange and share information.
The Council considered the literature on the effectiveness of
different types of sentences, focusing on community orders and
short-term sentences, and we concluded that the current evidence
is not robust enough at this time to determine which is the most
effective.
There was a literature review by the Campbell Collaboration
in 2006, which reported: "According to the results"—of
a meta-analysis, this is—"non-custodial sanctions are
not beneficial in terms of lower rates of reoffending beyond random
results." That meant that we said in our professional consultation:
"Research on the cost and effectiveness of short custodial
sentences versus community sentences is inconclusive and, in the
absence of evidence that custody can improve outcomes for offenders
and society more than community alternatives, the Council proposes
to change the starting point for the most serious forms of common
assault from custody to community order."
You have seen what the Ministry of Justice has
recently published in the Compendium of Reoffending Statistics
and Analysis. We are just concerned about the nature of the
evidence. If I go back to the extent to which we work with the
Ministry, not only do we liaise and regularly meet with the Director
of Criminal Policy, Helen Judge, there are meetings and work being
undertaken by both organisations. We will certainly use the material
that comes out of the Ministry, and I anticipate that they will
use the material that comes out of us to better to inform what
they do. In addition, we are accountable to Parliament for the
delivery of the statutory remit which we have. Under section 119
of the Act the Council has to make an annual report to the Lord
Chancellor on how it has exercised its functions. The Lord Chancellor
will lay a copy of the report—
Q85 Chair:
We are familiar with those processes. We were part of the creation
of them recently.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I am very, very pleased that you were, because I think it is very
important.
Ben Gummer: I suppose
that leads on neatly to the point—
Chair: Order; order. There
has been no improvement in the heating of this room. I have received
further complaints about it. Therefore I am going to adjourn this
session and make a formal complaint to the House authorities about
interference with the business of the Committee. We are very grateful
to you for your time with us this morning. We will respond and
possibly cover some further points as well.
Lord Justice Leveson:
I am very grateful for the interest that the Committee has shown
in the work of the Council and in the draft assault guideline.
Thank you very much.
| 
