| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Crime (Sentences) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The first duty of any government is to maintain law and order. That means providing protection for the public against serious, dangerous and persistent offenders; and proper punishment for those who are convicted of offences against the public.
The present Government have not hesitated to strengthen the powers of the courts whenever it has been necessary to do so. We have increased the maximum penalties for a range of offences and introduced new offences to cover new areas of criminal conduct. However, we believe that in relation to certain categories of offence and offender it is now necessary to go further. We want to make a real impact on the crimes which cause particular and serious harm and distress to the victim--serious violent and sex offences, persistent dealing in hard drugs and persistent domestic burglary. That is what the radical new proposals in this Bill are designed to achieve, and it is the bench-mark against which they should be judged.
This is an important Bill. The key proposals were set out in the White Paper Protecting the Public, which was published in April last year, and in three further consultation papers on sex offenders, mentally disordered offenders and community penalties. At the
instigation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, this House had a stimulating debate on the proposals in May last year. The proposals have since been thoroughly debated in another place where some changes were made and a number of important new proposals were added. The proposals contained in this Bill have therefore gone through a long period of gestation and debate, and they are the better for that. They have attracted wide support from the public and the police, and I think it is fair to say a measure of support from the main Opposition party in another place. On Third Reading the Bill had a majority of over 200. I look forward to the constructive debates which we will have today and in Committee, and to getting this important Bill on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity.Part I of the Bill contains the core proposals on sentencing which were outlined in the White Paper Protecting the Public. The proposals fall into three main parts. The first is the automatic life sentence, which is set out in Clause 1. This requires the court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on anyone convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sexual offence, unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify not doing so. The relevant qualifying offences include rape, attempted rape, manslaughter, armed robbery and the most serious woundings.
The purpose of this proposal is twofold. First, it will ensure that offenders who are convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sexual offence are not released from prison if they continue to pose a real danger to the public. Secondly, offenders who are released will remain under supervision and subject to recall for the rest of their lives. Those two safeguards will provide real protection for the public against some of the most dangerous criminals in our society. That is what Clause 1 is designed to achieve.
Let me make clear that the trial judge will have complete discretion to set whatever tariff he considers appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offence. Neither the Home Secretary of the day nor any other Minister will play any part in this process. Once the offender has served the tariff set in court by the trial judge, he will be released only if the Parole Board is satisfied that he no longer presents a danger to the public. If, however, the Parole Board is not satisfied that it is safe to release the offender then he will continue to be detained, subject, of course, to periodic reviews. It is the possibility of detaining the prisoner in this way, combined with lifelong supervision following release, which provides a level of public protection which no determinate sentence, however long, can provide.
Life imprisonment is already the maximum penalty for all the serious violent and sexual offences to which Clause 1 applies. But it is rarely imposed, even when the offender has previous convictions for similar serious offences. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, having previously been convicted of one or more similar offences. Only 10 of them were sentenced to life imprisonment.
I do not believe this gives the public the protection they need from such serious offenders. The courts can and do impose long determinate sentences for such
offences, but when the offender has served his sentence he must be released at the automatic release point, even if there is every reason to believe that he will commit further serious offences. That is exactly what happens in a significant proportion of cases. Perhaps I could give the House an example. Last September a rapist was sentenced to life at Chelmsford Crown Court. He already had two previous convictions for rape, including that of a child, but because he was not given a life sentence on those occasions he had to be released at the end of each sentence. Under Clause 1 of the Bill he would automatically have received a life sentence on his second conviction, and would not have been free to rape for a third time. In future, offenders such as this will not be released automatically at the end of their sentence to commit further horrific crimes.The Bill provides the court with discretion to set aside the automatic life sentence in exceptional circumstances. There was a good deal of debate in another place about exactly what that means. I would respond by quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who said in a recent interview that "exceptional circumstances" means very unusual at the very least. That is exactly what we want to achieve. Mandatory penalties will only have the salutary effect which we expect and intend that they should if they are imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases.
The Attorney-General will be able to refer cases to the Court of Appeal if he considers that the court has exercised its discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in circumstances which were not exceptional. I have no doubt that the Court of Appeal will, in any event, take advantage of an early opportunity to issue guidance on what do and do not constitute circumstances which are sufficiently exceptional to justify setting aside the various mandatory penalties.
The second key element of our proposals, which is set out in Clauses 2 and 3, is that the courts should be required to impose mandatory minimum prison sentences on offenders convicted of domestic burglary or trafficking in Class A drugs who have two or more previous convictions for similar offences. We propose minimum sentences of three years for persistent burglars and seven years for persistent Class A drug dealers.
Persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs are a menance to society, and they must know that if they continue offending they will go to prison for a long time. Burglary and drug dealing are crimes characterised by persistence. The police are playing their part by mounting operations targeted at known and persistent offenders. But too often burglars, in particular, escape custody or get a short sentence even after numerous previous convictions. A recent sample found that the average sentence imposed by the Crown Court on offenders convicted of domestic burglary for the first time was just over 16 months. After seven or more convictions, which often represents many more burglaries, the average sentence imposed by the Crown Court was only just over 19 months, and 28 per cent. of such offenders were not sent to prison at all. In the magistrates' court an extraordinary 61 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for burglary were not sent to prison at all. Average sentence lengths
do, of course, reflect a range of different sentences and within that sample of burglary some persistent burglars received much longer sentences than the average. But this was a minority. The unacceptable fact remains that there is little evidence of significantly longer sentences being imposed even after several convictions. And we should remember that each conviction may be for more than one offence.If the majority of convicted burglars can expect to escape custody, however many times they offend, or receive a relatively short sentence, it is little wonder that so many burglars offend again and again and again. Under our proposals, burglars and hard drug dealers will know that if they continue offending they will go to prison for a long time. Stiff minimum sentences will provide a real deterrent to persistent offenders and severe punishment for those who continue to offend regardless.
Courts will have the discretion to set aside the mandatory minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances as they may similarly set aside the automatic life sentence. In the case of mentally disordered offenders, it will continue to be open to the court to impose a hospital order instead of the mandatory minimum prison sentence if it considers it appropriate to do so. The Bill also contains provision for the court to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence by up to 20 per cent. to take account of timely guilty pleas. This is to provide an incentive for those who are guilty to plead guilty at an early stage, thus avoiding unnecessary and costly Crown Court trials.
It has been suggested that the proposals in the Bill for mandatory sentences will remove the discretion of judges. Well, to a limited extent they do. Given the scourge of persistent burglary and dealing in hard drugs, the misery that habitual offending of this kind inflicts and the way it impacts on the public, some of us would say "rightly so". But there is nothing unique in the suggestion that Parliament should, in certain circumstances, prescribe such penalties. Mandatory penalties are already a part of our criminal justice system. For example, the mandatory penalty for murder is life imprisonment. Disqualification from driving is obligatory for certain serious road traffic offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving or driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and the disqualification must be for at least 12 months. Only if there are special circumstances may the court set aside the mandatory requirement to disqualify.
The loss of discretion arising from the proposals in the Bill should not be exaggerated. The proposals are carefully targeted and narrowly focused. The mandatory minimum will only apply where strict qualifying conditions are met; and even then courts will retain the discretion either to impose a higher sentence than the mandatory minimum or, of course, set aside the mandatory sentence altogether in exceptional circumstances.
The proper role of Parliament is to provide a statutory framework for sentencing and to review and amend this from time to time in the light of experience and against the background of patterns of crime. That is what the
Bill does. It has the support of the elected Chamber, and I hope that this House will consider our proposals on their merits and not on the basis of misplaced concern about the proper relationship between Parliament and the judiciary.The third key element of our proposals is "honesty in sentencing" and the relevant provisions are set out in Part II, Chapter I of the Bill. We want the public, victims and offenders themselves to know that the sentence passed by the court is the term that the offender can expect to serve. That is not what happens at present. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, has said of the present arrangements:
- "I believe public confidence in the system is eroded when convicted criminals are seen to walk free from prison after serving rather less than half their sentences, however good their behaviour may have been in the interim. Indeed, the system has now reached a point where the sentencing exercise in court has the appearance of a charade, with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much less than the announced sentence will actually be served".
Let me say straight away that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which introduced the present arrangements, was an important step. I know that those arrangements continue to have their champions in this House. However, we believe that it is time for a more radical overhaul of early release arrangements and that our proposals offer real advantages over the present system. I should like to explain why.
Our proposals for "honesty in sentencing" are based on a number of key principles. First, we believe that the sentence served by the offender should match as closely as possible the sentence passed by the court, so that everyone knows exactly what the sentence means; secondly, any time off should be earned by the prisoner and not granted as of right; and thirdly, there should be a sufficient period of post-release supervision to help the offender settle back into the community and to provide proper protection for the public.
The present arrangements for parole and automatic early release will, therefore, be abolished. Prisoners will no longer be released after serving as little as half of their sentence. In future, the sentence imposed will be the sentence which is served, subject to a small discount which prisoners must earn through co-operation and good behaviour. In practice, prisoners servicing sentences of more than two months will be able to earn a discount of up to 16 per cent. of their sentence under the new earned early release arrangements set out in Clause 10. That will provide an incentive for good behaviour which is lacking under present arrangements. Prison governors will retain the power to award "additional days" as punishment for disciplinary offences and these would be set against any earned early release days.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page