| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.5 p.m.]
Crime (Sentences) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the convenience of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 27.
The amendment is straightforward. It is utterly meritorious and doubtless will secure immediate acquiescence from the Government. It deals with the question of exceptional circumstances and upon what basis a sentencing judge should proceed.
Each amendment relates to the introduction on a mandatory basis--if I may use the word "mandatory" without intruding into private grief this evening--of obtaining and considering a pre-sentence report. It is perfectly straightforward. I do not think that anyone present who sentenced an offender in difficult circumstances did not feel the need in most cases for a pre-sentence report. That is the principle underlying the amendments.
I say "in most cases" because that explains the presence of the caveat: that if the offender being legally represented, or his legal representative, agrees in writing that a pre-sentence report in some cases may simply not be necessary, that is a saver to the general rule. There are occasions when an offender wishes to know as soon possible what the sentence will be. The delay of some weeks to obtain a pre-sentence report is unnecessary provided that the defendant is legally represented and advised, and the consent is given in writing. We suggest
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I question the purpose of the amendment. It seems to be rather unnecessary. As I understand it, the Bill states that the court shall give a life sentence. It is then required to give the tariff order unless it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. The pre-sentence reports with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I deal relate to character and various other matters. I cannot see that such a report is likely to be necessary on the issue of whether or not there are exceptional circumstances.
The provision would probably mean that a report would be asked for in every case and the poor defendant would have to wait another week or two deciding what his fate would be. I should have thought, frankly, that the amendment was unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would require a court to obtain a pre-sentence report in every case falling to be sentenced under Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill unless the offender or his legal representative agreed that such a report was unnecessary. I believe that the intended purpose of this requirement is to help the court come to an opinion as to whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify not imposing the mandatory sentences provided for in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill.
However, like my noble friend Lord Carlisle, I see no reason at all why a court should not obtain a pre-sentence report when sentencing under Clauses 1, 2 or 3 of the Bill if it judged that it would be helpful to do so. And, there is nothing in the Bill, or in any other legislation, which would prevent the court from doing so. However, I am not persuaded that it is either necessary or desirable to require the courts to obtain a pre-sentence report in every case in order to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances.
Courts are not compelled to obtain a pre-sentence report in any other circumstances. Indeed, there is no requirement for a court to obtain a pre-sentence report to ascertain whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify suspending a prison sentence. I see no reason to take a different approach in respect of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. I find the suggestion odd that a court should be required to seek the agreement of the offender if it decides not to ask for a pre-sentence report.
Pre-sentence reports may provide information which is relevant to the question of whether there are exceptional circumstances which would justify setting aside the mandatory penalties. But that is not their purpose. The purpose of a pre-sentence report, as set out in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, is to help the courts to decide such matters as: the seriousness of the offence; the risk posed by the offender and the need to protect the public from further offending; and, in respect of certain community penalties, the suitability of the offender for such a penalty. The information is intended to help the
In practice, it is very likely that any exceptional circumstances will anyway become apparent during the course of the trial or hearing. Obtaining a pre-sentence report may, therefore, be of little value to the court or the offender. A requirement on the court to obtain a report in every case may simply cause unnecessary delay in sentencing which would benefit no one, least of all the defendant.
If the court considers that a pre-sentence report is necessary it can obtain a report. If it does not, the court should not, in my view, be compelled against its judgment to obtain one. The court is best placed to make the judgment as to what information it needs and should not have to seek the consent of the offender to the court's decision. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Hooson: Before the Minister sits down, I see all the criticisms that can be made in regard to Amendment No. 19. However, it seems to me that Clause 2 illustrates the total dilemma that could confront a judge in the future.
For example, a youth of 18 who sells an Ecstasy tablet at a street corner commits an offence of Class A drug trafficking. Let us suppose that he has two previous offences, one at the age of 16 and one at age 17, but the police say of him that he is not normally a drug trafficker and that those were casual offences--this is the kind of street corner offence that is often committed in Manchester or parts of London by the casual offender.
As I read this clause, if he is caught in the act, the fact that he is from a deprived area and has a difficult background would not qualify, were it to be in a report, as an exceptional circumstance, because such experience would be common to hundreds of thousands of other offenders. Therefore the learned judge would have no option other than to send him for seven years' custody to one of those universities of crime which the Home Secretary seems so keen to endow these days. I merely seek the Minister's help in this regard.
Let us contrast such a case with that of the drug dealer who is eventually discovered, with years of crime behind him, and is convicted, possibly at the same court, on six counts and an indictment and they are merely specimen charges covering a period of years. No mandatory sentence can be conferred on him because he has no previous conviction. In the latter case the judge can do his duty--and, thank goodness, I have great faith that British judges would impose the right kind of sentence on him--but what puzzles the judiciary is how the right and just sentence can be imposed on the youth I first described.
The amendment is an attempt to remedy that situation. I do not believe it is a successful attempt. However, does the Minister agree that the circumstances
Baroness Blatch: I am not a lawyer; that must have been pretty obvious as I have operated from the Dispatch Box. However, my understanding is that the defendant and/or the defendant's legal representative would make jolly sure to place before the court all possible pieces of information that could be put before it both to acquit the client and to mitigate any consideration of the kind of sentence that he might receive.
If the client is before the court for a second qualifying offence under Clause 1 or a third qualifying offence under Clauses 2 and 3, a number of things would happen. Either the defendant himself would make known to the court those circumstances which he hoped would be taken into account in coming to a view as to whether "exceptional circumstances" should apply--although we are talking slightly in a vacuum following the amendment passed earlier--or the legal representative would submit to the court information that he or she believed was pertinent and should be taken into account by the trial judge in coming to that view. Alternatively, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the judge, if he believes it helpful to have yet another dimension of the defendant's character added to the body of information that he has as a result of hearing the case, simply calling for a pre-sentence report. In cases where enough information has emerged during the course of the trial, why should such a requirement be placed upon the judge when he believes additional information to be otiose?
That is the only difference between us. As the Minister responsible for the Probation Service, I know how helpful pre-sentence reports can be to the court. But, if a judge decides that he does not need such a report, I do not see why he should be required to call for one.
Page 1, line 18, at end insert--
("( ) The court shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the offender or his legal representative, obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion as to the existence or otherwise of exceptional circumstances.").
8.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page