---

Baroness Blatch: There is nothing in Clause 3 that prevents the courts from dealing very severely with people who indulge in sophisticated and organised crime. Indeed, we have done a great deal about sophisticated and organised crime and have constantly tried to strengthen the measures in that regard. We have also done a great deal in relation to giving the power to courts to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of crime.

However, the courts are not using maximum sentences for burglary when it is at their disposal. One of the reasons this Bill is before the Committee is to at least impose a floor on the sentences that are passed; that no sentence shall be less than three years. We hope that more use will be made of the maximum sentences where the crimes are as serious as the noble Lord describes.

Clause 3 as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 31:

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause--

Guidance on sentencing
(".--(1) Without prejudice to any other power in that regard, the Court of Appeal shall consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time issue guidance in respect thereof, including guidance on progression in sentencing.
(2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued under subsection (1) above.").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to deal with a greater use by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division of its guideline powers. Sentencing of offenders ought to be consistent, reasoned, open and predictable.

The former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, set down guidelines for serious offences like rape, incest, drug trafficking and social security fraud; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, following, issued guideline judgments on

13 Feb 1997 : Column 444

aggravated vehicle taking, causing death by careless driving and so forth. But there are large areas of sentencing, mainly relating to the lower levels of Crown Court work--which are very important, as the Minister said (and I agree); burglary, theft, deception and handling--and in particular the vast bulk of criminal work (95 per cent. plus) done in the magistrates' courts, where no guidelines exist.

The purpose of the amendment is to introduce into the Bill a specific encouragement in statutory form that,

"the Court of Appeal shall consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time issue guidance in respect thereof",

with the consequence, in subsection (2), that,

"a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance".

I shall be grateful for the Minister's views on this. It is our testing amendment to see whether or not the Government's view is that the Court of Appeal should intervene over a greater area in terms of guidance. I beg to move.

Lord Hacking: I want briefly to support this amendment. It seems to me that this is the right way forward. The problems have arisen during certain periods over the past 20 years where courts have not had sufficient guidance on sentencing. There have been occasions when sentences have been very topsy-turvy: sometimes sentences have been far too harsh and on other occasions it has been the other way round. It seems to me that for the Court of Appeal to play an active part in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a healthy, practical and sensible way forward.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wish to support the amendment and would add only this. The Minister must believe in the Bill from the passion and the work that she has put into it. I commend her for it.

Baroness Blatch: I do, I do. I agree that inconsistent sentencing can undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is, of course, important that criminals should receive punishment which is appropriate for the crime and which as far as possible achieves consistency. That is exactly what the Crime (Sentences) Bill is about. In relation to certain carefully targeted categories of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders we believe that the public needs greater protection. That is why we propose the introduction of mandatory sentences. However, that does not mean that a case has been made for restrictive sentencing guidelines across the board.

Of course there is a role for guidance to be available to the courts. The lower courts are already assisted in sentencing by guidance given by the Court of Appeal through its judgments on the appropriate penalty range for particular offences. This is a practice which has been considerably developed in recent years. Court of Appeal guidelines have been particularly useful in some areas in ensuring the courts take a more consistent view of particular offences and reflect levels of public concern in their sentencing practice.

To take an example, the Court of Appeal's 1986 guideline judgment in the case of Billam suggests starting points for sentences for rape. The judgment states that for

13 Feb 1997 : Column 445

a rape with no aggravating or mitigating factors, the starting point should be five years' imprisonment. That is for a contested case; it would be a little less where the offender pleads guilty and the victim is spared the trauma of appearing in court to give evidence. These guidelines have had the effect of very significantly increasing sentence lengths for rape, the average sentence length being 76 months in 1995. Another example is the R v. Aramah which indicates the appropriate penalties, whether imprisonment or fine, for offences involving the importation, supply and possession of Class B drugs according to the scale of distribution and quantity of drugs involved. For example, it suggests that 10 years' imprisonment is appropriate for massive supplies of cannabis for those playing anything more than a subordinate role and that a fine is appropriate for possession of small amounts. It is important to remember, however, that Court of Appeal judgments can only be guidance: in each case the court must weigh up all the circumstances and decide.

Currently, any Court of Appeal judgment in an appeal against sentence, whether it allows or dismisses an appeal, gives a clear indication of its opinion on the sentence passed in the lower court. The judgment will explain the reasoning behind the court's decision. Court of Appeal judgments are held as authorities for cases in which the circumstances are similar. The cases I have quoted clearly show that they can be used as guidance as to appropriate sentence lengths for different categories of offences and different levels of seriousness. Furthermore, the Judicial Studies Board plays a valuable and continuing role in disseminating Court of Appeal guidance to the courts and in training the judiciary.

The current system works well in targeting the areas where inappropriate or inconsistent sentencing in the lower courts has highlighted the need for some central guidance. At the lower end of the scale, the Magistrates' Association issues guidelines on sentencing to its members which for specific offences give appropriate sentences for cases of average seriousness and indicate aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

I believe that the roles that the Court of Appeal and Magistrates' Association already play in providing guidance are important and effective in areas of sentencing which cause most difficulty. The clause would require the Court of Appeal to consider sentencing practice generally, even in areas where scrutiny is not required. It would greatly, and unnecessarily, increase the burden on the court. The new clause seeks to give the Court of Appeal a statutory role in sentencing policy. However, sentencing policy is a matter for the Government and Parliament.

We are satisfied that the present system is sufficiently effective in ensuring consistent and appropriate sentencing. Where there have been grounds for concern in particular areas, we have not hesitated to act; for

13 Feb 1997 : Column 446

example, the proposals for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences in this Bill. The clause would unnecessarily introduce statutory duties without adding to the present arrangements.

I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment for two reasons. First, there are too few noble Lords present to go through the Lobbies. Secondly, it would be helpful to have the views of some of the noble and learned Lords who have taken part in our debates on the extended role that is being suggested in the amendment.

I end with one final point. In determining sentencing policy--that is government and Parliament at the end of the day or, as my noble friend would say, "in the final analysis"--the important thing is that they can look across to the Appeal Court for anything which might influence that policy.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Minister has asked me not to press matters to a vote and, of course, whenever she asks me not to do something I readily agree. I entirely agree with the Minister's comments about the Judicial Studies Board. It has done tremendous work under Lord Justice Henry and now under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Judge. There are one or two of us here who for some years have been saying that it should be better funded; that the training of judges should be much more consistent and coherent.

But that is not the point that I am making. I did the Minister the courtesy of listening with great care to what she said. She said that sentencing policy was not a matter for the Court of Appeal. But earlier she said, commending the Court of Appeal, that it had rightly set down policy guidelines in respect of rape and drug trafficking on a serious basis. I detect possibly, even at this time of the night, a modest internal inconsistency. If, as the Minister says, guidelines have worked well in rape, incest, drug trafficking and the other cases which I mentioned earlier, why should they not be of reasonable practical utility in the great span of offences not presently covered by guidelines such as burglary, theft, deception and handling? I yield to no one in my respect for the Magistrates' Association, but I simply suggest that the weight of the Court of Appeal might usefully be directed to these areas. Since the Minister asked me so nicely, I shall not put this amendment to the vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

---