| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I hope I shall be excused for returning to this matter since it is in my judgment of the greatest practical importance. The practice of reducing sentence where a defendant has pleaded guilty is very long established. It reflects a belief that it is in the public interest to encourage pleas of guilty. The reasons are obvious and several of them have been mentioned. It marks an acceptance of responsibility by the defendant; it spares the victim the ordeal of giving
evidence; it encourages--and this is vital--the supply of valuable intelligence to the authorities; it eliminates the risk of unjust acquittals; it contributes to the efficient and cost-effective conduct of criminal business. Since the practice is endorsed by Section 48 of the 1994 Act, one may take it that Parliament shares the view that this is a beneficial practice.The extent to which a sentence is reduced to take account of a plea of guilty, like almost everything else in properly conducted sentencing, depends on the facts of the individual case. If the plea comes late then the discount may be small. I encountered a case last week where a defendant pleaded guilty after 12½ weeks of trial. The judge said that she would give some discount, but not a very great one. The Committee may think that that was sensible.
However, if a plea of guilty is early and if it is accompanied by the supply of valuable information to the authorities which enables other criminals to be apprehended and other criminal activities to be stopped, then the discount may be very substantial. There is no rule of thumb. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said, that in the ordinary case a plea of guilty entered early generally leads, in the common understanding, to a discount of approximately one-third. That is a rule which has evolved in practice because it has been judged to be the sort of discount which is necessary to encourage pleas of guilty while ensuring that offenders are realistically punished for their offences. Schedule 4(17) departs from the general understanding. It stipulates that the maximum discount shall be 20 per cent. for the mandatory sentences required under Clauses 2 and 3.
One is entitled to ask why that figure has been chosen. Is it based on research? If so, who has conducted the research and is it too late to see the results? Is it based on consultation? If so, who has been consulted and what answers were given? Is it based on experience? If so, on whose experience? Is the truth that it is a figure that has simply been plucked out of the air and deliberately pitched very low to prevent the courts reducing the mandatory sentences by the ordinary percentage? If so, I invite the Minister to ponder the consequences. Clause 2 provides that the minimum sentence for a timely plea, even if accompanied by valuable intelligence, is 20 per cent., so that the smallest sentence will, on my calculation, be 67 months; under Clause 3 it will be 28 months. Judges do not award terms of imprisonment in fifths of months, so in fact the discount will be less than the 20 per cent. as the courts will be obliged to round upwards since they cannot round downwards.
I repeat that the discount will be less than 20 per cent. I venture to suggest that no knowledgeable observer would regard a discount of 20 per cent. or less as sufficient to encourage a plea of guilty and a supply of information, which is a routine event with offences such as drugs and burglary. I look to the Minister for reassurance that that
point has been considered and a satisfactory answer found, and I invite the noble Baroness to tell us what that answer is.
Lord Ackner: I should like to add two points. First, the application of the, so to speak, two-thirds rule--it sounds like the old days at the Bar--is one which is the product of this Bill. The judge has to reduce the sentence he would have given by two-thirds, so the two-thirds is something which is simply and easily applied. Secondly, we should proceed, should we not, on the basis of the amendment to Clauses 2 and 3--the amendment which produced the coach and horses; the amendment which restored the judge's discretion; the amendment which, according to the noble Baroness, brought us back to where we started. On that basis, there cannot be the slightest justification for applying other than what is normally applied because we are back to that normality.
Baroness Blatch: I fear that we shall have to agree to differ on this point. All noble Lords who have spoken have done so from the basic belief that they do not like minimum mandatory sentences. I accept that. That has been their consistent viewpoint.
The two amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, raise the important issue of discounts to the mandatory penalties set out in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.
The Bill as it stands provides that a court may take a timely guilty plea into account so long as the sentence passed is not more than 20 per cent. below the mandatory minimum. As my noble friend has explained, the effect of these amendments would be to increase the proportion by which a court would be able to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum in order to take account of a guilty plea.
It is accepted on all sides, I know, that there needs to be an incentive for defendants who are guilty to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, to save witnesses from having to give evidence unnecessarily and to avoid wasting the court's time. This is why the Bill as it stands makes statutory provision for a discount below the mandatory minimum.
Section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that the courts may reduce sentences to take account of guilty pleas but does not specify the proportion. The Court of Appeal's guidelines indicate a range of 20 per cent. to one third. No doubt that is why my noble friend Lord Carlisle proposes a maximum discount of one third in relation to mandatory minimum sentences. But we must also bear in mind the need for mandatory minimum sentences to be set, even in cases where the defendant pleads guilty, at such a level as to provide a real deterrent for persistent offenders. It will be open to the courts to allow more than a 20 per cent. discount in cases where, other than for a guilty plea, they would have sentenced above the mandatory minimum.
Both burglary and drug dealing are crimes characterised by persistence. The aim of mandatory minimum sentences, which I accept that noble Lords who have spoken do not agree with, is to ensure that burglars and drug dealers know that they face a stiffer sentence if they persist in offending. If the mandatory minimum is substantially reduced I believe that we run the risk of undermining the very purpose and rationale of Clauses 2 and 3. If one takes into account remission, if earned, and the reduction, one is talking of a prisoner serving a minimum sentence of much less than two years for what would be a three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
The Bill provides that the discount given for a guilty plea may not reduce the sentence imposed under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill by more than 20 per cent. below the mandatory minimum, or seven years under Clause 2 and three years under Clause 3. But it does not provide that the discount can only be 20 per cent. If the court is minded to impose a higher sentence the discount can be at a much higher level.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps the noble Baroness can assist me on one matter. Does that mean that in a drug case if the judge imposes seven and a half years he can apply the one third and if he imposes three and a half years in relation to burglary repetition he can apply one third? If one goes above the mandatory sentence one can bring it down by reason of applying the classic one third reduction, thereby circumventing what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Blatch: No. The point at issue between us is that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with mandatory sentences. We simply say that there should be a sentence below which the courts should not award a discount. If the offence is concerned with burglary or drugs and someone has been convicted a third time in court, the sentence should be three years or seven years. The discount for an early guilty plea should be no more than 20 per cent. In the particular case mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, if someone is given a seven and a half-year sentence one assumes that the offence is more serious than if someone receives a seven-year sentence. If the judge were so minded he would be allowed to give a discount up to no more than 20 per cent. below the minimum mandatory sentence in the context of both the three-year and the seven-year sentence.
Lord Ackner: With great respect, I understood the noble Baroness to say that if a sentence above the minimum were imposed the judge would be entitled to apply the ordinary one third reduction. I sought to point out that on that basis a small increase above the minimum sentence would produce a lesser sentence than to impose the minimum sentence which would then be cut down to the 20 per cent.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord suggests that in such a case the judge might want to apply the third. I simply say that as long
as the judge does not go below 20 per cent. of the mandatory minimum it must be for the court to decide what to apply. The general rule is to apply the third. We simply say that, consistent with the view that there should be a mandatory sentence, there should be a cut-off point below which no court should go for an early guilty plea. That would be 20 per cent. below the minimum both for drugs (a seven-year sentence) and burglary (a three-year sentence). We have taken the view that a balance must be struck. On the one hand, there must be sufficient incentive to encourage those who are guilty to plead guilty. On the other hand, the mandatory penalty must be such as to provide a real deterrent and salutary punishment of persistent offenders.
Our judgment is that a 20 per cent. discount, which represents the lower end of the normal range for guilty pleas--I did say that the guidance to the courts was between 20 per cent. and one third--strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page