| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Before the Minister sits down, could she address specifically the question of supplying information to the authorities, because that leads in practice to more than one third, as everyone will recognise. It is a valuable source of information which leads directly to the protection of the public. How is that taken care of with the 20 per cent?
Baroness Blatch: I entirely take the noble and learned Lord's point. First, if we are talking about a three-year or a seven-year sentence, we are talking about the bottom of the range, but persistent offenders who have offended for at least a third time. The kind of case about which the noble and learned Lord is talking is invariably the more serious one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about sentences at the bottom of the range. The noble and learned Lord must be if we are talking about a sentence that attracts the minimum sentence for a persistent offender--a third time at least for drugs dealing and burglary. But where someone exposes a ring of people working, gives information to the court, pleads guilty, and is very helpful to the courts, it is normal for the courts to be very generous. What I am saying is that if a higher sentence is given, then a larger discount can be considered so long as the discount does not come below the 20 per cent. cut-off point below the mandatory minimum sentence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: What about the very case with which we are concerned--someone qualifying for a three-year or a seven-year sentence? I have encountered the very case this week--someone who gave valuable assistance to the authorities about other burglaries which led to a number of arrests. I do not think that anyone would expect that a 20 per cent. discount would encourage that degree of co-operation.
Baroness Blatch: In responding to the noble and learned Lord, I have to return to the fundamental point
that I am making, which I agree is a difference between us. It is that we believe that someone who comes before the courts for the same offence persistently for drug dealing and/or for burglary who attracts the minimum sentence should also attract the minimum discount down to no greater than 20 per cent. below.I said that doing the calculation if you have someone who receives a three-year sentence and earns the good behaviour discount plus the 20 per cent. discount for having helped the courts, you are talking about someone serving a mandatory sentence of much less than two years. That is not right. We believe that there has to be a cut off if we go down the road of accepting the principle of mandatory sentences, but I respect that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister does not understand the point that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was making a moment ago.
Lord Chesham: That is arrogance.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The point I want to make is that in a drugs case--of course we are dealing with drugs cases--the people who tend to get arrested are the minnows. It is the minnows who give the valuable assistance to the investigating authorities in order to have the larger people arrested.
The value of the information that they give is worth infinitely more than a 20 per cent. discount on a mandatory sentence of seven years. It may well be worth at least two thirds off the sentence for a minnow, a runner, a person who distributes drugs at the end of the chain, who gives detailed descriptions, and details of organisations at a much higher level. That is a frequent occurrence. That is the kind of thing that happens in the experience of the courts all the time.
Again, when it comes to persistent burglaries, it is that sort of instance where there is a well-organised gang and a person at a low level is caught. That is the person who breaks, who gives the information. That is the person on whose behalf one goes round to talk to the judge--of course with both sides being represented--to tell him the value of the information that has been received.
The problem with mandatory sentences is, first, they give no incentive to the smaller people in drugs, burglaries and organised crime of that kind to provide such information. The second point is that it is not always easy to persuade people to plead guilty. They appear fearful of the future and believe that there is a chance--indeed, there may be--either that the evidence will not come up to proof or that something will go wrong in the course of the trial. They believe that there may be a misdirection or that something will happen which will result in their acquittal; perhaps not a very meritorious acquittal, but certainly there is always the chance of an acquittal, a perverse verdict.
In order to persuade a defendant to plead guilty one has to provide him with an incentive, never more so than with persistent offenders. From the very fact that they are persistent offenders one can derive that they will have been through the court system on other occasions, will have received sentences of imprisonment, will have had connections with the police and will be experienced. One has the greatest difficulty to persuade persistent offenders in their own interest--and it is in their own interest--to plead guilty.
The third point is that, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, by pleading guilty they are beginning to show remorse. They are possibly set upon a track which will prevent re-offending in the future. All those three practical reasons are based upon experience. The defendant has a free will and he cannot be ordered to do anything; not by the judge, his own counsel or the prosecution. He has to take the decision to plead guilty; he is the person who says the word "guilty". To that person you have to give a real incentive, and 20 per cent. is nowhere like it.
Earl Russell: The Minister has sought to evade the force of the argument for this amendment by alleging that all the arguments have come from those opposed to mandatory sentences. I am not certain whether that is the case, but if the Bill in any form becomes law all of us will have to live with it and attempt to operate it. Whichever way we go, it seems that some of us will have to live with a law which is not what we think it should be. Therefore, I do not believe that we can answer practical points about trying to make the law work by saying that they come from an alternative approach.
Let us take another issue on which there is rather more agreement. We have heard today a Statement about reducing delays in justice. Whether or not we agree with the methods suggested, we all agree with the objective. I ask the noble Baroness to consider the possibility that accepting this amendment might do more to reduce delays in justice than all 33 of the proposals in that Statement put together.
On the subject of that Statement, when my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford referred to the drug runner I was reminded of the proposal to deprive the CPS of discretion to discontinue prosecutions because the offence is minor. When we want evidence from a drug runner the two likely inducements that we have are refraining from prosecuting or a discount for a guilty plea. Today's Statement will take away one of those and this Bill will take away the other. Therefore, how will we obtain the evidence? Is this Bill really intended to protect the public? If so, it is very unsuccessful in its objective.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I found the last part of this debate quite depressing. This Bill is before Parliament because the public are particularly anxious about the daily scourge of drug dealing and domestic burglary. The Government address that anxiety in the Bill by
proposing that there should be a sentence of no less than three years for those who commit burglary persistently and seven years for those who deal persistently in drugs.We have also given incentives for good behaviour in terms of early release, and we have said that there should be some recognition of a guilty plea by reducing the sentence by 20 per cent. and no more than 20 per cent. of sentence.
I should say to the noble Earl that the only people who have spoken to the amendment are those who are implacably opposed to the Government's proposals for mandatory sentences. Does the noble Earl wish to indicate something different?
Earl Russell: I am not certain whether that applies to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Baroness Blatch: It certainly applies to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who went into the Division Lobby on Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to vote against the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think it is proper to speculate on my motives or opinions.
Baroness Blatch: I was merely stating a fact that the noble Lord voted against the Government's proposals in the Bill.
The efforts which have been made by those opposed implacably to the Government's proposals to reduce by one means or another the amount of time that people have to spend in prison when they have persistently offended against the community seems to me to be extraordinary, and I find it quite depressing. However, I respect people's views. I said at the outset that I respect those who take the view that mandatory sentences are not the answer. We take the view that they are. If we are to have mandatory sentences and they are to mean anything, the reduction for a guilty plea should not be more than 20 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to informants. If an informant deserves a reduction of two-thirds of the sentence for valuable information, the route of awarding a discount under Section 48 will not be open to the court. In practice, that enables discounts of up to one-third for guilty pleas, not for providing useful information to the authorities.
The noble Lord said also that 20 per cent. was not worth having. I am not so sure. I did some arithmetic. I believe that to have almost 18 months--one year, five months--deducted from a seven-year sentence is not bad for someone who has been in and out of the courts at least three times for drug dealing. That is not to be dismissed lightly. All Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendments have referred to the bottom of the range of sentences--the three-year range and the seven-year range. Many people in the courts who are guilty of persistent burgling and drug dealing will receive much greater sentences. There is then scope for the courts to be more liberal in the time that they deduct for being helpful to the courts. That is very much a matter for the courts.
I end where I started. I accept that we must agree to differ. We have taken the view that mandatory sentences are an important response to public anxiety. I stand by that. We believe that not to give more than a 20 per cent. discount for a guilty plea is consistent with receiving a tough sentence on the third time of being convicted.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page