| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister said that she found the debate depressing. I hope that she will accept that, with regret, I am bound to say that I found her answer very depressing. What saddened me particularly was that in some ways it was predictable. She said what I expected would be said.
I find it very worrying that the Home Office is apparently so committed to the rightness of its views that it is not prepared to listen to the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, his predecessors and others, or even to attempt to answer their arguments. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Colville is as surprised by that approach as I am. I do not believe that it is traditional for the Tory Party in government in any way to ignore the advice of those experienced in the field or, indeed, not to attempt to work with them.
My noble friend the Minister was specifically asked upon what 80 per cent. was based, but she offers no answer. She was asked who was consulted and whether the Lord Chief Justice, the judiciary or, indeed, anyone was consulted. Clearly the answer is, no. I have made my position clear. I do not like the idea of mandatory sentences. But, if we are going down that road, certain things are necessary. One upon which we succeeded was the proper exclusion clause and the second, I believe, is a proper provision for those who plead guilty.
Whether or not one is opposed to the principle of mandatory sentences does not, to my mind, affect where one stands on the issue of the amount to discount for pleas of guilty. However, clearly it would be irresponsible for me at this late hour to attempt to test the opinion of the Committee, but I hope to have the opportunity to return to the issue--perhaps by some other means--at an earlier hour during a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 116:
The noble and learned Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to preserve the effect of Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which deals with computation of sentences of imprisonment with particular regard to the extent and manner in which the imprisonment can be reduced by any period spent in custody prior to the sentence.
The amendment seeks to put Section 67 into paragraph l of Schedule 5, along with the other sections outlined there which are being preserved until this legislation is brought into force. If Members of the
If one turns to the repeals which are set out at the end of the Bill on page 69, it will be seen that almost the first entry refers to the fact that Section 67 is to be repealed. This is designed to safeguard the entitlement to apply Section 67 in the calculation of the sentence until Section 8 comes into existence. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, the intention behind the amendment is to preserve the effect of Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the existing provision for the crediting of remand time, which is to be repealed by the Bill, for all offences committed before the commencement of Chapter I, Part II of the Bill. I understand that the concern of the noble and learned is that since Clause 8 of the Bill (the new provision which deals with the crediting of remand time) is to apply only to those sentenced for offences committed after commencement of that clause, there will be no provision for the crediting--or such time relating--to those who committed their offences before commencement but are sentenced afterwards.
I have written to the noble and learned Lord on the point. I can assure him that we have taken account of the need for transitional arrangements and that the Bill, as it stands, allows adequate provision to be made in that respect. The concern of the noble and learned Lord will be dealt with by repealing Section 67 of the 1967 Act when Clause 8 is introduced by commencement order, subject to a transitional saving which will preserve the effect of Section 67 for those who have committed offences before the commencement date. I know that the noble and learned Lord has already discussed these points in some detail with my officials. I hope that on further consideration he will not press his amendment.
The majority of the transitional provisions in this schedule reflect the fact that Chapter I of Part II of the Bill will be introduced subsequent to other provisions in the Bill. If Chapter I were introduced at the same time as we intend to commence those other provisions, this would have serious resource implications over ensuring sufficient prison places and adequate judicial training. The schedule also contains provisions on transfers which, while apparently complex, clarify a currently unsatisfactory area of the law.
I think we have met the particular concern of the noble and learned Lord, but of course he will not be reticent in telling me if I have not.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think the explanation is a convoluted one which may well be right. I want an opportunity to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ackner: I wish to contest this Question. I appreciate that it is late in the evening, gone 11 o'clock, but this is really a bonne-bouche to end the evening with. I hope the Committee will find a certain wry entertainment in what I propose to say because it has been part of the main philosophy of the Home Secretary and the Government to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process so that all those involved, offenders, judges and the public, will know exactly where they stand.
I now turn to Schedule 5, which is concerned with transitional provisions and savings. I am grateful to Dr. Thomas, QC of Cambridge for providing the detail which I suspected but which I did not analyse with the thought that he has given to it.
The provisions of the Bill will apply only to offences committed after the commencement of the relevant sections. That is already common ground. There will be a transitional period and this may last--as I understand from what has been said in the past--for a decade or more during which both systems will be in force simultaneously. An offender sentenced after the commencement of the Bill for an offence committed before that commencement will be sentenced under the existing law. He will get the full sentence, not the reduced two-thirds of the sentence which Clause 22 requires, and he will serve it in accordance with Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as he does at the moment.
The relevant provisions are repealed by Schedule 6 to the Bill, but resurrected for the purpose of the transitional period. Schedule 5 also contains detailed provisions dealing with the case of offenders convicted of a number of offences, some committed before and some after the relevant commencement date. Where an offender is sentenced to consecutive terms for offences committed either side of the commencement date, the time to be served under each sentence is to be determined separately for each sentence under whichever of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Crime (Sentences) Bill applies. An offender convicted of two offences, one committed each side of the commencement date, and who today would receive two years for each offence, will in future be sentenced for two years for the "old" offence and 16 months for the new offence--that is the two-thirds reduction. The offender will serve 12 months of the first sentence, and then begin to qualify for "early release days" in respect of the second. His position after release will be governed by whichever of the Acts applies to the final sentence.
If the sentencer orders the "old" sentence to be served first, the offender will be subject to a release supervision order for 25 per cent. of the "new" sentence--that is four months--with no liability to return to prison in the event of a conviction for an offence committed after that date. If for whatever reason the sentencer orders the sentences to be served in the reverse order, the offender will serve the 16 months required by the "new" sentence, less any early release days awarded. He will be able to earn a maximum, I believe, of something like 96 days; and he will then begin to serve the "old"
If the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, (just to add to the jolly picture) the time to be served under each sentence will be calculated separately according to the relevant legislation. The offender's position after release will depend on which sentence is the "final sentence": that is, the sentence which will have the latest release date, allowing for any time which is deducted on account of time spent in custody on remand, but not for any "early release" days which the offender would be able to earn under the Bill.
An offender who today would be sentenced to three years on each count concurrently will, under the Bill, be sentenced to three years for the "old" offence, and two years for the "new" (post-commencement) offence. For the purpose of determining which is the "final" sentence, the three years will be treated as having a release date 18 months after the sentence, and a "new" sentence, which is treated as having a release date two years after the sentence, will be the "final" sentence. The offender will be subject to a release supervision order for six months after release and no liability to return under Section 40.
I repeat the philosophy of the Bill,
Dr. Thomas ends this helpful account by saying this:
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord began by saying that this was a bonne-bouche. My noble and learned friend at my right hand wishes that he were ending the night with a whisky rather than a bonne-bouche from the noble and learned Lord.
Dr. Thomas has worked overtime on that submission. I rather anticipated the noble and learned Lord when I referred a moment ago to the amendment to Schedule 5 sweeping up what I knew to be his concern about the complexity of Schedule 5. I referred to the general point: we accept that it is complex. Moving from one system to another will always throw up complexities. But our underlying concern has always been to recognise the rights of those who committed offences and will be subject to the provisions that pertain at the moment and those whose offences will post-date the provisions of the Bill and will therefore be subject to the new provisions. The reason the schedule is so complex is precisely that the provisions preserve the rights of the offender which accrue on the date when the offence was committed. The detail of the schedule aims to cover every conceivable permutation of sentences in order to do justice to the individual.
A "broad brush" approach in Schedule 5 would result in unfairness to offenders and would create anomalies which would create unjustice towards offenders. That is not our aim. Therefore, while accepting the complexity of the schedule and congratulating Dr. Thomas on his submission, I hope that Schedule 5 will stand part of the Bill.
Page 63, line 25, after ("65") insert ("and 67").
"a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term in respect of an offence committed after the commencement of this section".
"to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process",
"all those involved--offenders, judges and the public--will know exactly where they stand".
"All that can be hoped is that in the cold light of day after the heat of an election campaign has dissipated, no Home Secretary, of whatever party, will be tempted to bring such nonsense into force".
11.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page