| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I wish to say two things. First, I must protect my officials who have worked enormously hard on this Bill. I was drawing from my mind when I made the comments that I did to the noble and learned Lord. Therefore I am entirely culpable as regards the remarks I made. Even as amended, the amendments--as set out in what were Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and are now Clauses 2, 3 and 4--contain a presumption that the mandatory minimum sentences will be applied. What has changed, of course, is the test which the court must apply in order to set aside the mandatory penalties.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, all that I appreciate. The point I am seeking to make--apparently not successfully--is that the noble Baroness has not appreciated what have been the consequences of accepting that the amendment is there to stay. The result is that the amendment gives back to the judge the totality of his discretion. It will be an anomaly quite incapable of being justified to give him back his discretion as to the sentence that he can impose but say, "Ah, but your discretion with regard to discount remains limited". That is not giving him back his discretion; that is removing a tiny little corner of it. It has no justification because the basis of the contention of the noble Baroness throughout--which is quite understandable, if I may say so--was that the minimum sentences would operate in virtually every case and one would remove the deterrent of the minimum sentence so operating if one gave a discount as substantial as 30 per cent. It would be totally wrong in my respectful
submission to proceed as if this amendment had not been passed. Accordingly, I shall be obliged to test the view of the House.9.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 89.
Ackner, L.
Addington, L.
Calverley, L.
Carlisle, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.
Fitt, L.
Hacking, L.
Hampton, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hylton, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Kintore, E. [Teller.]
Longford, E.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNair, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Monson, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Russell, E.
Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thurso, V.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Addison, V.
Annaly, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Banbury of Southam, L.
Belstead, L.
Bethell, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Brentford, V.
Bridgeman, V.
Brookeborough, V.
Bruntisfield, L.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.
Courtown, E.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Crathorne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denbigh, E.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donegall, M.
Downshire, M.
Ferrers, E.
Gisborough, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray of Contin, L.
Haig, E.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Henley, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
Keyes, L.
Kimball, L.
Kitchener, E.
Lindsay, E.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Marlesford, L.
Merrivale, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monk Bretton, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Quinton, L.
Rennell, L.
Renwick, L.
Ridley, V.
Romney, E.
Rowallan, L.
Sandford, L.
Seccombe, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strange, B.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Whitelaw, V.
Wynford, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Crediting of periods of remand in custody]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I should explain to the House what has happened. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not moving his amendments. I shall be moving those which we now call the Belstead amendments, and they will come in their sequential order, which will be from Amendment No. 18. I hope that is helpful to the House.
Reverting to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, these three amendments to Clause 9 relate to the crediting of periods of remand in custody, and the effect of these amendments is to clarify, in certain circumstances, whether or not time spent on remand in custody should be credited towards sentence.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 is to make it clear that, where an offender spends time on remand in custody for a particular offence, and the nature of the charges changes during the course of the proceedings, that remand time should be able to count towards any custodial sentence he receives in respect of the charge of which he is eventually convicted, as long as that charge is founded on the same facts or evidence as the original offence for which he was remanded in custody. An example may be helpful to illustrate this point. A person is found in possession of stolen goods, arrested for theft, charged with that offence and remanded in custody. It subsequently becomes clear that he could not, in fact, have been the thief and the charge of theft is dropped and replaced with a charge of handling stolen goods. He is later convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of the charge of handling stolen goods. The latter charge is based on the same facts as the offence of theft, for which the offender was initially remanded in custody. The same result should occur in respect of a person remanded and tried for murder but convicted of manslaughter. It should be possible therefore to credit all that remand time towards the sentence in respect of the substituted offence, subject of course to the discretion of the court under the terms of the clause. These amendments make this clear on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 6 enables provision to be made not to count remand time in circumstances in which an offender is on remand in custody and some or all of that remand period is concurrent with a sentence of
The amendment extends the rule-making power in subsection (4) to allow for rules to be made to provide that any period of time spent on remand in custody which is wholly or partly concurrent with a sentence of imprisonment served by the offender shall not be credited towards any sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence for which he spent that period on remand.
The amendments serve to clarify the position in respect of the crediting of remand time in these two sets of circumstances to ensure that existing arrangements are preserved and to remove the possibility of any inconsistency in the application of the new provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Early release on compassionate grounds]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 39, 42 to 44, 48 to 55, 112, 115 to 117, 121 to 124, 127 and 128.
These are the amendments which have become known as the Belstead amendments in honour of my noble friend Lord Belstead, who raised the subject at Committee stage on which I agreed to reflect. It is a large group of amendments. They relate to the new arrangements for early release set out in the Bill. With the agreement of the House, I simply speak to my own amendment and leave my noble friend to determine whether he will press his.
We have had a useful and constructive debate in Committee about the new arrangements for early release. It was argued by a number of noble Lords, but in particular by my noble friend Lord Belstead, that the abolition of parole, and therefore risk assessments by the Parole Board, meant that an important element of protection for the public against potentially dangerous offenders would be lost. I undertook to reflect on this point, which is entirely legitimate, and to consider
Since then I have had useful meetings with my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Pilkington, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice. I am grateful for the constructive and helpful manner in which noble Lords have approached the issue.
I remain firmly of the view that the package of proposals set out in Part II, taken as a whole, offers real improvements on the present arrangements for early release and post-release supervision. I explained the reasons for that in detail in Committee. Therefore, I shall not go into them again now. However, I have concluded that it is indeed possible and desirable to provide for the release of long term prisoners on the basis of a risk assessment by the Parole Board; and that that is the purpose of this group of amendments.
I propose that prisoners who are sentenced to three years' imprisonment or more should no longer be eligible for earned early release, but should instead be able to apply to the Parole Board for release at the five-sixths point of sentence. That is equivalent to the maximum discount they would have been able to accumulate under the earned early release scheme.
Short term prisoners, who are defined as those sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment, will continue to be able to earn this maximum discount of up to 16 per cent. of their sentence under the earned early release scheme. The Parole Board would then carry out a risk assessment to determine whether it was safe to release the prisoner. In doing so, the Parole Board will take account of regular reviews and reports on the prisoner's behaviour while in prison. If the Parole Board recommended that he or she should be released, the Secretary of State would be under a duty to do so. If it did not, the prisoner would remain in custody subject to annual reviews by the Parole Board.
The conditions of supervision of prisoners who are released from a sentence of three years or more will be set in accordance with recommendations made by the Parole Board; and, following release, conditions will be varied on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
The amendments mean that for long term prisoners release will in future be dependent on a satisfactory risk assessment by the Parole Board. This will, I hope, go a long way towards meeting the concerns which were expressed by a number of noble Lords, and by my noble friend Lord Belstead in particular, about the abolition of parole. At the same time it retains the key principles of honesty in sentencing: that there should be no automatic release and that the sentence served should match more closely the sentence imposed by the court.
I believe that the amendments provide an important additional element of protection for the public within the framework for honesty in sentencing set out in
Page 6, line 2, at end insert ("or a related offence, that is to say, any other offence the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence").
9.15 p.m.
Page 6, line 9, after ("offence") insert ("or a related offence").
Page 6, line 11, at end insert--
("(i) a remand in custody which is wholly or partly concurrent with a sentence of imprisonment; or
(ii)")
Page 7, line 4, at end insert--
("(2) Before releasing under subsection (1) above a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board, unless the circumstances are such as to render such consultation impracticable.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page