| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that my Amendment No. 47 is better than the government amendment, but I cannot for the life of me work out in what way it is better. Of course I am grateful to the Minister for the action that she has taken in response to the debate in Committee. We support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Mentally disordered offenders]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 54:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Persons liable to removal from the United Kingdom]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 55:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Continuity of sentencing]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 not moved.]
Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 59:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of the obligation in Clause 23 upon a judge in future, once the Bill becomes law, to impose a sentence two-thirds of that which he would have imposed immediately before the commencement of the Act. As the clause is drafted, there will be frozen for all time the sentence which is appropriate for any given crime because the two-thirds is to apply to the sentence that would have been imposed immediately before the coming into force of the Act. That is clearly wrong because there will be alterations as a result of different perceptions in relation to categories of crime. Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, for instance, is now looked upon as a great deal more serious than it
Accordingly, we have proposed in subsection (3)(b) to insert the words,
because the only let-out that is given is where the maximum sentence in prison has been varied after the commencement, and the maximum may not be varied at all; it is the approach within the maximum which may have altered. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Government should realise--I am sure that they do--that the Court of Appeal publishes guidelines on sentencing from time to time and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has pointed out, those guidelines change. One area in which I think that they have changed dramatically, in addition to those to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred, is in relation to drugs. Convictions for drug offences have been taken much more seriously as the problem has grown within the country. It would be wrong to fossilise the sentences that are being passed now because new problems may well emerge, just as has happened in relation to drugs and the other areas to which the noble and learned Lord referred. If fresh problems arise, the sentences will change. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 23 of the Bill requires the courts to adjust the sentences they pass after the commencement of Part I to take account of the abolition of parole and the changes in early release arrangements. The intention is, of course, to ensure that offenders serve approximately the same time in prison as they do at present. However, there are certain circumstances in which it is not necessary for the courts to adjust their sentences and these are spelt out in subsection (3). Where the offence in question did not exist prior to commencement, or was not punishable by imprisonment, or the maximum penalty has been varied, it will not be necessary for the court to apply the formula set out in Clause 23.
The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would add a further rider to subsection (3), to the effect that Clause 23 should not apply in relation to offences for which the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed.
I understand the reasons which lie behind this amendment, which the noble and learned Lord has explained. However, I do not believe that it is necessary; indeed I think it would serve only to complicate matters. For one thing, the amendment implies a somewhat greater degree of formality about the nature of Court of Appeal guideline judgments than is perhaps the case. Every Court of Appeal judgment relates primarily to the individual case in question. Some of them will also contain guidance of more general application. But it is not necessarily self-evident which Court of Appeal judgments are to be regarded as "guideline judgments";
I believe the concern which may lie behind the amendment is that the effect of Clause 23 would be to freeze sentencing guidelines at their present level indefinitely. I can assure the House that that is neither the purpose nor the effect of Clause 23. It will remain open to the Court of Appeal, as it is at present, to issue guidelines on the proper range of sentences for particular categories of offence. Any such guidelines will of course be applicable to lower courts, exactly as they are now. In the fullness of time, it may be that Clause 23 in effect withers on the vine, as sentences across the spectrum of offences settle at a new level. It may eventually no longer be necessary to require judges to go through the process set out in subsection (2). For the present, however, I believe that the amendment is neither necessary nor helpful.
In the light of what I said about the variable patchwork of decisions which come from the Court of Appeal relating to very specific cases, and the individual cases that appear before it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find the Minister's response wholly unsatisfactory. It overlooks how guidelines are established. The Court of Appeal does not take a single case and then say, "This is the guideline". As soon as it becomes apparent that there is a line of cases where the punishment is inadequate, or has not been sufficiently detailed, there are collected together in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) half a dozen of such cases and then the court sets about clearly stating what should be the range of sentences, and what are the mitigating and aggravating factors. Indeed, we have provided examples.
For instance, the courts have said on occasions, especially in regard to death by dangerous or reckless driving, that the level of sentences is too low and that it must be increased. This is the way in which one goes about it. I just do not know how the noble Baroness can suggest that that can be reflected where you have a statutory obligation to impose the same sentence as you would have imposed immediately before the Act came into existence and you have subsection (3) which is the only let-out but which does not cover the situation. I do not understand why the Home Office is so resistant to any step being taken to improve the Bill. However, apparently the tradition at this stage is not to move any amendment to the extent of a Division. I shall, therefore, leave the matter on the record for the Government, or their successors, to face up to the problems about which they have had a full warning. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The amendment corrects a single drafting error in the Bill. Clause 24 (the interpretation clause for Chapter 1, Part II) refers to the definition of a "court" in various other clauses, including Clause 13. However, Clause 13 does not contain any reference to a court. The amendment, therefore, deletes the reference to Clause 13 in Clause 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("13") insert ("(Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)").
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("13") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)").
Page 15, line 9, leave out from ("if") to end of line 10.
Page 15, line 12, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)(2)").
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("13(2)") and insert ("Provisional early release days for remand prisoners)(2)").
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("and").
Page 15, line 30, at end insert ("and
(d) subsection (4)(b) were omitted.").
Page 15, line 42, after ("Kingdom") insert--
("(a) section (Release on Parole Board recommendation) above shall have effect as if, in subsection (2), for the words "shall, if recommended to do so by the Parole Board," there were substituted the word "may"; and
(b)")
10 p.m.
Page 17, line 16, at end insert ("or in respect of which the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed.").
"or ... the guidelines established by the Court of Appeal have materially changed",
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("13,").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page