Public Order Bill

Debate between Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Hogan-Howe

Report stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

May I respond to the noble Baroness, because I think she misrepresented what I said? I think I said that the officer would be intervening because of criminal behaviour, not because someone was a journalist or was suspected of being one. That would be the reason. There may be cases where an officer has intervened because they thought someone was a journalist and they did not want it to be recorded. I am not saying that has never happened; that would be wrong. There is no doubt about that. My point was only that the only reason for an officer to intervene should be—in principle, from the law—because the person is committing a criminal offence. That is what the Bill is all about: defining what is criminal and what is not. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to represent what I said as picking on someone because they are a journalist.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I wonder if I could help the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because he has not, with respect, read the amendment—or at least not very carefully. To be clear, there would be nothing to prevent the arrest of a journalist, filmmaker, legal observer or anybody else if the officer suspected the commission of a criminal offence, including offences in the Bill that I disagree with. The protection is only against the use of police powers for the primary purpose of preventing the reporting. That is a judgment that is left to the officer, but what he cannot do is to say, “You’re a reporter. You’re giving protesters the oxygen of publicity, and I’m gonna arrest you.” That is the protection given here to people such as Charlotte Lynch, who could not possibly have been reasonably suspected of locking on or committing any other criminal offence. Such people could be suspected only of what they were actually doing: their job as reporters in a free society.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

And how is an officer to know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short but vital debate. Once more to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who I am not sure has read the amendment—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I have.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

This amendment is not about preventing the arrest of anybody, journalist or otherwise, who is reasonably suspected of committing a criminal offence, including offences in this Bill. There is no definitional problem, because what is defined is the purpose of the arrest, not the identity of the person. This is important because even after Charlotte Lynch’s arrest, a Conservative police and crime commissioner took to the airwaves to say, “You are giving the oxygen of publicity to protesters.” In other words, “You are complicit in this kind of disruptive action by reporting it.”

If a senior Conservative police and crime commissioner took that view, it is perhaps understandable that some hard-working, hard-pressed police officers in difficult times might take the same view. The offence for which Miss Lynch was arrested was the very open-textured “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”. Therefore, if a journalist has been tipped off that there is to be a demonstration that may or may not turn out to be disruptive and they go to do their job of reporting, some police officers, it would seem, and others may believe that in some sense to be complicity in causing or conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

I also want to thank the Minister and his Bill team for meeting me just yesterday—although of course the Home Office press office had already told various media outlets that the Home Office was doubling down on this amendment. At that meeting, I asked the Minister and his colleagues to explain the basis for Ms Lynch’s arrest being unlawful. By the way, many other journalists have recently been arrested; what was the basis for these being unlawful arrests? I got the answer that noble Lords just got from the Minister.

What is said to be unlawful about Ms Lynch’s arrest is not that she is a journalist, but that individual officers were taking direction from their superiors and not exercising their own judgment. That is a technical and very important matter, but it is not the issue at stake here. I asked the Bill team and the Minister: where is the authority, the legal provision, in primary or even secondary legislation, that says that journalists should not be arrested, for example for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, just for reporting on something that itself may be a public nuisance? There was no authority and no provision offered. So vague assertions about PACE codes that do not even deal with my specific point are really not going to cut it—not on something as important as free reporting in a free society.

I have moved this amendment and I seek to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Hogan-Howe

Report stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. I was going to come on to a point that she made, but the point the police are making is that, if there is a lack of precision around something as simple as obstructing the highway, can we help them? People have alluded to the fact that the police have asked for help, and that is one of the things Parliament can do: explain more clearly how obstruction can be a protest that is beyond the criminal boundary, particularly when political motives are involved. Generally, the police will try not to get involved in that, which why they are seeking help in asking for more legislation, rather than less, although in general I think they would say that they do not need any more legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, explained very well why he would like to approach this issue in a different way. The problem I have with his amendment is that it refers to a “prolonged disruption”, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. I particularly do not like its reference to health. What if someone is having a heart attack or another very serious medical issue that involves minutes rather than hours—or days, in some cases?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Just to be clear one more time, prolonged disruption is just an example. One does not need prolonged disruption for significant harm to be caused to a person, an organisation or the life of the community. I cannot think of a more significant harm than a person with a heart attack not being able to be transported in an ambulance.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Hogan-Howe

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I should say briefly in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—perhaps it is not my place to do so because it was her amendment that I signed—that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have been using various terms in Committee, but on this occasion he must be right. If one were considering children under 18 in the context of a review of the age of criminal responsibility, it would be a glaring omission to include “gender” instead of “sex” in the legislation.

Sometimes it may be appropriate to use both terms, and I supported that position on Monday in the particular context of a different amendment about hostility towards people. What I tried to suggest, and which Twitter does not reflect, is that hostility can be towards people in broader categories than those protected under the Equality Act. I would not want someone to be subjected to violent hostility, even on grounds that are not currently in the Equality Act, because they were non-binary or whatever. That is not really the point in this context. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, put it very well.

What is more, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will forgive me for making that concession, given that this is a probing amendment and her list of factors to be considered in any review was inclusive and not closed. I hope it is helpful to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in this way.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support a rise in the age of criminal responsibility. I think the review is a good idea, and of course it should be science-based. The danger of going for 12 years, which is an improvement, is that it could be higher if only we thought about it well. I would be open-minded on whether it needs to be a matter of law or a government commitment to carry out a review.

There is just one area which I hope such a review might consider. The Bulger case is often referred to, for obvious reasons. Hard cases can make very bad law; we are aware of that. But I do think that that type of case imposes a duty on government to consider people’s concerns. There are two concerns that people might have if they lived in the area. One is where the child would live on return to society. That could be covered through care proceedings—you can control where someone lives and who they live with. The second is their occupation. If, at the age of 18, the murderers were released—as they were in the Bulger case—and wanted to go into childcare, or any of the care professions, would people be content with that? There would at least be a question about whether that would be wise. If they only have a care proceeding against them, they would be perfectly entitled not to declare what they were involved in at the age of 10. My point is not that they should be criminalised and therefore always carry that with them, but about how you manage their occupation, subsequent to their reaching an adult stage. It can be managed without criminalisation, but such a review might want to consider how that could be done most efficiently.

Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Hogan-Howe

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have always been a fairly hard-nosed enforcer in terms of policing and thought that punishment was really important as part of a sentence. However, I am not sure that I support these measures. With around 85,000 people in prison, there are far too many already.

Prison broadly fails. Having 85,000 in prison is at least one mark of success of the criminal justice system. It is often complained that the police arrest no one, the Crown prosecutors charge no one, the courts find no one guilty and even if they do, they never put them in prison. Well, 85,000 people got there somehow, and they have been increasing in large numbers over the last 30 years, so I think that, by one measure, we ought to have confidence that the criminal justice system can work.

But I am afraid that the prison system is failing. It has failed because the proportion of people who commit offences within two years of release is well over 80%. It is the least effective form of preventing recidivism of all the forms we know, and it is the most expensive. Of those who go into prison, two-thirds have a drug habit, but by the time they leave 80% do. One of the most secure places in the country cannot stop drugs getting in, it appears.

My brief final thoughts are these. It seems to me that if we are to take this measure—and I understand why there is some intuitive support—then there have to be some of the counterbalancing measures that some noble Lords have discussed. First, we have to look at sentencing guidelines. These have always drifted upwards. I cannot remember the last announcement from the Government that said, “This prison sentence is far too long, and it is about time we reduced it.”

Secondly, the only people who think that prison is a pleasant place are people who have never visited one. Whether it is four, six or eight years is almost immaterial, but there needs to be honesty in sentencing. What happens now is that people are announced to be going to prison for 14 years when what is meant is that you are going for seven and, in the event that you misbehave in prison, you will stay for 14. It is far better to be honest and transparent in those announcements.

Thirdly, I would invest in technology post release, such as the sobriety scheme we discussed briefly yesterday that monitors people’s alcohol intake, their drug intake and sometimes, perhaps, if they have a mental illness, whether they have taken their medication. These are things that really can have an impact on release.

Finally—and this may seem to be an abstract point, but I think it is really important—one reason we are having so many difficulties, I am afraid, in controlling our prison population is to do with the corruption of some of the staff. I do not say that they are all corrupt, because that would be very unfair, but I am afraid that the Prison Service lacks a prison investigation command. The last Prisons Minister did instigate a prisons intelligence system to look at corruption, but it is no good having intelligence that no one is going to investigate. Many of our prisons sit in rural areas with our smallest forces, and they do not regard it as a priority to look at prison staff corruption and see whether there is a criminal act taking place. I urge the Government to look at that seriously.

Perhaps if we were able, even if we were to extend the period before a licence is considered, to reduce the overall prison population by changes in sentencing, the savings we would make could be invested in some of the things we have all talked about today. It would be wise to make sure that we are safer in the future and that we have a more liberal approach to the detaining of people who are, at the end of the day, convicted of serious offences.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I can be short, as a small mercy to the Minister, because so much has been said with such force in this debate. As was alluded to earlier, there is so much said about the democratic deficit of an unelected second Chamber, but the one thing we might occasionally say in return is that this is a place where it is possible to have a thoughtful, rational, dispassionate and at times passionate debate about law and order, including what works and might work, including rehabilitation and some of the other concerns that have been so well expressed today. It is invidious to pick out a particular speech, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will have to forgive me: he will not thank me for saying that he was perhaps the greatest Conservative Justice Secretary or Home Secretary that we never had.

I can adopt a lot of what has been said, with perhaps one slight distinction. If this were proper populism, why would the dial be moved from the 50% point to the two-thirds point? Will that really satisfy any proper populist instinct in the population? If this is really about chasing headlines, the difference between automatic release at the 50% point and the two-thirds point will not work for very long. If this were to be a proper “hang ’em, flog ’em, throw away the key” kind of policy, or if it were about what was once called honesty or transparency in sentencing, why have automatic release at all?

The Minister quite rightly addressed the value of early release in allowing a period of supervision in the community. I suggest that it also incentivises good behaviour in prison and engagement with regimes that can help cut reoffending post sentence. But that kind of incentive is achieved by a discretionary release, not by automatic release.

As always, I have the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, ringing in my ears, as they are designed to do. He quite rightly pointed out that Governments of both persuasions have at times conducted an arms race on law and order, including sentencing. One of the consequences is that you have long sentences to chase the headlines and then automatic release because of overstuffed prisons. That is a ratchet which both sides in politics have contributed to in recent years, and it is not desirable going forward.

If this were proper populism, it would be about complete transparency and no early release. If it were more enlightened, it would be about discretionary release for more serious offenders; however, again, you would then need resources for the Parole Board—or whoever the decision-maker would be—to determine on a case-by-case basis whether people are safe for release.

I have caught the eye of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She and I know from other debates and tragic cases the dangers of releasing dangerous people early in terms of the ramifications for subsequent victims and so on. It is not wrong of the public to be concerned about that. Building public confidence in sentencing is not populist per se, if we build that confidence properly by reducing reoffending. We have heard from all sides of this House how this measure is not likely to reduce offending.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he takes issue with debates about austerity. Fair enough. We do not need to do that in this debate, because on the Government’s own case this measure will, I think, cost £680 million. The question in my mind is whether this is the best way to spend that £680 million to protect people, look after victims and make the country a little safer.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but we should consider this given the current state of the criminal justice system—and not just the prisons. I know that the contribution on this of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was slightly light-hearted; we do not really measure the success of the criminal justice system by how many people are in prison, not least when rape victims are feeling so let down at the moment and we have, I think, the worst conviction rates on record. I ask myself what £680 million could have done if directed towards rape investigation and prosecution in particular, given how difficult they are.

I do not want to pretend that this is the most fundamental principle being breached by this instrument because, as I say, whether it is automatic early release at 50% or 75% of your sentence, this is just a wasted opportunity. It does not seem at the moment to sit in a broader context of an enlightened approach to these matters.

For reasons that I consider deeply painful and unfortunate, this Government now have a really huge opportunity, if they choose to take it, to turn down the ratchet on law and order. They do not need to play to this imaginary or real gallery. They have an opportunity for some considerable time to change the debate on law and order. That is not to deny public concern about crime but to meet that concern properly, not with a headline or by moving the dial on automatic early release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point but to investigate and work to reduce reoffending, including by investing in community orders and so on and so forth.

This order is therefore a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Minister will not consider it an irritation or an impertinence that some remarks have been made robustly; I do not believe it is because anyone believes that a populist heart beats inside him but because this House, of all places in public debate, cares very much about trying to change the discourse and policy in law and order and about doing something positive with the platform that we have.