Rehabilitation of Offenders

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I rather agree with my hon. Friend. I can certainly reassure him that we will be looking for organisations that can demonstrate the ability to maintain partnerships where they are necessary. I am at a loss as to why the Labour party does not seem to think that using the expertise of the former offender gone straight to help turn around the life of a younger offender is anything but a very good idea. I ask them to get out of Westminster a bit and visit some of the charities where it is already happening to see the impact. It is substantial and we should make more of it.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that behind every short term of imprisonment is a reason for offending, yet the lack of a system prevents us from getting to the root of that reason? We need the probation service or any other provider to ensure that we work and assist these offenders in the longer term, because if we get this right, it provides the best opportunity in a generation to turn these offenders away from a life of crime.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have chosen an extended one-year period of supervision even for people who receive very short sentences, because those who go to prison for a few weeks are those in danger of going back to prison again and again and for longer and longer. If we can stop them doing so early on, ideally before they get to prison in the first place, by providing rehabilitation support for those on a community sentence, we can stop the cycle of reoffending that he is right to say is damaging.

Police Cautions (Young People)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Green]

However, the time for which an offence should hang over a young person or anyone else is contentious, and we must be careful to strike a balance. Ensuring appropriate punishment and particularly appropriate reparation for victims, so that they have confidence in the system, form the other half of the balance that I am sure all hon. Members want to strike.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

The Minister makes a valid point about the public’s confidence being undermined by using cautions. Does he agree that confidence might also be lost when cautions are repetitively given to offenders with a view to improving the clear-up figures?

[Damian Green]

I would be interested to know whether my hon. Friend has evidence that cautions are used to improve clear-up figures. The answer to his general point is that, yes, I agree that the repetitive use of cautions may damage confidence in the system. One reason why we are looking at the whole system of cautions is precisely to avoid such damage to confidence.

A youth caution may be given for any offence that the young offender admits when there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. The flexibility provided by the youth caution allows the police greater discretion to offer a disposal that is appropriate to the circumstances of the offence and offender, rather than being arbitrarily determined by previous disposals or convictions.

We have retained in the youth caution the critical elements of assessment and intervention inherent in the final warning scheme. The youth offending team will be obliged to assess and, unless considered inappropriate, to put a rehabilitation programme in place when a young person has received a second or subsequent youth caution. That reflects the current threshold of obligatory assessment following a warning and is designed to prevent a return to precisely the repeat cautioning to which my hon. Friend referred. Unlike reprimands and warnings, the youth caution does not have a fixed limit on the number that may be administered, and it may be used if a young person has previously been convicted. That allows the police to use discretion, in consultation with the youth offending team, and to avoid an unnecessary court process if that is not merited.

Introducing a flexible youth caution that can be used more than once should help young people when seeking future gainful employment despite a minor misdemeanour that is causing concern. The youth caution becomes spent immediately, so there is no requirement for the young person to disclose that they have received one, unless they are seeking employment in an occupation listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, such as working with children or other vulnerable people.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 revised the youth conditional caution. We reduced unnecessary bureaucracy by giving the police power to authorise youth conditional cautions without the need to seek the authorisation of a prosecutor. The police can now offer a youth conditional caution with input from a youth offending team as at present but without the need for agreement from the Crown Prosecution Service. The youth offending team’s role is now statutory to provide a check on the appropriateness of the disposal and will also allow the YOT to apply for a parenting order if necessary.

Conditional cautions require offenders to take responsibility for their actions, including agreement to conditions that require them to put things right or to seek help for their behaviour. It is important to recognise the role of the victim and to ensure that they have proper redress through such an out-of-court disposal. Since 8 April, the revised youth conditional caution has been available to all 10 to 17-year-olds throughout England and Wales. The youth conditional caution has a three-month rehabilitation period to allow for the conditions to be completed, but offers similar benefits to the youth caution in becoming spent rapidly and therefore not subject to disclosure for most purposes.

The third change to that sort of disposal in the 2012 Act was to abolish penalty notices for disorder for 10 to 17-year-olds. Penalty notices can be an effective deterrent and provide resolution of offences for adult offenders, but we believe they are less effective for young people. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by young people. For that age group, we believe it is more effective to use out-of-court disposals involving assessment and intervention by the local youth offending team than fixed penalties.

Other legislation that is centrally important to the matters that the debate gives rise to is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which has an important role in helping those who have a criminal conviction but have put criminality behind them. From the tone of the debate, it is clear that many hon. Members believe that it is important to provide individuals with the opportunity to leave behind mistakes that they made when they were young. Minor offending behaviour committed when the offender was immature should not blight their prospects. That is recognised in the fact that rehabilitation periods are generally shorter for under-eights than for adults. Most crime committed by young people is relatively minor and often results in the out-of-court disposals or fines that I am talking about. A significant proportion of the population have had a conviction at some point in their lives, but few of them pose a serious risk of harm to the public. I am sure that we all agree that it is in society’s interest that ex-offenders are given the chance to reintegrate into their communities and lead law-abiding lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referred to a recent Court of Appeal judgment that found that both the current exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and part V of the Police Act 1997 are unlawful. That is because they provide for blanket disclosure of all spent convictions and cautions regardless of how old or minor they may be. In response to that judgment—my hon. Friend raised this point specifically —we are amending the exceptions order. We are proposing that certain spent disposals will no longer be subject to disclosure under that order after a specified period, which will be shorter for young offenders than for adults.

Public protection and safeguarding obviously remain primary concerns, and for that reason disposals for specified sexual and violent offences and other offences relevant to safeguarding will always be subject to standard or enhanced disclosure. Any offence resulting in a custodial sentence will continue to be subject to disclosure. Those measures are necessary to maintain public protection, and I suspect that there is agreement on that on both sides of the Chamber.

For other offences, cautions and minor convictions will no longer be subject to disclosure, nor will they be able to be taken into account by an employer after a certain period. Cautions and equivalents administered to a young offender for a non-specified offence will no longer be subject to disclosure under the exceptions order after two years. Secondary legislation containing those provisions has been laid before Parliament and will be subject to the affirmative process. My hon. Friend wanted a detailed timetable, but he has been here long enough to know that such business management goes on behind closed doors.

Budget and Structure of the Ministry of Justice

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). This might not be the most eagerly awaited debate the Chamber has ever seen, but the funding of the Ministry of Justice is an extremely important issue, and although I am a new member of the Justice Committee, in my short time I have seen how daunting is the MOJ’s task of balancing the books.

The MOJ aims at having less reoffending, more rehabilitation and a better court, prisons and probation service, and all with less money. I do not envy the Secretary of State’s position, but I know that in endeavouring to meet the task he will consider all areas for savings. One area being considered is funding work opportunities for inmates in custody. It is right that we provide employment opportunities in prisons. Taking part in work programmes helps offenders to retain or—where it is lacking—adopt a work ethic, increases work-based skills, makes inmates more employable on release and reduces reoffending rates. We must ensure that it does not undercut companies not working with offenders or take jobs away from the law-abiding, but giving prisoners work opportunities in custody could help not just inmates, but victims of crime. If the money earned by prisoners can be shared between rehabilitation and payments to victims, there is a dual gain to be made.

It is not only prison work schemes, however, that provide these opportunities. The National Offender Management Service has been identified as a department that could undergo further restructuring. Managing the rehabilitation of offenders is one of the most crucial aspects of the Ministry’s work, and the MOJ is right that someone is not best placed to help prevent reoffending just because they are employed by it. Very often, private companies or charities can assist with the rehabilitation of offenders, so it is worth considering—and, in suitable cases, adopting—the tendering of work currently carried out by the probation service. If payment by results actually gets results, it is worth pursuing, and giving a financial incentive to those who carry out rehabilitative work can only help to reduce reoffending rates. For the first time, we can say that if offending rates are not reduced, taxpayers’ money will not be spent. That seems right to me.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that companies with PBR contracts will not be paid if they do not achieve results. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is not going to be the case.

[Gareth Johnson]

As I understand the system, there will be payment by results. If the results are not achieved, there will be a financial consequence for that company. We will be able to say, “If there are no results, the taxpayer will not have to shoulder the full burden.” To draw an analogy, we would not expect the Ministry of Defence to pay for guns that do not fire, so why should we expect the MOJ to pay when anti-reoffending programmes do not work? We should pay for what works, not for what does not work.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the MOJ that we should consider other means of resolving disputes, such as mediation, rather than going down the avenue of tribunals and courts, which cost a lot of money?

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is more scope, particularly in family courts, for the increased use of mediation and perhaps non-judicial disposals. We want to see court processes in appropriate cases, but nevertheless we could consider ways of avoiding them, if it is correct to do so.

I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s comments to the Justice Committee last week, when he confirmed that the probation service could also tender for contracts to work with offenders. That is right. The public want less crime; what is less important to them is who achieves it. Whether it is the probation service, a charity or private company matters little; what is vital is that whoever helps offenders to stay on the straight and narrow is successful in that important quest. Payment by results is potentially groundbreaking for the MOJ, but I concede that the devil will be in the detail. We need to ensure that cherry-picking cannot prevail, for example, and that the system recognises tangible improvements in a repeat offender’s behaviour, rather than progress towards good behaviour.

Successive Governments have tried to tackle the so-called revolving door of reoffending—the tendency to come back into the system time and time again, particularly following short-term custodial sentences. There are two approaches to the problem. We can either curtail short prison terms, letting people off without custodial sentences and not having any short-term prisoners, or we can work with such offenders, both in custody and on release. I support the latter approach. It has not been done in the past, but the commitment now to ensure the supervision of such offenders on release is the right approach and very much to be welcomed. The involvement of charitable and private sector organisations in such work has made it affordable. I believe it will be more successful for their presence.

However, it is not just the work of prisons that we need to review; it is also the courts. I worked in the Court Service and saw a very changing environment. In fact, three of the five courthouses I worked in are no longer courthouses, but restaurants, accommodation and so on—I think one is a Zizzi. They have changed beyond all recognition. Although it is sad to see that happening to old courthouses, it is right for the Department continuously to assess the value for money it provides for the taxpayer. It has a difficult balancing act to perform, between the value for money it provides on one side and the interests of justice on the other. Witnesses cannot be expected to travel long distances to vast super-courts. Justice delivered locally is still an important doctrine.

The virtual courts system has been highlighted as a good way for the Department to save money. However, I would urge caution on this approach. Virtual courts can actually cost more. We therefore need an intelligent and targeted use of the system, rather than a blanket approach. I am probably the only Member of Parliament who has used the virtual courts system—I guess I should declare an interest—and I have seen not only its strengths and weaknesses, but its expense to the Department. I am pleased that the Department is also looking at different ways in which magistrates courts can operate. It makes sense to allow them to keep more cases for themselves. That will enable savings to be made without compromising justice. In limited circumstances, magistrates can already sentence adult offenders to 12 months. If we trust them to give such sentences for some cases, why not for all cases? In some courts, the same magistrates who can sentence a 14-year-old to up to two years cannot give an adult more than six months. That needs to change.

The challenges for the Department are substantial. In playing its part in tackling the country’s debt, it needs to find savings, yet they have to be made without compromising justice or the safety of the public. The first job of every Government is to protect the public. I pay tribute to the Department for the enormous strides it has made of late in doing just that, while at the same time finding significant savings in its budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I do not know how many people in prison are gay. I want to ensure that the regime in our prisons is appropriate, commands the confidence of the public and provides an appropriate environment for rehabilitation and training. We must have a prison system in which everyone can have confidence.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T3. An increasing number of international companies are looking to the UK for its legal services. That trade creates billions of pounds for our economy. Will the Minister tell the House what plans there are further to promote British legal services abroad?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

As my hon. Friend knows, our legal firms and educational establishments are great assets to this country. The Ministry of Justice continues to work very closely with UK Trade & Investment and the profession to promote those wonderful services overseas. I am sure that my hon. Friend would take great joy in looking at the Unlocking Disputes campaign, which is a good example of recent fruitful activity.

Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I do not agree with every word he said, but he made some pertinent and correct points about honesty in sentencing. Perhaps I may add a further scenario to his list. I worked for the Courts Service, where I found that, for example, somebody could appear before magistrates on a Friday and receive seven days’ imprisonment for a fine default. However, as the sentence was automatically halved, and as the weekend counted in their favour and they could not be released during that time, the prison van would throw them out before they even got to prison. A person can be sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment and not spend a minute inside, and it is such dishonesty that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, angers many members of the public.

We all want consistency in sentencing, but we must recognise that we will never completely achieve that because it is impossible. No two offences are identical and there will always be differences in approach. As long as courts have discretion, there will be variation in how they deal with similar matters. If we remove that discretion, however, injustices will inevitably occur.

Members of the public view similar offences in differing ways, and we should not be surprised that often the judiciary will do the same. We want our judiciary to mirror the public, and just as the public have differing opinions about different types of offences, such variation can be reflected in our court houses. We need some consistency of approach, some basic similarities in decision making, and guidelines to help ensure that courts treat similar aggravating and mitigating circumstances comparably. We should never, however, be tempted to adopt a system that lacks discretion, flexibility, or the freedom to differentiate.

We need a degree of certainty, but not an over-prescriptive approach that removes a court’s discretion. For example, a defendant who has entered a guilty plea can expect to receive a reduction in their sentence of about one third. The court, however, should be free to increase or reduce that discount, as it deems appropriate.

In the magistrates courts, the principle of local justice administered locally has served us extremely well for centuries. Some offences are frowned on more in one area than in another, and local justices of the peace are best positioned to clamp down on an offence that is prevalent in a particular area. Although that system inevitably leads to an imbalanced approach across the country, in such instances a variable approach can be a positive thing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley pointed out, justice must always be the primary goal in the judicial system. If we were to replace judges, magistrates and jurors with computers, we would have a more consistent approach—there is no doubt about that—but we would also have less justice. Whenever people deal with cases, there will inevitably be discrepancies in how they view the facts placed before them.

About 20 Acts of Parliament have changed sentencing practice over the past decade, and it is perhaps not surprising that our system is often confusing and unnecessarily complex. Perhaps an overarching approach is needed, not a series of ad hoc measures to amend the current system.

The system need not be unduly complicated. Sentences are normally straightforward, but the processes behind them are often baffling and confusing, and can lack the transparency that this debate is trying to find. The maxim that justice must be done and be seen to be done is as necessary now as it has ever been. Yet nowhere can the term “six months”, for instance, have so little correlation to that actual period as in a court of law. I have spent more than 20 years working in the criminal justice system, and I have lost count of the number of times I have seen defendants turn to their advocate as soon as they are given a term of imprisonment and ask, “How long is that? How long does that actually mean for me? I have been told it is 10 years, but how long does that mean?” Sentences should be closer to the term specified, and there should be far more transparency and honesty in sentencing. It undermines the courts, the police and victims if the sentence that a prisoner serves bears no relation to the term that he has been given in court.

There are so many early release schemes that I know of no lawyer who can accurately tell a defendant how long a sentence will equate to in actual time served. It is simply too complicated. When a formula is needed to work out how much of a sentence a prisoner will actually serve, we know that there is something wrong with our system. That is precisely what happens now. The discipline departments in prisons have to apply a formula to a sentence to work out what somebody’s earliest possible release date is. That highlights the problem in our current system.

Sentences are one thing, but there are many other things for the courts to consider. There is no merit in having an inconsistent approach to the enforcement of court orders. We should not have one criterion for enforcing community sentences in the midlands and another for the south, and fine defaulters should not be treated differently in one part of the country from another. Prison overcrowding in one area should not mean an earlier release for prisoners there than for those in other areas. However, for general sentences, we should allow some differences. We have to allow local courts to have a certain amount of flexibility. The message should go out from this House that this debate is not about controlling the courts but about delivering fairness for all. We should not micro-manage the courts but allow clarity to flourish more. Minimum sentences for gun possession have worked, not just because of the certainty and deterrence that they have provided but because courts retain an element of discretion.

In short, we need to get the right balance, and in doing so we need to strive for a court system that allows certainty in sentences, flexibility in process and fairness in outcomes to prevail.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The new clauses are designed to remove the upper limits on the fines that can currently be imposed in magistrates courts. Raising the upper limits on fines gives sentencers greater flexibility to identify the most effective punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them, particularly when combined with other disposals such as suspended sentences when offenders are close to the custodial threshold.

The Government believe that financial penalties, as long as they are set at the right level, can be just as effective as community payback or curfews in punishing offenders and deterring them from further offending. Fines hit offenders where it hurts: in their pockets. They also have the advantage of not affecting opportunities for employment or having an impact on family responsibilities, and hence can prevent further acceleration into a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, they do not impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer or on society as a whole. Not only are fines punitive; they provide reparation for society, and serve as part of offenders’ restoration to all of us.

That is why courts already have flexibility to impose fines in cases that have passed the community sentence threshold. It is entirely right for them to be able to consider the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders before them, and, having weighed up the various purposes of sentencing, to decide that a fine will provide an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence without needing to consider a community order. Courts already have wide discretion to make use of fines in appropriate cases, and the Government want to support and encourage that.

We particularly wish to ensure that magistrates, who issue the vast majority of fines, have the powers that they need to set fines at levels that are proportionate to the most serious offences that come before them for trial. These clauses therefore make two key changes to the way that fines operate in the magistrates courts. The first is to replace all upper limits of £5,000 or more for fines available on summary conviction. At the moment, where an offence is triable on summary conviction only, magistrates do not have the option of committing the case to the Crown court for sentence and are constrained in their ability to fine by the statutory maximum fines. For the most serious offences tried by magistrates, that is generally £5,000, although for certain offences where the financial gain from offending is substantial—for example, in some environmental offences—the maximum fine can be as high as £50,000.

For less serious offences, we believe that it is right to retain the differentials between the punishments. However, we wish to give Government and Parliament more flexibility to amend these maxima as the need arises.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to conclude my remarks and allow the Opposition to respond.

The second change these clauses propose is to give the Secretary of State a power to increase the current maximum fine amounts for levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences. These amounts are currently £200, £500, £1,000 and £2,500. The new power would be to increase these so as to keep them in the same ratio to one another as at present. There is already a similar power to change them in line with changes in the value of money, so the new power would be an extension of that. We intend to consult on the right level at which to set these new maxima.

That should form part of a wider review of sentences served in the community, so I want to use this debate to notify the House that we are entering a review process, which we intend will in due course lead to a formal public consultation on community sentences. For too long, community sentences have failed to punish offenders properly for their actions, and the Government are committed to changing that. We are already taking action, including through this Bill, to strengthen community orders, but we want to go much further and deliver a step change in the way sentences operate. They must, of course, address the problems that have caused the offending behaviour in the first place—the drug abuse, the alcoholism, the mental health problems—but they must also punish properly and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing will not be tolerated. We want to see a clear punitive element in every sentence handed out by the courts.

We will consult on further reforms to ensure that community sentences effectively punish and rehabilitate offenders. That should include consulting on what constitutes effective delivery of the principles of sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation, as I have mentioned, but also on protection of the public, restoration and how the whole package can produce the most effective deterrent to crime. A part of this consultation will be on the new maxima at levels 1 to 4 in the magistrates courts.

The Government want offenders to be in no doubt that the courts have the powers they need to punish their crimes. Once the victim’s compensation has been addressed—and if an offence presents no wider issues of reparation or public protection—if a court believes that a fine would be the best way of punishing an offender and deterring future offending, then we want to ensure that there are no barriers to courts setting the fine at the appropriate level.

To sum up, these new clauses would remove the £5,000 cap on fines that magistrates can impose, so that they are able to use their discretion and set fines that are proportionate to the offences before them. That will also improve the efficiency of the court system, by removing the need for magistrates to send cases to the Crown court when they feel the current maximum fine is not a severe enough punishment for the offenders before them. For offences with caps set at less than £5,000, we propose to retain the current structure of differential maxima, with a power to increase them as necessary.

I urge Members to support the measures.

[Sir Alan Beith]

How nice it is to hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in conciliatory mood. The Minister has made a perfectly good case for increasing the level of fines available in magistrates courts. He gave several reasons for doing so, and I would add to them the giving of further encouragement to magistrates to deal with cases themselves wherever that is possible, rather than referring them upwards to the Crown court. This is part of a general increased empowerment of magistrates to deal with cases.

The Minister has mentioned the wider issue of community penalties and non-custodial sentences, and the review and consultation that will address them. I hope that proves to be a fruitful process. There is a danger that he is giving two signals at once, however. He is hoping to give the necessary signal to the public that many offenders consider community sentences to be more demanding and rigorous, and much less congenial, than very short terms of imprisonment. Some offenders who have appeared before the Justice Committee have said they committed further offences because it was easier to spend the time in prison than to continue with a community sentence. The Government must also give a signal to the judiciary that it should make the maximum use of the available range of penalties, on the basis of what is most likely to reduce reoffending. If a rigorous, well-supervised and policed community sentence is more likely to reduce reoffending, the judiciary should be encouraged to choose that option. I hope people do not find the signals too confusing, that we end up with a well-supported system of community penalties, and that people have confidence that for many offenders such penalties reduce reoffending more effectively than prison does.

[Gareth Johnson]

Although I support the Government’s proposals, it would make sense to remove the upper limit on financial penalties imposed by magistrates courts. The proposals do not relate to levels of compensation, so if magistrates are asked to sentence for, say, a theft of £5,000-worth of goods, they will still have to refer the matter to the Crown court for sentence if they do not have the power to award more than £5,000 compensation. I therefore wonder whether the Government would be willing to look at the levels of compensation in the future, to see if there is any scope for lifting the upper limit of compensation awards that magistrates courts can impose.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to respond to the points raised. Let me see if I can do justice to the grudging support of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I am certainly profoundly grateful that we found him in a positive mood, and the fact that he welcomes these measures gives the answer to his questions. They are appropriate measures; that is why they are being welcomed across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is absolutely right that many defendants consider a proper combination of community sentences to be much more onerous than custody—and I want to increase the opportunities for that to be seen as much more onerous than custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not present, but I remember him citing an example from the Daily Mail about a judge who threw the book at an offender because he thought he could not send him to prison: he gave the offender a combination of community sentences that were much more onerous than the custody would have been.

We want to get to a place where we can get a better balance on sentencing, to make sure that we actually punish people in the most appropriate way and give sentences greater flexibility. That is what this measure will do. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who made an entirely proper point. I want to make it absolutely clear that compensation comes first—

Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentences)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with those remarks, which are absolutely right.

For me, this issue is about redressing the balance for victims of these horrendous offences. The standard of driving required for dangerous driving is that the driver needs to drive far below the standard of an ordinary competent driver. I am not talking about pulling out of a driveway, failing to look right and having an accident. I am talking about getting into a car and driving like an absolute lunatic—very often, that is the case—including driving around roundabouts the wrong way or even over roundabouts. We have seen the CCTV footage of such driving on numerous occasions. The standard of driving is absolutely horrendous in every possible way.

I suggest that the maximum sentence for dangerous driving should be seven years, rather than what was suggested in the previous Government by a colleague of mine—I think that there was talk of increasing the maximum sentence from two years to five years. The offence of causing death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years. I am sure that the families of the victims of that offence would feel dreadful about that sentence. I am sure that the families of victims are absolutely outraged at what has been described to me as such a “paltry” sentence. But the culpability for that offence, in my view, is much less than for dangerous driving per se. I want to emphasise that point.

Members of all parties in the House will have constituents who have raised this issue with them; I suspect that the issue has been raised with them on more than one occasion. I have a constituent, Katie Harper. She was the victim of dangerous driving. Unfortunately, for whatever reason—I make no criticism of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—the offender was not brought to justice. He was charged with dangerous driving but the case was dropped. When I spoke to Katie’s father, he said that that was an absolute travesty and that that driver should have gone to prison for a long, long time. So I put the question to him, “How long do people think he would have got if he had been convicted?” He said, “Nine years?” I said, “No.” He said, “Ten years?” I said, “No.” He said, “Twelve years?” I said, “Absolutely not.” His daughter had been studying English at the university of Hull, but she is no longer studying English and she has been told that she may never walk properly again. Her father was absolutely horrified to learn that, in my opinion, the sentence for the driver—if he had gone to prison at all—would have been something like nine months, if he had no previous convictions.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on identifying this anomaly. I used to specialise in road traffic law, and this is not the only anomaly that exists within current road traffic legislation. I wonder whether he is aware that if, for example, a new driver gets more than six penalty points, they have to retake their test, but if they are disqualified from driving they do not have to retake their test. Also, if someone commits the offence of failing to stop after an accident in which they have killed someone, the maximum sentence available at the moment is six months’ imprisonment. Is he aware of those anomalies, in addition to the one he has so creditably identified?

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I mitigated a case before a magistrate when I was representing a defendant, who was effectively a probationary driver, for a driving offence. I suggested to the bench that, instead of throwing the book at him, he should be banned for a short period, so that he did not have to start from scratch, taking his test and so on.

I am assisted to some extent by some recent publicity. The Sun ran a story last Saturday about the victim of a driving offence, who was tragically paralysed. I have had the opportunity to speak with her father, Dr Robert Carver. The offence was different—careless driving—but the victim’s injuries were dreadful. I am sure that the family feel outraged, but her father has asked me to make it clear that he makes no criticism of the district judge, Judge Stobart, who passed sentence in that case, saying that the judge was working within the constraints of the law.

I mention that case for two reasons. It is tragic for the victim—absolutely dreadful—but, for whatever reason, the offender was charged with careless driving, not dangerous driving. The sentence of 150 days in such circumstances was appropriate. However, an offence of dangerous driving, which is much worse in my view, must require a much harsher sentence.

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I started by saying that I think we all agree that we have gone too far and that a great wrong needs to be righted. As I said from the outset, I am more interested in correcting that wrong by whatever device is best able to do that, rather than simply commending the Bill all the way through and urging Members to vote for it. Of course I want it to succeed, but my real aim is to ensure that what happened to the man in Bristol never happens again. I do not much mind by what device that is done. The Bill could perhaps be changed in Committee if we find that a presumption of publication with exceptions is the better way to do it, but my reservation is that by the time the name has been published and salacious details have been put into the press, there is not much time to go to a court to have that stopped. I want to stop it happening in the first place.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

There is a great deal of merit in the general thrust of my hon. Friend’s Bill, which is to protect people who have been arrested, but would not a better approach be to equalise the sub judice rules that apply post charge, which generally seem to work, with those that apply pre charge, so that individuals can be named, but without the sensationalist reporting that concerns her most of all?

[Anna Soubry]

I am again grateful, because that is a good point well made. There is a good argument that the way to cure this mischief is by amending the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I will in due course deal with why that Act is inadequate. If it were adequate, I have no doubt that the Attorney-General would have used it to stop the salacious and vilifying nature of the coverage of the man arrested in Bristol.

To return to why it is wrong for someone to be named and vilified after being arrested, we should also consider the distress caused to that person, which I touched on earlier. During the course of my research, I looked at the case of a much-loved television personality—I will not name him—who appealed to people of all ages and was a true family entertainer. I did not know, because it does not matter to me, that he is gay. He had been married and had children, but the reality is that he was a homosexual. In due course he came out, which was a matter for his private life, and got on with his life. Most importantly, he continued to be an extremely good television presenter and entertainer. One evening, he was arrested as he came off stage following an allegation of a misdemeanour some years earlier. As a result, his name and the details of the allegation were published.

What followed was not quite a media feeding frenzy, but the details of the man’s private life, his sexuality and such matters were written about extensively in the press. A few weeks later, when he returned to the police station, the police said that they would not be charging him and he was accordingly exonerated of the allegation. He always maintained his dignity, and issued a statement through his solicitor which said:

“I was always confident my name would be cleared in due course. However, it’s been a very anxious and upsetting time for me and my family, not least because of press coverage at the time of my arrest.”

I quote that statement because it is important to remember that we are talking about real people who somehow have to pick up the pieces of their lives. Knowing what has been published about the first man who was arrested in Bristol, we must ask how on earth he will pick up his life after what has been said and written about him.

Legal Aid and Civil Cost Reform

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That question was asked more frequently many years ago. The exclusive rights of audience in the higher courts were lost some years ago. There are now quite a lot of solicitor advocates. I am not sure whether the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), was a solicitor advocate, but he could have been if he had wanted to be. The profession is not as closed as it used to be. Changes are about to take place on new business structures for legal practice of all kinds, which will produce a considerable transformation in some areas of legal practice. We are in a far more competitive situation than we used to be.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

As a practising solicitor, I welcome this long-overdue full review of the legal aid system. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that we will retain a key principle of the criminal justice system, which is that no one who faces the realistic prospect of imprisonment and who cannot themselves afford to pay will be refused legal assistance?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes is the best and most straightforward answer to that. My hon. Friend underlines an absolutely fundamental principle of justice in any civilised society, so the answer is an emphatic affirmative.

Rights of Victims and Families

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I start by welcoming everybody to what I hope will be a constructive and informative debate. As the title suggests, its main purpose is to discuss the rights of victims and their families in the judicial system. I want to look at that especially, although not exclusively, in the context of violent and serious crimes such as murder and manslaughter.

Let me begin by familiarising everyone with the current support for victims, before presenting some facts and case studies to highlight the problems in the judicial system. In a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), explained that, under the current system,

“The Government ensure practical and emotional support to victims through Victim Support and other voluntary sector providers. Through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, it also provides financial compensation to blameless victims of violent and sexual crime. Bereaved relatives of homicide victims are also able to access free legal advice using a specialised helpline established in 2009. Any victim or witness can access free legal advice through the Legal Services Commission's Community Legal Advice website and helpline.”

He continued, noting that the Ministry of Justice

“currently funds Victim Support on an annual basis and they received £38.2 million in the last financial year…This year Victim Support are testing a model of working that has seen the development of enhanced support services for the most vulnerable victims of crime and in particular families bereaved by homicide. Other specialist providers of services to victims are funded by the victims’ fund, comprised of money collected through the Victims’ Surcharge which is levied on all fines and ring-fenced for spending on services to victims. In 2010-11 £2.25 million has been made available to fund third-sector services for victims of sexual violence, £270,000 to fund third-sector services for families bereaved through homicide and £250,000 has been made available to third-sector services for hate crime.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 323W.]

The National Victims Service would support the details that I have just read out. It highlights the fact that support for victims has dramatically improved in recent years and that crime levels are at their lowest since the war. The British crime survey has reported that all crime rates are falling and have been in steady decline since 2002. It also tells us that there has been an overall reduction in violent crime, and the number of violent incidents has fallen by half since 1995. Those statistics are certainly encouraging, and I welcome the recent announcement by the Ministry of Justice that it intends to get prisoners to work, with some of their earnings being set aside for victims of crime.

There are, however, two sides to every story. Jean Taylor, whose name I have mentioned before in the House of Commons in reference to victims of crime, is a courageous lady. She established the Merseyside charity Families Fighting For Justice, which is now spreading across the country at a rapid pace and becoming a national charity because her words ring true and resonate with people countrywide. This is what she has said:

“What I learnt after the murders of my sister and my son and daughter was there is nothing out there for us victims and their families. But there is plenty out there regarding support and funding for the murderers and their families, while we are left in the dark to cope with the loss of our loved ones.”

Unfortunately, those feelings are echoed elsewhere. Discussing its 2009 report “Order in the Courts: Restoring trust through local justice”, the Centre for Social Justice states:

“The courts are supposed to pursue justice, and discipline and rehabilitate law-breakers. But there is a widespread loss of faith in the sentencing process. Citizens do not believe that the courts punish appropriately. Sentences often fail to reflect the crime and appear opaque…Criminal activity and punishment are too distantly linked in the minds of many criminals because of a cumbersome and bureaucratic trials and sentencing process.”

What the facts do not illustrate are the failings of the current judicial system. The criminal justice system needs better to take into account some of the impacts that current procedures have on victims and their families. Such procedures include lenient sentencing for a guilty plea, lesser sentences for manslaughter, life not meaning life and the right to appeal, when some appeals are malicious. We should also consider some of the very real situations that I am about to explain, which demonstrate why victims’ families find themselves in a lesser position than perpetrators.

Perhaps hon. Members can imagine for a moment being a member of a victim’s family. There is a knock on the door, usually in the middle to the night, to say that their child has been murdered. The family are left dealing with the shock and grieving the sudden and tragic death of a loved one. They then have to arrange the burial while attending court.

There are stark differences between the treatment of the perpetrators and the victims and their families. The victims I have met, and who I know all too well, have to travel to court by bus, whereas the murderers are driven to and from court and are protected. Once in court, the perpetrator’s family is given a room in the court away from the media and the victim’s family. However, the victim’s family is frequently left to sit in corridors.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that she feels particularly strongly about this issue, and she has raised some important issues. Far too often, particularly in youth courts, which are closed courts, victims and their families are wrongly excluded from attending the public gallery to watch the proceedings. There are also issues about access to the new virtual courts. I hope that we can ensure that access to courts is improved for those victims and families who wish to watch the proceedings, as in the cases that my hon. Friend outlined.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend raises some pertinent points, and he is very experienced in this area, having spent 20 years working in the justice system.

To continue the list of differences, the perpetrator is provided with medical and professional psychiatric help, whereas victims and their families must go on a lengthy national health service waiting list just to see a counsellor. If a murderer dies in prison, his family will get up to £3,000 to bury the body, while victims get a tiny percentage of that and have to wait many months to be paid.