Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I do not disagree. I have always held up the arrangement at Peterborough prison as a model of where we want to go. It is exactly what I wish to encourage. People are imprisoned, first, because they have to make their reparations to the public and be punished for what they have done but, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, there is now an extremely interesting situation in place where attempts to start reforming criminals start in the prison and are followed through outside by St Giles Trust, which is the partner of the private sector managers of the prison. We hope to replicate that pilot across the country, which is an example of where we ought to go. People get the punishment first and then proper efforts to stop them offending when they are released.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

To pursue that point further, is it not the case that if we have a system that faces constant increases in numbers, overcrowding and prisoners being moved around in order to accommodate the problems that the system faces, we will not get sentence planning, the careful structuring of sentences or measures to prevent reoffending, which are needed.

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, that problem has constantly recurred with the extraordinary explosion in the number of people in prison in recent years.

As I have said, I am not saying that everything is perfect in the wider criminal justice system. I freely acknowledge that reporting and public understanding of our system is far from ideal, which is one reason why the coalition Government have a far-reaching programme of criminal justice reform as well as measures to promote transparency and public understanding. However, we should not muddle the problems of an overly complex body of law, which is too rarely reported accurately, with the rules governing how our judiciary apply the law in particular cases.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth saying that although the Sentencing Council is a recent innovation, the approach that it embodies is not new. Sentencing has operated in England and Wales for more than 100 years under broadly the same well-established constitutional settlement, in which Parliament sets the overarching legislative framework within which courts sentence, including the maximum penalty and, for some offences of particular public concern, the minimum penalty available to the courts. The role of independent judges is to work within that framework.

Since 2010, the Sentencing Council and its predecessor, the Sentencing Guidelines Council which was created in 2005, have provided courts with a decision-making process to assess the harm that offences cause to victims and communities, suggesting common starting points and ranges, and highlighting aggravating factors. The Sentencing Council has not fundamentally changed the basic division of responsibilities or the balance of power between Parliament, Government and the judiciary. Before the previous Government created the Sentencing Council, the Court of Appeal carried out this function. Its criminal division gave guidance to courts when it thought that discrepancies were beginning to occur. The Court of Appeal has not lost that power entirely and still gives guidance when it feels it necessary. However, the council now provides the great majority of such support to the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

Is the hon. Gentleman making a commitment that a future Labour Government—if there were such a thing—would increase expenditure on policing by 20% and expenditure on justice by a similar amount?

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is committing himself to the coalition in perpetuity in making those comments, but he knows the answer to his question, because the shadow Home Secretary set it out very clearly. We would have made cuts, but we would not have made 20% cuts, and we would not have made the cuts in front-line police officer numbers that are happening everywhere, but particularly, as I can attest, in London.

We need options for judges; we need prison places, which, as we know, are already at crisis level; and we need community sentencing. Every probation service and YOT can name at least one community sentencing project that has had to shut down in the face of cuts, and that is without looking at the cuts in youth services that divert young people away from crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Secretary of State and his Ministers talk a lot about restorative justice, and we have heard about it today. Restorative justice can indeed be transformative justice. As compared with control groups, those sentenced to restorative justice see falls of between 10% and 50% in reoffending. However, despite its success in Northern Ireland, the Government will not resource restorative justice conferencing.

The Opposition support effective alternatives to custody, but where are they? If magistrates and judges do not have the option of, or the confidence in, community punishment, they will be forced to impose custodial sentences. Cutting probation service, YOT and community justice budgets to the extent, and at the speed, that this Government are doing will fatally undermine their plan to reduce detention numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I was going to begin by complimenting the previous Government on setting up the Sentencing Council, but given that the Labour spokesman devoted his final paragraph to the cuts, I have to say, before turning to the work of the Justice Committee, that since the Labour party envisages cuts on a similar scale to the Government’s—they might be slightly smaller, but spread over a longer period—we are all talking about the same amount of money. Were there a realistic prospect of removing from the Ministry of Justice the obligation to make significant cuts in expenditure, we could all think of ways of spending the money, but any party confronted with office now would have the problem of funding desirable things out of a shrinking resource of public expenditure. If we can all be realistic about that, we may be able to make more progress on those things that we agree on.

One of the things that we seem to agree on is that the Sentencing Council is a valuable body. The Justice Committee has a statutory role in being consulted on the council’s proposals, as has happened in several cases—a couple of reports are on the Order Paper today, one relating to drugs and burglary and the other relating to assault. Our normal practice is to take detailed evidence, after which I normally write to the chairman of the council, Lord Justice Leveson, on behalf of the Committee, and we publish the letter along with the evidence that we have received. I strongly recommend that Members concerned about the council read the evidence from representatives of bodies such as Victim Support and others who come to hearings and give their views about the impact of sentences and about what they think is appropriate.

We believe that the system works well but faces serious inherent difficulties. On the evidence base, we have drawn attention to a fundamental absence of sufficient empirical evidence on which to base decisions on guidelines—for example, those relating to the cost and effectiveness of specific sentences. This is a general problem for those in the judiciary, be they judges or magistrates. Rarely do they get much evidence on the effectiveness of sentences, still less on the effect of sentences on individuals—unless of course they see the same individuals coming back again and again, having committed further offences. We need to ensure that we have the empirical evidence to provide a realistic basis for decisions about appropriate sentences.

Another problem has been mentioned today: the need to produce guidelines which the general public can understand and which are not simply lawyers talking to lawyers—that was an expression that Javed Khan of Victim Support used in evidence to the Committee. There is a tension between providing guidelines that are reliable and soundly worded—for legal purposes—and enabling the public to understand what the Sentencing Council is doing. It is a challenging task, the importance of which we have drawn to Lord Leveson’s attention. We also encourage Lord Leveson’s efforts in matters of public awareness, to increase public understanding of sentencing and work more effectively with the media, a role that the judiciary did not want to undertake in earlier times, for understandable reasons, but which is now much more widely recognised to be important.

Having referred to the work that we do on the Sentencing Council, I want to address what the purposes of sentencing are. The first purpose in my view—this view is generally shared across the Committee—is public safety and the maintenance of law and order. Therefore, there are people who have to be sent to prison, in some cases for very long periods, because they represent a serious danger to public safety and there is no obvious way of reducing that danger while they are at large. Prison therefore has an important part to play in the system. However, public safety also requires that sentences be imposed that are most likely to prevent further offences and the creation of further victims. The vast majority of people who are sentenced in court will come out again—whether after a short sentence or after a longer sentence—committing further offences and still representing a potential danger to our constituents. In many cases, they will have committed offences for which it would not be reasonable, by comparison with more serious offences, to impose very long sentences; therefore, we have to accept the reality. People will come out of prison, and at the moment, far too many of them come out and commit further offences—often repeat offences—over a number of years, which creates more victims.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned and moderate contribution, if I may say so. Indeed, he certainly takes a more robust view than many in his party. However, what would he say to the family of my constituent, John Hutchinson, who on 31 October was attacked by a group of feral teenagers, one of whom has subsequently been sentenced to a nine-month referral order, which is effectively a glorified contract promising to be good? My constituent is now having to leave his home and go into institutionalised care. Where is the faith and trust of my constituents in the criminal justice system when such an incident happens, and when they know that that individual is likely to go out and commit further crimes in future?

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituent has obviously had a terrible experience, but we should all resist the temptation, in this place and elsewhere, to comment on particular sentences when we do not know all the circumstances in which they were given. If the sentence in a particular case is not appropriate, the Attorney-General has the power to return to the courts and seek a longer sentence, a point that the Lord Chancellor made earlier.

The second purpose of sentencing is deterrence, but the effectiveness of deterrence is often exaggerated. The fact is that when they commit offences, most criminals, first, think that they will not be caught and, secondly, do not have much idea what the sentence will be if they are. Therefore, sentencing is not usually a matter that is firmly in criminals’ minds when they commit offences in the first place. There are many circumstances where the function of deterrence in sentencing is exaggerated. It is there, and it has a role to play. For example, after the public disorder last summer, there was a legitimate reason to believe that unless we made people realise that the offence of theft in the context of public disorder would be treated very seriously, there might be a failure to understand how the courts were going to deal with such matters. There was a deterrence aspect in that case, but there are many offences where deterrence plays no role at all, even though it is one of the legitimate purposes of sentencing.

That brings me to the third purpose of sentencing, which is punishment. Punishment is a wide concept, because it involves the community declaring that it rejects and abhors crime with all its harmful effects. We sometimes fail to understand that purpose of sentencing. One reason why people react as they might have done on reading in the newspaper about the case that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised a moment ago is that they think the court has not demonstrated how seriously the community takes a crime of that kind.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. Does he agree that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently in the other place, firmly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to that principle in relation to the crimes of sexual exploitation and paedophilia, by clearly saying that two thirds of a sentence must be served and that if somebody goes on to perpetrate another horrendous crime of that nature, they should receive a life sentence?

[Sir Alan Beith]

Yes, but there is also a public safety aspect to the kind of cases that the hon. Lady has described, in that they may involve criminals where the likelihood of their not reoffending is very low and where long, determinate sentences are therefore appropriate. However, the problem with this very necessary part of sentencing is that it can lead to a tension between society declaring very clearly that it will not put up with something and what would be likely to lead to that person not reoffending—I am not thinking of the kind of case to which she has just referred, but a much broader range of crimes.

Understandably, the public read about crimes and compare how different ones are treated by the courts; indeed, we all do that. We want to be sure that the worst crimes are taken the most seriously. Prompted by media reports in particular, the relative seriousness issue tends to be judged according to whether a sentence is a prison sentence and how long it is. Such sentences might not be the right answer for every case, however. The likelihood of reoffending could be greatly reduced in some cases by tackling a drug or alcohol problem, for example. If that is not done, it does not matter how long the person is kept in prison, because they will commit further offences when they come out, fuelled by their problem. The judiciary therefore has to bear in mind all the purposes of sentencing. Considerations of public safety, deterrence and punishment must all inform each decision.

In the light of those principles, we should also consider how the judicial processes work. We want them to enable the most effective sentences to be available and to be applied. As I mentioned earlier in a different context, however, we have a weak evidence base for allowing the judiciary to determine whether sentences have been effective. Few judges are able to tell how the sentences that they have passed have worked out in practice, or whether they have had the desired effect. The exceptions are those cases in which an offender comes back before the court. We need to deal with that evidence problem.

We have also seen a lack of effective management of sentencing and post-release provisions. The Government have set about improving that situation, and the Committee very much welcomes that. We have discussed in some detail the payment by results model and other ways in which the Government have sought to ensure that people coming out of prison have access to provisions that actually work. We cannot achieve that, however, if our prison system is in turmoil. A system in which people are simply shunted around in order to create spaces for other prisoners is the enemy of effective sentence management.

There is an institutional bias in the system in favour of the use of custody, regardless of whether it is the best option. If a judge or magistrate passes a community sentence, the first question has to be, “Are the necessary facilities available in this area?” That applies to residential provision for tackling a drug problem and to the various kinds of community disposal. We have to ask what is available. If a custodial sentence is passed, however, the prison van rolls up outside and the prisoner is taken away. The judiciary can be confident that that will happen, although it might not know where the prison place will be found. The system will find a place somewhere, however, and there is an institutional bias in the system in favour of such disposals.

Custodial sentences and non-custodial sentences are commissioned by different people. The commissioning of custodial sentences is a national function, carried out by the National Offender Management Service largely on a national basis. There is an attempt to provide prison places locally, but in practice, prisoners are often circulated and shunted around. Non-custodial sentences are commissioned much more locally. In the case of youth custody, we have seen how much more effective the process can be when it is handled locally. My Committee has regularly sought to interest this Government and their predecessor in the idea of more local commissioning of custodial and non-custodial disposals, so that a balance can be struck more locally. Clearly, there will still be a need for responsibility to be taken at national level for high-security prisons and other specialised services, but local commissioners could buy into that provision. In many areas, including the health service, this Government and the previous one have seen the value of a separation between commission and provision, and it seems strange that that is still not fully appreciated within the Ministry of Justice.

I want to refer to one of our Committee’s earlier reports, “Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment”, which was published not long before the general election in 2010. It was very well received and is still much quoted, which we find gratifying. The report identified a never-ending cycle of spending money on the punishment of offenders whose crimes we ought to have been able to prevent from happening in the first place. If we had spent the same amount of money on diverting young people away from criminality into positive activity, on education, particularly for those whom the education system has failed, on intervention to deal with problem families and on very early intervention for young children, we could have prevented some of the crimes. Instead, we are spending money on incarcerating the people who committed them.

I very much welcome what the Government are doing—particularly on the latter two issues I have mentioned thanks to the efforts of the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)—in insisting that even in these straitened times, we must find money for early intervention and early access to education, especially for those in deprived circumstances. I welcome that commitment.

The theme of our report, which has sadly been overtaken in this respect by the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, was that there should be a real resources shift from the custodial system into crime prevention. On this issue, people often say, “You can’t do that because the crime has happened,” but if we do not start in some way to inject and invest money at the stages where people’s propensity to commit crimes begins, we will continue to have to spend more and more money dealing with the consequences of crime.

We had, of course, hoped that financial circumstances might allow the money to start that process moving to come from elsewhere, but they have not allowed that— except to the limited extent to which the Government have been able to invest in early years education. The Ministry of Justice has thus had to find from within its own budget money to spend on more preventive measures. It is not just a matter for the Ministry of Justice, because it also involves the Department for Education, the Department of Health and a whole series of Departments whose expenditure decisions will determine whether some of our constituents are victims of crime in the future. Only to the extent that they divert those most likely to commit crimes away from that course will we achieve the purpose of preventing crime and promoting public safety.

The purpose of the sentencing system, as viewed here from the perspective of parliamentarians, must surely be the protection of our constituents—keeping our constituents safe. We should spend public money on sentences that cut crime rather than on the grim and often devastating consequences of crime. That is the principle towards which I believe all Governments should work, and I hope that this Government will work towards it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

These debates on criminal justice matters always resemble a lawyers’ dinner party; it is all very fascinating, but I am not sure that most of my constituents will be entirely impressed with the conclusions drawn from a lawyers’ dinner party. Once again, we have a cosy consensus in this place, and that usually precedes a disaster in public policy. There was the exchange rate mechanism, which all the parties fell over themselves to agree with, and which was, of course, an unmitigated disaster; and the Child Support Agency, which all parties thought was absolutely marvellous, but which, again, ended up a complete disaster. Today, all three parties are falling over themselves to agree on the merits of sending ever fewer people to prison. Once again, we face consensus, which is a disaster.

I am sometimes misunderstood, so I should say at the start that I think the Secretary of State for Justice is a great man. He would be a greater man, however, if he was in charge of a different Department. That should not be misconstrued as my lobbying for him to become the Minister for Europe, by the way, but I do think his talents would be better used in another Department.

We have had a sterile debate on this issue for far too long. I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public. There has been a long-running debate in which people are characterised as belonging to one of two separate camps: the camp that believes in prison, and the camp that believes in rehabilitation. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) seemed to reinforce that view towards the end of his speech, and it is a false division. I believe in sending people to prison; I also believe in rehabilitating people while they are in prison, and I do not see why a difference should be seen between the two. We must have a more sensible and nuanced debate.

There are two myths about the criminal justice system—first, that we send far too many people to prison; secondly, that prison does not work—and I want to try expose them both. The liberal elite are always conditioning us to believe that we send too many people to prison, but according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, for every 1,000 crimes recorded in the UK, we send 17 people to prison. That compares with 29 in Ireland and 31 in Spain—in fact, virtually every other country in the European Union sends more people to prison for every 1,000 crimes committed than we do. Of course, in America they send more than 200 people to prison for every 1,000 crimes committed. People may mock, but they have a crime rate that is less than half the UK’s.

I got the House of Commons Library to produce an interesting piece of evidence showing the prison population per 1,000 crimes committed, and the crime rate, in 45 different countries around the world. Obviously, there was not an exact correlation, but it was striking how close it was. The countries with the highest prison population also had the lowest crime rate. That really should not come as a great shock to people, because to be perfectly honest, most of the public would think it blindingly obvious that the more criminals we send to prison, the fewer we have on the streets committing crimes. It is blindingly obvious to everybody—apart, it seems, from the cosy consensus of the three major parties in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the case again today that crime goes up when we have an economic recession and down when we have a boom. I asked the Library to test that theory, too, and it produced a graph showing the crime rate, prison population and gross domestic product in this country since the war. There is a striking, remarkably close correlation between the prison population and the crime rate: as the former goes up, the latter tends to go down. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between GDP and the crime rate, so that is an absolute myth. It might seem logical to think that such a comparison exists, but all the evidence from the Library shows absolutely no link whatsoever.

I would argue not that there are too many people in prison but too few. Of course, under the previous Government and the end of custody licence scheme, 81,578 prisoners were released early, including 16,000 violent offenders, 1,234 of whom went on to commit 1,624 new offences—including at least three murders— during the time when they would normally have been locked up. That is 1,624 unnecessary victims of crime as a result of having fewer criminals behind bars.

A district judge told me about a bizarre situation that arose. On a Saturday morning, he sentenced somebody to six weeks in prison for theft. Three days later, on the Tuesday morning, the very same person came before him, having already committed another crime, despite having been sentenced to six weeks in prison just three days earlier. I asked how on earth that was possible. The judge explained that only half such a sentence is served, which automatically brought the sentence of six weeks—or 42 days—down to 21 days. Everybody was being released 16 days early, so that brought it down to five days. The individual in question had spent five days on remand before his trial, so, despite having been sentenced to six weeks in prison, he was let straight out. What an absolutely farcical situation. It is an utter farce and then we wonder why nobody in this country has any confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Government’s policy is also based on a premise which we heard again from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the idea, which we are encouraged to believe, that it is so easy to be sent to prison in this country. A myth has built up that someone can commit a minor offence and will be mopped up by the police, marched straight to the courts and, without a by-your-leave, sent to prison. If only that were the case. I would love to live in such circumstances, but it is far from the case. In the real world, people commit crime after crime and go to the magistrates court where they are given community sentence after community sentence until, eventually, a magistrate or district judge gets bored and finally says, “I have no other option, I have sent you on every possible programme going and I now have to send you to prison.” That is what happens in this country despite what the right hon. Gentleman said.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the evidence given by two ex-offenders who appeared before the Justice Committee during our probation inquiry, who both told us separately that their community sentences were extremely demanding, that they were fed up with them and that they had committed further crimes to get into prison, where they got three square meals a day and had much less to do.

[Philip Davies]

They must have had to commit an awful lot of crimes to get themselves into prison, because it is very difficult to get sent to prison in this country.

Let me emphasise the point. In 2009, according to the Ministry of Justice, 2,980 burglars and 4,677 violent offenders with 15 or more previous convictions were still not sent to prison. Today, the Secretary of State was saying that if someone commits a burglary they should expect to go to prison. In one year, however, 2,980 burglars with 15 or more previous convictions still were not sent to prison, which seems rather to defy the message that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is trying to give.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I agreed with many of the points that he so ably made based on his experience. It is easy to joke about the profusion of lawyers taking part in debates such as this, but in reality many of us stopped practising only within the past two years, before we came to this place. We therefore bring with us an abundance of experience and knowledge, especially those of us who were at the criminal Bar and both prosecuted and defended, which gave us an insight into cases from both perspectives. That is a great feature of the criminal Bar and, I hope Members will concur, adds to our ability to bring real experience and hopefully insight to this important debate.

I shall put my cards on the table. I practised at the criminal Bar for some 16 years until my election, and I am very proud of that. I should perhaps not put this too strongly, but it was one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs I have ever done, for all manner of reasons. As a member of the criminal Bar I defended far more than I prosecuted.

I should like to put it on record that I find it most peculiar that the Labour party, certainly in my constituency, seems to think it should criticise me for standing up in the House and talking about the law, particularly the criminal law. Often, I speak in defence of not only my own profession but solicitors, who are suffering in a way they have never suffered before due to the reduction in legal aid. I find it perverse that the Labour party attacks people such as me in those circumstances. It professes to be the party of the poor, the repressed, the deprived and some of the most needy in our society, but it is those very people whom so many at the criminal Bar and solicitors have represented for a long time, often with very little reward.

When I joined the criminal Bar, somebody said to me, “You are going to be a social worker wearing a wig.” Those of us who have been at the Bar or worked as solicitors and who have defended criminals will know from experience how often we go beyond the fee—and it is not a very great fee. We know how often we have given a fiver or £10 to clients who have no money in their pockets so that they can get home when they find themselves in the fortunate position—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will despair at this point—of not going into custody when they thought they might receive a prison sentence.

I once gave a client £10 so that he could catch the train back to Worksop. This perhaps shows my naivety. I took him to Nottingham railway station and assumed he would spend the money I had given him on his ticket. In fact, he went off and bought a large amount of heroin and was arrested by the police. Hon. Members can imagine my reaction when I found out what he had done with the money.

I digress from the subject of the debate, but I want to make the point that the criminal justice system could not operate without the Bar and solicitors who often go that extra mile, often at their own expense, to ensure that it works properly. I fully understand and appreciate that the legacy we have inherited means we have no option than to reduce the amount that goes into the legal aid pot, which means that members of the criminal Bar are seeing a reduction in their fees—that is in the context of having had no genuine increase since 1997. I know the Government can do nothing about that at the moment, but when the time comes we must ensure that those who do legal aid work are properly remunerated. It could be said that I have diverged from the subject of the debate, but I wanted to make that point.

Consistency in sentencing can be truly achieved only when the following occurs. It starts at the beginning. To achieve consistency in sentencing, we must ensure from the outset that there is a proper and full investigation of the allegation. That means that witness statements must be properly taken and that all relevant evidence must be properly gathered. A constituent who has come to me has quite properly complained following an assault allegation—she was the victim. She suffered cuts that required stitching to her face and a broken jaw, but the police did not collect her medical records despite the fact that she had signed the right form. She has now been told that the police are going to make the charge “common assault”. On the basis that what she told me is true, it is clear that the charge should be either for wounding or for a section 20 offence, or perhaps for an even greater offence. It was not a common assault, and it is clear that the police did not do a proper job in their investigation and in ensuring that all relevant evidence was available, which is important not just for the progression of the case, but so that the sentencing judge can pass the right sentence. In order to do that, we need to ensure that there is a full and proper investigation from the outset and that the right charge is reached. We also need to ensure that witness statements are properly taken, which includes, if appropriate, a victim impact statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said that the previous Administration were overly prescriptive and mandatory—a long-standing complaint of many of us about their conduct of the criminal justice system. I do not want police officers to go out with a checklist of all the things they must do when they take a witness statement. I want them to be properly trained to be able to rely on their own plain common sense. I do not want them to be overly prescriptive and certainly not stereotypical.

In his statement the other day, the Secretary of State talked about the changes we intend to make to the compensation scheme. This might be difficult to understand, but he quite properly mentioned the fact that not all victims of crime look at the crime in the same way. I have been burgled more times than I care to remember; in some instances, that did not have a particularly upsetting effect on me, and I would be the first to say that, but on one occasion it upset me greatly because my grandmother’s engagement ring was stolen. I do not know the value of the ring, and it does not really matter; what mattered to me was my sentimental attachment to that piece of jewellery. On another occasion when my home was broken into, I found it distressing that somebody had been through items of a very personal nature in my study. On another occasion, nothing much was particularly disturbed, so the trauma, or the effect, was not as great. However, we cannot say everybody will be the same, because, as we all know, crimes come in all different shapes and sizes, and they affect each and every one of us differently.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Did the hon. Lady welcome, as we on the Select Committee did, the fact that the Sentencing Council was prepared to treat burglary as an offence against the person, as well as against property?

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. If I may say so, there was so much I agreed with in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. From my short time on the Select Committee, I know he brings a huge weight of experience and plain, good common sense to his chairing of the Committee. I absolutely agree with what he says.

To be frank, I would never stand up and say we definitely want to keep the Sentencing Council. I know some of us disagree about this, but I always thought the Court of Appeal was a good place to determine the issues we are discussing, and I could see no good reason why that should not continue. However, we are where we are.

What we do know—this has already been mentioned—is that the sentencing judge will look at the aggravating and mitigating features in relation to every offence. It is therefore important that when the police go out and take witness statements, they make sure everything that should be in them is in them so the judge can pass the right sentence. If items of great sentimental value are stolen in dwelling-house burglaries, for example, that is an aggravating feature.

The same is true of trashing or ransacking the property, and of inducing fear in a particularly vulnerable person. One of the burglaries I suffered was at night-time, and my children were of an age where they were very frightened. They thought—this is common among children who have the misfortune to have their homes burgled at night—that the person would come back, and they were in fear of that. Such things must be in the witness statements so the judge can pass the right sentence. That will give us the consistency we want.

One of the things that is extremely annoying for somebody who has been the victim of a car crime is the fact that they lose their no claims bonus. There is also the huge inconvenience caused by the fact that their car has a broken window and that they will not be able to use it because it has to go off to the garage. Again, those are important aggravating features.

In offences of violence, there can be an assessment of the physical scarring that might remain, and of the pain and suffering the victim might have been caused, but their mental anguish must also be set out in detail so that the proper sentence can be passed.

I would go further and say that when police officers go out to get statements from witnesses, they should include in them the effect of a particular crime on the witness. The classic example is somebody who witnesses a fight in the street, which might be a particularly violent and unpleasant incident. That will have an effect on the witness, and if it does, it should be in the witness statement.

At the heart of good, consistent and transparent sentencing is an overriding and underlying belief in the fact that we should trust our judges. I say that with absolute certainty in one respect: if I had not come to this place, I would undoubtedly never have been made a judge. I am not, therefore, making these comments to curry favour with any judge. Hon. Members may not find this surprising, but the reason I would not have become a judge is that I fell out with so many judges.