Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Cormack

Committee stage & Report stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. It grieves me to do so because I am disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, but this is emergency legislation, so described. Put aside the question of precisely what Article 7 means or how the presumption against retrospectivity works; it is essentially a bad thing for a legislature to change the sentence of everybody in a particular group. Everybody accepts that proposition, except, possibly, one noble Lord who said that it would be good if everybody’s sentence went up—but let us put that to one side. It is bad for a legislature to change a whole cohort sentence because you should be sentenced by the courts, not by a legislature that subsequently takes a different view, primarily because of public pressure. It may be legitimate public pressure, but it is public pressure nevertheless.

There may be circumstances that make it necessary to break with that principle. If you have to break with it, break with it to the minimum degree required to provide public protection. I do not agree with the “in for a penny, in for a pound” approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: that if there is some justification for retrospectivity, any retrospectivity is justified. That cannot be the right approach.

The problem here is that prisoners may well be very dangerous—the Streatham terrorist was plainly and evidently dangerous, because he had said that he wanted to commit very dangerous crimes—and yet they have to be released. The solution is to make sure that somebody looks at every individual case and that those people can be released only if, in the words of the Bill,

“the Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.”

So, unless the Parole Board is satisfied that the person is no longer a danger, they must be kept in prison.

On the right way to approach this, instead of saying that everybody must stay in prison for longer, even if they are evidently no longer a danger, the right course is for everybody to be looked at. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, says, it might be that we cannot reach everybody by the time they are half way through their sentence. That is dealt with by the perfectly adequate drafting in this Bill, which says that you can be released by the Secretary of State only after you have been examined by the Parole Board and it has directed that you can be released. Therefore, the factor that determines when you get released is not that you have to wait until you are two-thirds of the way through your sentence before it is considered, but that you are considered at half-time and, if there is a delay while the Parole Board gets its act together, you the prisoner must wait, and the problem is solved. Of course there are difficulties in making an assessment, but there is that difficulty whether it is two-thirds of the way through a sentence or halfway through. It is fundamentally wrong that we just up it to two-thirds for no good reason in the context of emergency legislation.

I shall make one more point and then give way to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I do not accept the proposition being advanced that this provision, which increases detention from a half to two-thirds, would not offend against Article 7; nor do I accept that it would not offend against the presumption against retrospectivity. All the Article 7 cases are about changing the terms. So, in the Uttley case, somebody comes out with some terms on release, whereas previously there would have been no terms on release. In another case where it is held not to be retrospective under Article 7, a person is moved from one country to another and different provisions apply; but that was the provision right from the start. In the Aberdeen case, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, relied on—sadly, he is not here—somebody was released and then recalled. The rules changed regarding what happens when you are recalled. These examples do not go to the fundamental point of keeping you in prison for longer.

In the one case in which that matter was considered by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inés Del Río Prada case, the fundamental reason why it was held to be retrospective was that a sentence was changed because time off for work in prison suddenly began to count in a different way and, instead of getting out in 2008, the unfortunate prisoner was not going to get out until 2017. That was held to be in breach of the retrospectivity rule. I find it very difficult to distinguish this case from that case, whereas it is easy to distinguish all those other cases in which the precise terms changed but not the length of time in prison.

However, that is not the prime way in which I put my case, which is that if we are in emergency legislation going to impose this provision, we should not be upping the sentence if we can meet the emergency with the introduction of the Parole Board. We can do so and should do no more than that now. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I would rather make my own comments, because the noble Lord did not give way at the point at which I wished to intervene when he was talking about the two cases that are the reason behind this emergency legislation. He talked about the Streatham stabbings. What he failed to acknowledge was that the really dangerous terrorist was the one at Fishmongers’ Hall, who had feigned conversion and then turned on the very man who had been his mentor. That, in a nutshell, illustrates why it is important that we have this emergency legislation. I made it plain in my speech at Second Reading that this is only the beginning. We want substantial legislation; my noble friend has promised it and we must hold him to that promise. But we need to pass this tonight without further ado, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who made an extremely good case with great eloquence, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.