Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

I conclude by raising a point made by my honourable friend Andy Slaughter in the Public Bill Committee considering the Bill. He put an interesting question. If the Government are intent on proceeding with the charge, why will they not apply the proceeds—that £65 million or some other figure—to reducing the savage cuts in criminal legal aid which everyone, from criminal law practitioners to civil society organisations and the judiciary, is warning will have dire consequences for our criminal justice system? In the Opposition’s view, this is an unnecessary and unhealthy provision, but if it is going to be implemented, if a certain amount is to be collected, and if the Government are right in thinking that those sums will amount to around £65 million, that would be one-third of the entire cuts made in the legal aid budget. As this is a late and novel introduction, I cannot see why the Government should resist that conclusion if, against our advice and the advice of other organisations, they press ahead with this retrograde and ill-thought out change to our system. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments to Clause 42. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has made clear, Clause 42 proposes the imposition of the criminal courts charge to cover the costs of providing the judiciary and the rest of the court system. Such a charge is proposed, as he has also made clear, to be compulsory for offenders of 18 and over unless the offence is of a class listed in regulations as excluded.

I have put my name to a number of amendments, along with my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Linklater, and in some of those we are joining with those proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Our principal purpose in those amendments is to ensure that the criminal courts charge is recoverable on a discretionary basis. I put that quite apart from the arguments about whether the sums sought to be recovered will in fact be recovered and I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government’s expectation in this regard is entirely optimistic.

Quite simply, we can see no point in setting out a requirement that the criminal courts charge be imposed in cases where it will not do any good and is unlikely ever to be recovered. It will no doubt be argued by my noble friend the Minister that the power to remit the criminal courts charge under new Section 21E at a later date, some time after it is imposed, will provide an answer to the point we make. However, I am bound to say that I doubt it will. Will the Minister clarify what the Government see as the point of imposing a mandatory requirement that a defendant pay a charge and coupling that with a power to let the defendant off the charge if he cannot pay it? In many cases, the reality is that the inability to pay the charge in the first place is obvious throughout.

That really is the problem. In a very large number of cases, there is absolutely no prospect that the criminal courts charge will prove to be recoverable. We entirely accept that in those cases where a defendant can afford to pay the charge because he or she is in work or has means, then the court should be able to impose one. The courts charge in those circumstances would make it clear to the defendant that the public insist that the cost of providing the services of the court should be met, at least in part, by the defendant. That would have two salutary effects in those cases. First, the public would recover some of the costs that have been defrayed in order to bring and prosecute the case. Secondly, the court would be making it absolutely clear to the defendant what trouble, inconvenience and expense he has caused, and that he should pay for at least some of the extra costs.

However, as we all know and as was made absolutely clear in Committee, many offenders come before the court without work and means, beset by complex problems of inadequate education, physical and mental health, harsh and criminal backgrounds, dysfunctional families and, above all, a lack of employment opportunities. What such offenders need, as has again been repeatedly stated, is rehabilitation and support. Generally, we are all agreed in this House that where a custodial sentence is not absolutely necessary, rehabilitation and support should take place in the community. One of the cardinal aims of any rehabilitation programme should be to enable offenders to secure employment. Until they do so, there is no prospect of their being able to afford to pay the criminal courts charge.

I suggest that saddling all offenders, regardless of circumstances, with outstanding debt is a thoroughly bad idea. I am concerned that the existence of an outstanding charge will make it much more difficult for an offender to secure credit. That, in turn, may make it that much more difficult for him to secure employment. Even if it is only that he needs to buy suitable clothes for interviews or perhaps a bicycle or other transport to get to work, he will not be able to fund them. Furthermore, the fact that such an offender has a charge hanging over his head is likely to be a disincentive to his securing employment because he will know that the repayment of the charge will come from any income he may earn. Now, that may be a less meritorious argument but it is none the less valid for that.

It is also important that the court should have the discretion to set the charge at an appropriate level. There is no such discretion in the proposal made in the Bill. Where the court decides to impose one, it should be for the court to set the level of the charge. It should not be a one-size-fits-all penalty, any more than a fine should be. Plainly, there must be a maximum. That is appropriately defined in new Section 21C as,

“the relevant court costs reasonably attributable to a case of that class”.

However, to say that a charge in that maximum amount is the only charge that may be imposed is unhelpful and unrealistic. It is not sensible to rely on a power—again, at a later date—to remit a proportion, because that involves effectively indicating to a defendant that some of the charge will not have to be paid. The advice will be: “If you cannot pay it all don’t worry, pay what you can and you will be let off the rest”. That is hardly an incentive to pay. It would be far better for the courts to set a sensible and achievable figure at the outset.

Turning to our amendments therefore, we would make the charge entirely discretionary. Our Amendment 63ABA would make it clear that the court would have to consider the justice of the case, having regard to the circumstance of the offender and of the offence and, where appropriate, to the circumstances of any failure to comply with the requirements of a court order. That last point is necessary to deal with the fact that the charge may be imposed for failure to comply with the requirements of a community order or a suspended sentence order or with a supervision requirement.

Amendment 63AFA would leave out subsection (4) at the end of page 41. That subsection rather strangely requires a court to leave out of account a defendant’s liability to the criminal courts charge when considering the penalty,

“for an offence or for a failure to comply with a requirement”.

I see no reason for that provision. If a court regards it as being important to bring home to a defendant the extent of the costs he has caused to the system, why should it not be free to impose a criminal courts charge and lower any other financial penalty accordingly? That salutary discretion is specifically removed by the subsection, and we suggest that it should therefore go. Amendment 63AM would enable a charge lower than the maximum to be imposed, while Amendment 63AN is a tidying-up amendment that would enable the court not just to remit some of the charge, but to remit any interest on the charge when remitting it.

In summary, our position is that a criminal courts charge will be a useful new tool in the court’s armoury when sentencing, but we do not see it as sensible simply to tie it to the overall cost of the justice system. We do not see any reason for tying the court’s hands in such a manner as inevitably to reduce its power to do justice in ways that are not tailored to the individual cases before it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am struck by the direct relationship between the speed with which the Minister is racing through his brief and the embarrassment he no doubt feels at the material he is giving to the Committee. I cannot believe that the good and noble Lord is really convinced of the case he has been asked to put. That would not surprise me, because much of what we have heard is simply beyond credence. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, in a very powerful speech, made the essential point that—among other things—the court should have discretion on the amount. None of us is any the wiser about what kind of sums we are talking about. The Minister certainly has given no examples, except to say that it will be related somehow to the cost of the individual case. How is that to be calculated? On what basis will that be apportioned? Are we just talking about the cost of prosecution? That can be covered anyway, under the existing framework. Are we talking about a contribution to the cost of maintaining the court building or the cost of the judicial salaries in a higher court? There is no indication of how this cost is to be calculated and then passed on.

Equally, although the noble Lord rightly pointed out the provision in the Bill that the Lord Chancellor will prescribe the class of case to which the charge will apply, he has given no indication tonight—and I do not think that it was done in the other place either—of what kind of cases are envisaged. Why do we not know which cases are likely to be included? What will be the process, if any, for parliamentary approval of the classes as prescribed by the Lord Chancellor? Will Parliament be permitted any consideration in this, or will it simply be a matter of the Lord Chancellor’s fiat?

The Minister’s suggestion that it would be improper for the court to determine the amount because that would somehow reflect a vested interest on its part is simply risible. It is an absurd suggestion. The notion that magistrates or High Court judges will be influenced to make rather larger requirements of prisoners because that will somehow affect them, or the court system, is an insult to both the judiciary and the magistracy. It cannot be something that the noble Lord seriously believes. His scriptwriters need to go back to wherever they were taught their craft.

In addition, and worryingly, the Minister suggested that there is no deterrent effect because the charge will be imposed only long after a plea was entered. That is absurd. The fact that the court is in a position to impose a charge is known to the defendant before he appears there; it certainly ought to be. Of course, it may influence a defendant as to the nature of a plea, particularly in the case of an appeal.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Is not the noble Lord slightly mistaken? It is the fact that the court is bound to impose the charge that is known to every defendant before they go into court.

[Lord Beecham]

I am not known for being mistaken, but I am happy to concur with the noble Lord’s judgment of me. However, I am not happy to concur with the Minister’s judgment of the situation because it is simply fallacious, particularly in relation to an appeal, when the costs will necessarily be significantly more than they would be at first hearing. Of course, appeals are not just confined to going from the magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court. There is also the question of an appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal and, I suppose, ultimately to the Supreme Court, the costs of which would presumably be unimaginable to an ordinary defendant.

In my view the Minister’s case is in tatters, but let me put a further point. If we are talking about the cost of the case and the cost to the courts, where is the logic in not extending that to the costs—I am now looking at the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—of the police force or the probation service, which might also be involved with a particular client? Why are we confining this charge to the court process? There is no logic to this at all.

We still do not know how the £65 million figure is computed. No doubt the Minister, in fairness to him, does not know either. I cannot imagine he has been supplied with the information. Even if that figure were right, it is something like 3% of the total amount outstanding. The noble Lord gave figures for the uncollected sums for two quarters of 2012. I think my figures were slightly more up to date, if they were correct. However, he did not answer the point—I do not blame him, because presumably nobody has told him—as to why the Ministry of Justice does not know how much has been outstanding for longer than 18 months. Is there an implication that, if money is outstanding for more than 18 months, it would be written off? That would be curious, in the circumstances. There is also the point that the charge will apply to those who are sentenced to a period of imprisonment, presumably to be met after they come out, no doubt as part of their rehabilitation. Does this make any kind of sense, I ask rhetorically? The Minister may think it does; there will be few in this House or outside who would agree.

Of all the misconceived and less than half-baked ideas we have seen in the Bill, this proposal must surely rank in the front line. It is simply appalling and I hope the Minister will use his long experience of these matters, as both an advocate and as a recorder, to persuade his ministerial colleagues, in particular the Lord Chancellor, that he is bringing the whole system into a serious collision with reality, one that will do no good to the defendants, to the court system, or, frankly, to the reputation of those who are putting forward these proposals. However, as we are in Committee, I will not press the matter tonight. It is very probably one to which I and others will wish to return on Report. I hope the Minister will use his influence with the Lord Chancellor to see that some significant changes, at the very least, are made to these appalling, deeply flawed proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising solicitor and partner in the international law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, and I have other interests recorded in the register.

The “have a go” culture has infected our civil compensation system for far too long. Claimants—and it is always claimants—see that there is no real penalty for trying on either that they have been injured at all or a deliberate exaggeration of the symptoms that they have suffered. The advertising by claims farmers and solicitors has undoubtedly played a part in this. The adverts for personal injury and for financial mis-selling continue to give the impression of free money. The starkest example that I can immediately recall was a full-page advert last November showing simply a bundle of £50 notes done up in Christmas ribbon. We all recall those original adverts saying, “Where there’s blame, there’s a claim, and it won’t cost you a penny”.

That is why I welcome Clause 45 as part of the Government’s initiative to tackle this. I certainly support its introduction. Measures are, of course, already available to tackle the completely fabricated claim, but I fully support the idea that a claimant with a genuine claim who then dishonestly exaggerates it should put their whole case at risk. That, after all, is what would happen if one was unwise enough to put in a consciously exaggerated claim to one’s own insurance company. Why should it be any different if one proceeds with the same intent against another person’s insurance company?

I would like to hear more from the Minister on the choice of the phrase, “fundamentally dishonest”. I recognise that my noble friend has great experience of the English language, and I should declare an interest as having been for six years chairman of the English-Speaking Union, but, with due respect for his grasp of the English language, it seems to me that dishonesty is one of those absolute concepts: either you are dishonest or you are not, in the same way that you cannot refer to something as “very unique” or to someone as “slightly pregnant”. I know that a similar phrase was used in the Civil Procedure Rules following the seminal—perhaps I should now call it the “fundamentally seminal”—review by Lord Justice Jackson of civil legal costs, but I am not aware that it has been tested or scrutinised by the Appeal Courts as yet. I would welcome clarification from the Minister about the thinking behind the choice of this phrase.

I have received, no doubt like other noble Lords, material from those representing claimant personal injury lawyers who have expressed concern that this measure might go too far. I cannot agree with that. If a claim is brought which contains a dishonest element—and dishonest always means that there is proof of a deliberate intent to deceive—then that behaviour should rightly put the whole claim at risk. The effect of this clause is clearly a deterrent one which, as I have already explained, I strongly welcome.

It might be helpful to point out to noble Lords that Clause 45 is not unique—not even slightly unique—because an analogous provision can be found in Ireland, in Section 26 of its Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. There, any plaintiff, as they are still called in Ireland, who knowingly gives false or misleading evidence will find their claim dismissed in total. The test is simply one of dishonesty rather than fundamental dishonesty. If there is a fear that the power in Clause 45 would be abused by overzealous defendants, the experience of more than 10 years in Ireland proves otherwise: the courts are alert to any attempts to abuse a provision that is expected to apply in only a small number of cases, and of course if the clause truly has a deterrent effect, it should mean fewer cases coming to court in the first place.

Let me finish by illustrating the concern over “fundamentally dishonest” with a stark example that was recently brought to my attention. It was a case tried in Stoke-on-Trent County Court earlier this year. Mr Steven Cotton is a 31 year-old heating engineer who now lives in Swadlincote, Derbyshire. In December 2008, he sustained an injury to his neck and shoulder while at work. It was frankly a modest injury and he was able to go back to work the following month, in January 2009, before a disciplinary matter at work intervened. At that point, he decided to bring a claim against his employers and to include in that claim an allegation of a lower-back injury. Matters progressed and, just a few months before trial, he put in a claim schedule for in excess of £1 million, despite his solicitors, Woolliscrofts in Stoke, being aware of video surveillance evidence showing Mr Cotton as being much less disabled than he was making out. I understand that the insurers facing this claim, AXA Insurance, were not impressed. They rightly defended the case to trial and the judge agreed that Mr Cotton had invented the lower-back injury as a deliberate exaggeration of his genuine neck and shoulder injury. The judge awarded Mr Cotton just over £18,000 for the genuine injury, which was less than 2% of the amount that he had falsely claimed, plus some of his solicitor’s costs. One might think that this degree of exaggeration would be enough to knock out the entire claim but, sadly, it was not so. On the one hand, Mr Cotton’s case is a classic example of why the clause is badly needed. On the other hand, it raises a question in my mind as to whether the addition of a second injury to an already genuine injury would be seen by the courts as fundamentally dishonest. The court in Stoke stopped short of declaring that Mr Cotton’s lower back injury was not a genuine medical condition, despite the surveillance evidence. I have a real fear that Mr Cotton might still be awarded damages after the new clause comes in when all right-thinking people would agree that someone whose claim had already been knocked out to the extent of 98% not being allowed should not receive a penny.

I turn to the second amendment in my name: Amendment 63FE. To me, the meaning of subsection (5) of Clause 45 is unclear. Subsections (2) and (4), for example, impose obligations on the court to follow a particular line of conduct by use of the word “must”. In contrast, subsection (5) is different in tone and appears to offer more leeway. I hate once again to split linguistic hairs with the Minister, but I would like some clarification on whether subsection (5) is really intended to be a discretionary “may”. I reassure noble Lords that there is some substance behind the point I seek to make. Subsection (5) appears to limit the legal costs consequences of a claim being dismissed in its entirety under the clause by restricting the costs award that could be made to the defendant to a sum net of the damages that would have been awarded to the claimant if he had pursued an honest claim. I wonder whether there is even a risk that subsection (5) simply undoes the good work of the rest of the clause. The dishonest claimant who is found out ends up paying his opponent’s cost but is able to offset the money he has forfeited by his dishonesty. To return to the example of Mr Cotton, he would still, in effect, get credit for the £18,000 awarded for his genuine injury. Does that not encourage the likes of Mr Cotton to have a go at the expense of insurers, which is where I was when I started? I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 63FDA to 63FFA. I do so with some diffidence because, in part, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. After the humorous and intelligent way in which he introduced his amendment, and given that I agree with a great deal of the sentiment he expresses, I am concerned about the extent to which I disagree with him.

I agree with my noble friend that there has been a culture of “going for it”. There has been an outbreak of “compensation-itis” that we no doubt acquired, in part, from the United States and which has bitten particularly deep into the culture of people who have had motoring accidents. I greatly agree that something needs to be done. The question is whether the clause does what needs to be done in the way it needs to be done.

As my noble friend explained, Clause 45 deals with claims for damages in personal injury cases where the claimant is guilty of fundamental dishonesty in the prosecution of his claim. Clause 45(2) provides that,

“The court must dismiss the primary claim”—

that is, the claim for damages—

“unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed”.

The question I seek to pose is how far subsection (2) would leave judges free to do justice.

In my view, the subsection works against the interests of justice, or certainly risks doing so, in two ways. The first is by imposing a presumption in favour of dismissal, subject to a modest saving provision that, frankly, is difficult to understand. I am not sure I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that the word “fundamentally” adds nothing, but I certainly am of the view that the saving subsection,

“unless it is satisfied that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice if the claim were dismissed”,

is very difficult to understand. On one view of justice, and the view of justice which appears to be intended by the proponents of the clause, if there is dishonesty, it is not unjust for the whole claim to go. If that is the meaning, how does the saving provision come in at all? If, on the other hand, it means that the interests of justice seem broadly to require the claimant still to get some of his damages, does that amount to a duty to dismiss or is it merely a power to dismiss, which is what my amendments are directed to?