Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I will speak to all four amendments in this group, which are in my name. Amendments 116A and 116B cover the same grounds. They are really alternatives, and I will explain why. However, the fundamental point is that they deal with the provision in the Bill that the,

“amount of any financial penalty agreed between the prosecutor and”—

the company—let us call it that—

“must be broadly comparable to the fine that a court would have imposed on”—

the company—

“on conviction for the alleged offence following a guilty plea”.

I firmly believe that that is a wrong provision. It removes, first, the incentive for an agreement to be made. It is odd, because the Government put forward the limitations on the deferred prosecution agreement on the pragmatic grounds that it is often difficult to prosecute these offences. Therefore they want to have an alternative system which people suspected guilty of financial or economic crime will be prepared to accept. Well, they will be prepared to accept it if the offer is acceptable. There is another point to which I will come, but this provision says that if you do the deal you can only do it on the basis of the same financial penalty. Bear in mind that we are dealing with companies and commercial organisations which cannot be sent to prison, so it is the financial penalty which matters. It seems, with respect, to make no sense to remove the possibility from an agreement which provides some sort of incentive to make that agreement. To impose a requirement that the penalty must be,

“broadly comparable to the fine that a court would have imposed on … a guilty plea”,

seems, as I have suggested, to be wrong in principle.

However, there is another reason. It was pointed out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, in Committee, when he noted that this provision only applies if there is a financial penalty. There are a number of options in the agreement: a financial penalty; compensation; donation of money to charity; disgorgement of profits; implementing a compliance programme; and so on. There is a whole menu, but this provision says that if you have a financial penalty is has got to be the same fine that would have been imposed, broadly speaking.

That seems to lead to an absurd situation. In the discussions that are taking place, the company will say, “We don’t want to pay the full fine that we would have paid. We are prepared to accept our guilt even though we think that we could fight this in court and get off, but we do not want to pay the full penalty”. Then the prosecutor is faced with saying, “Well, either that means no penalty at all, because then I can escape the straitjacket of subsection (4), or you have to pay the full penalty, so there is no deal. So we will be forced to go into court; we may lose the case; it will cost the public a great deal”. It seems to make no sense at all, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, was quite right to draw attention to that.

It is critical that deferred prosecution agreements work. Of all the amendments necessary to make this work, I suggest that this is one. One needs to remove the straitjacket whereby the penalty has to be the same as the fine that would have been imposed. In promoting that—I shall come to the way to do it—I want to underline that the scheme that the Government have put forward contains safeguards against a wrong agreement. Those safeguards are, first, that the deal has to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or another senior prosecutor specifically designated for that role. There is no doubt that a senior prosecutor will have to make the decision. Secondly, the deal has to go through not one but two approvals of the court, the preliminary approval and the final approval. That is the structure of the proposal. I cannot see why this opportunity to make an agreement with some greater incentive should be removed.

There are two ways of achieving this, and that is what my two alternative amendments are designed to do. One is simply to remove sub-paragraph (4) altogether. I would be content with that. It achieves the objective and it leaves it to the discretion of the prosecutor and the court to fix the right elements. If there is some sentencing guideline as to what is appropriate, that is perfectly proper and perhaps it does not need to be contained in the Bill. That way of dealing with the matter meets an objection raised when I spoke to the other amendment in Committee when it was said that by saying “not more than broadly comparable”, one had to work out what the fine would have been, that that was difficult and it was therefore unreasonable to say that it should be “not more than broadly comparable”. I did not say then what I say now: that seems to be an objection to the provision as it stands, in any event. If the Government prefer, I accept that the alternative way of doing this would be not to say that the amount of any financial penalty should be “broadly comparable” to the fine that would have been imposed on a guilty plea, but “not more than” such a fine. It sets a finite level.

I want to make one further point before I briefly deal with the two other amendments in my name, Amendments 116C and 116D. I have gone back to the consultation paper to consider what respondents actually said on this issue because a question arose in our meeting as to whether I had recollected correctly that a majority of respondents had thought that the reduction should not be limited to the one-third reduction that one receives on a guilty plea. On page 28 of the Government’s response to the consultation paper at paragraph 102, it is stated:

“57% of respondents disagreed with the proposed maximum reduction of one third”.

Also, paragraph 105 states:

“We have noted the concerns raised by respondents that the maximum penalty level of one third may not prove to be sufficiently attractive in practice”.

Those are exactly the points that I have raised, and it appears that a majority of respondents took that view. I take some heart from that.

The other two amendments go together. Amendments 116C and 116D are simply intended to provide that in a deferred prosecution agreement there should be an obligation to spell out to the person who accepts it what the consequences may be, so that people know where they stand. There may be other ways of achieving that, but it seems right that the deferred prosecution agreement should, one way or another, make it clear to someone who is signing up to it what the consequences may be. Of course, if the person signing up to the agreement is a great corporation advised by substantial firms of lawyers, they do not need such a provision, but these cases may not be limited to such corporations and people deserve to be told just what they are getting into. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I should warn your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 116B by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I respectfully adopt and support most of my noble and learned friend’s comments and indeed most of his amendments. If I had a preference between Amendments 116A and 116B, I think it would be Amendment 116B, but it would be interesting to hear which way, if either, the Minister inclines on that particular aspect.

It seems very sensible that other possible consequences of a failure to comply should be incorporated, so I endorse Amendments 116C and 116D. As to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, we return again to the principle of having these novel matters debated openly before the new process is set in motion. In this particular case, it is a matter of having the financial penalties and parameters that would be proposed by the Sentencing Council subjected to scrutiny and debate but not, as I suggested in Committee, to an affirmative procedure. In retrospect, I think that was going too far and perhaps trespassing on the role of the Sentencing Council in an unacceptable way, although I note that there seem to be some judicial misgivings about the operation of the council. Be that as it may, it does not relate specifically to this point.

Again, bearing in mind the need to carry public opinion with us on this new process, it would be helpful to have that debate before the Sentencing Council’s proposals became adopted. The novelty of the process is such that not only would that be justified but it would actually assist in securing public acceptance. I can anticipate the next amendment, which is very much on the same line; again, having it debated should inform both public opinion and possibly the final decision-makers in a way that can only contribute to the success of the experiment, if that is what it is. I suspect that it will be a successful experiment on which we are embarking.

On the question of incentives, my noble and learned friend is right. It is quite clear from the American example—I repeat for the second or third time that very much larger sums are secured under the American system—that an incentive has to be provided. Whether that is a maximum of one-third or not is another matter. I am not entirely surprised that most respondents disagreed with a maximum of one-third; no doubt they would prefer it to be larger, which underlines my point, but there needs to be some open debate about this before a final decision is made.

In these circumstances I hope that the Government will, even at this late stage, acknowledge that there is substance in my noble and learned friend’s amendments, and I hope that they will also agree that my proposal would actually assist in gaining acceptance for this new process, both by the public at large and by those who will potentially be the subject of its operation. In that spirit, I beg leave to move the amendment in my name.