Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Burrowes and Rehman Chishti

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments are intended to enable the Government to conduct a proactive review, which should, indeed, involve looking at what happens on the opposite shore. We all want to tackle the profound consequences of death caused by drivers under the influence, and ensure that they receive the appropriate penalty.

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

I, too, must make a declaration. I was a criminal barrister who both prosecuted and defended.

As my hon. Friend says, the maximum custodial sentence for a first offence of drinking and driving is six months. It is the same for a second, third and fourth offence. Does he agree that drink-drivers who pose a threat on our roads should receive longer sentences, and that their cases should be sent to the Crown court where there can be multiple convictions?

[Mr Burrowes]

I remember briefing my hon. Friend on many occasions. He was a great advocate in courts in Enfield and Haringey, and he continues that advocacy in the House. He has made an important point. There is a parallel between dealing with drink-driving cases and dealing with, for example, cases of criminal damage. Where there is a succession of criminal damage cases, later cases can receive a higher penalty and can be committed to the Crown court; indeed, there are categories of criminal damage that attract a higher penalty and the attention of the Crown court. The Government should look at whether that principle, which is already in statute, should be applied to drink-drive cases that have the most serious consequences.

We have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of culpability and consequences in death by careless driving and dangerous driving. We have recognised that there needs to be a particular way of dealing with penalties that is aligned to the consequences, rather than looking at culpability alone. My amendments seek to take that a stage further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) would be here in the Chamber supporting me if he were not in a Committee. He has fought a valiant and successful campaign as a result of the tragic case of one of his constituents who died as a result of someone driving carelessly. The issue of impairment must be dealt with properly and that will now happen. He and I share the concern that the new offence of drug-driving needs to address the issue of fatalities, which was where the campaign that led to the new offence began. It would therefore be ironic if we were left with a Bill that does not deal with cases where dangerous driving cannot be proved independently but people who are plainly under the influence of drugs or drink have killed someone, and they can—perhaps through the hard work in years gone by of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and myself as defence solicitors and barristers—get to the point where there is a lesser plea of drink-drive with a six-month penalty.

Sadly, that has already happened. We have heard that 27 people were tried and nil were convicted on this charge. I am concerned that in those cases there was a plea bargain to the lesser charge of drink-drive.

The explanatory notes to the Bill make another important point. It is stated about schedule 18:

“Paragraph 2 amends section 3A of the 1988 Act so that if the person had a controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug, the person could be charged with the more serious offence in that section of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.”

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee, and I sought clarity from the Minister about this point, which had been raised in correspondence with the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice dating back to March 2012 and in the campaign I mentioned earlier that sought a higher penalty in cases where it was not possible to prove careless driving. Unfortunately, now, a year after that correspondence began, we are in the final throes of the passage of the Bill.

This point has been made not just by me; this was not just a hobby-horse of mine—it is not about me wanting to make a point and send out a press release. It was made by Chief Superintendent David Snelling, who was an excellent commander of the Met traffic division, and it also came to the fore as a result of the campaigning efforts of my constituents, the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost their daughter as a result of dangerous driving and who saw a gap involving fatalities in drink and drug cases that are not prosecuted as they should be, so we do not end up with the sentences that the dead victims and their families deserve. They make their point based on the practical reality of cases that actually arise, and that is also the basis of my amendments.

The gap is in hit-and-run cases where a driver who is over the limit on drink or drugs crashes into another car or a pedestrian and kills, and then leaves the scene. In situations where fatalities occur, such cases are not infrequent, as—it will not surprise Members to learn—many people who know they are over the limit will do their best to evade prosecution, so they will leave the scene. They get hunted down and arrested, and when they are found to be over the limit the prosecution begins and the investigation continues. A prosecution for a failure to stop carries a limited penalty that does not reflect the gravity of the situation, and I have previously sought amendments to extend the penalties in that regard.

The prosecutor is left with the option of prosecuting for death by careless driving, but the problem is that there is no witness. In these cases, often the only witness is dead; there is nobody left. The steps are then traced back and the scene is marked out. The marks on the road might allow people to come up with a prosecution that shows that careless driving took place, because there are signs of speed, swerving, braking and so on. But it may well be that none of that is available, as perhaps it was a wet day and very little could be shown. Little corroborative evidence may be available beyond the fact that the person has died because of that vehicle and that driver, and all we have left is the fact that the driver was over the limit.

Sadly, all the prosecutor can perhaps do is prosecute for driving with excess alcohol or driving over the prescribed limit for drugs, which carries a maximum sentence of six months. Clearly that is not acceptable, given the gravity of the situation. Over the years, Parliament has recognised that where a death occurs as a result of driving it needs to be dealt with, and quite properly so. So that sets out the gap I am seeking to fill through my proposals.

The issue is whether there can be independent proof of careless driving and whether that must be sought out. In Committee, I asked the Minister what he thought of the situation and asked him for clarification. I said:

“I want it to be made clear…that it will not be necessary for the prosecutor to independently prove careless driving as the standard of driving, and that the effect is that someone’s being over the prescribed limit for drugs or alcohol will be sufficient for the prosecutor to be able to make the decision to charge them with a serious offence.”

He replied:

“My understanding is that it will not be necessary. I hope that I have clarified the point.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2013; c. 394-95.]

I would settle for that and move on. Indeed, I would probably have a press release saying, “I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that drivers who are over the limit and kill will get a higher penalty, which amounts to a maximum 14 years.” I would rest easy that the campaign has been successful, the victim’s voice has been heard, and the chief superintendent and police on the ground have recognised that gap and say, ”That is good. That has been dealt with.”

However, I then received correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in what we might term “Yes Minister” language, saying that there “may be confusion”. That is what has led me to table new clause 18 and amendment 120. It was clear in the Bill Committee that we would have confusion, so today the Minister has an opportunity to be brave and to fill the gaps that I have had a go at filling through a couple of options.

One option, new clause 18, would make drink-driving or driving over the prescribed drug limit an either-way offence—one capable of being committed to the Crown court and then attracting a maximum sentence of two years. The other option is amendment 120, whereby those on licence, disqualified drivers and uninsured drivers who kill in this way will face a heavy penalty of two years. That simply adds to the list in respect of drink-driving.

I have to put my lawyer’s hat on, because I appreciate that people may have concerns about new clause 18 opening up all drink-driving cases to a Crown court trial; I recognise the expense and the vagaries of jury trials, and that that is not wholly satisfactory in itself. I am perhaps being generous in how I am presenting new clause 18 and it perhaps needs to be refined. Perhaps it should be simply specified in relation to fatalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham suggests making specific provision about repeat drink-driving offenders. There is certainly a role for making only those high-end cases liable for a committal to Crown court, in a similar way to what happens in the criminal damages cases I referred to earlier.

Another way around that would be to deal with magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers. Perhaps the Government will respond to the calls from the Magistrates Association to extend their powers to a maximum of two years. Youth courts have a two-year custodial sentence power, so perhaps we should have equity for adult courts. That would be much more cost-effective and would avoid cases all going to the Crown court and we lawyers being paid more up there—although we must appreciate the legal aid restrictions in that regard. The issue could then be dealt with in a magistrates court in a proportionate manner. That option is also open to the Government.

I recognise that there are reservations about amendment 120. As a lawyer, I am not keen on extending strict liability cases too readily and the amendment would certainly effectively extend a strict liability scenario to drink and drug-driving-related cases. Nevertheless, my amendment is clean cut. It does not extend the powers of the Crown court to all drink-driving cases but relates specifically to fatalities. It deals with the issues that have motivated my amendments and merely adds to the list of offences. Members of the public might ask what the difference is: if someone takes the risk of driving while uninsured, disqualified or without a licence, they are pretty careless to do that and should accept the consequences, and the same applies to those who are over the prescribed limits. My amendment would retain the statutory defence for drink-drive cases and would therefore have less of a strict liability nature.

The Government need to fill the gap. I am trying my best to do that and have provided two options. There might be more and I have no doubt that the Minister can tell us about any others. I look forward to seeing how the Government will do it as this is a real problem that should not be ignored. The fact that there were 220 deaths in a year but only 27 people were charged with causing death by dangerous driving while impaired in the same period makes the point very clearly. Large numbers of impaired drivers who kill are, for one reason or another, avoiding prosecution for the more serious offence and are probably ending up being charged with the lesser drink-drive offence.

In conclusion, I spoke to Ministers before tabling the amendments. I welcome the commitment from Transport Ministers that if I can provide evidence that proving carelessness is problematic, the Department will review the case for amending legislation. The statistics I have given are evidence and I put the burden of proof on the Government. I ask them to review the issue and seek to prove the point. We are very much in the end game on this Bill. Some might say we should have done that earlier to avoid getting into such a situation, but I urge the Government to recognise that we have a problem and to fix it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between David Burrowes and Rehman Chishti

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

As a duty solicitor, I declare an interest in—as in the title of the Bill—legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). He reminds me of many a client I have represented in Edmonton police station who fails to accept any responsibility despite the compelling case against them. He fails to accept responsibility despite the fact that two thirds of people reoffend when they come out of prison and most of our prisoners are lying idle in prison. Despite the plethora—the incontinence—of criminal justice legislation, all of which he probably had a part in as Home Secretary and Justice Secretary, victims still feel a lack of proper confidence in the justice system, but he does not accept any responsibility for that.

During the 13 years of the Labour Government, there were more than 20 criminal justice Bills, some of which I had the opportunity to scrutinise. I gave my maiden speech on one of those occasions—the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. That was in many ways one of the messaging Bills that were very much part of the new Labour project; they simply sent out a message without having any real effect. We also had many a Christmas tree Bill. For example, one of their last Bills, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, had many pieces of additional legislation tacked on to it as it went through its stages. That is another danger of over-legislation.

The shadow Justice Secretary criticised the Green Paper, consultation and further consultation on the IPP issue. What is he complaining about? Does he want us to move quickly to legislate and run the risks that we have seen before? We have a litany of unimplemented 2003 legislation that we are now having to deal with. That is part of the legacy. That legacy is not only a failure in our prison system and criminal justice system, but a failure of legislation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn and other Opposition Members have to accept responsibility for that.

One issue that will be raised in the consultation is self-defence and defending one’s property. The right hon. Gentleman and others have been involved in discussions about sending out a message on that issue. I encourage him to read the case of R v. Keane or the recent case of R v. McGrath. Those show that his efforts at messaging and putting more baubles on Christmas tree Bills have not made a jot of difference in terms of changing the existing legislation that applies in that area. We need to learn those lessons well, and this Government are doing that, because it has taken 13 months for us to introduce this criminal justice Bill. I hope that we will not come back next year with another criminal justice Bill, and that we will scrutinise this properly, making any necessary changes and then moving forward.

What we need in our justice system is to get back to the three R’s—retribution, restoration and rehabilitation, which need to be properly balanced. The Bill is not the whole story in relation to what the Government are saying about criminal justice. We would not want that. We do not show our card on the basis of how many laws we pass and the extent of this legislation, for example. Our approach is to do with our intervening early to stop many of these people getting involved in the criminal justice system. It is to do with the way we are dealing with drugs and ensuring that many people more recover instead of getting parked up on methadone. That all matters greatly, as does more structural reform.

In some areas, such as youth justice, the Bill does not have a great number of clauses. There is a recognition of the progress that has been made, including the youth rehabilitation order. That needs to be properly implemented.

One area where there needs to be retribution is knife crime, as I am sure we all agree. In our manifesto, there was a clear commitment to it, so I welcome the intention of clause 113 to make it crystal clear that anyone who threatens with a knife will receive a custodial sentence. I welcome that intention, but I know—sadly all too well in Enfield, where we have had seven fatalities in the past three years and one in the past month, all at the hands of someone with a knife—that any possession of a weapon is in effect threatening. Even if the person possessing the knife does not intend to threaten, he or someone else could well become a victim of its use if he gets involved in any disturbance later.

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

rose—