Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The idea that buying an animal by the side of the road or in a garage forecourt for cash is somehow legitimate trade is clearly wrong. I am grateful to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for doing important work on promoting safer purchasing through the “Petfished” campaign. We will build on that in the way in which we identify and track cases better, improve the recording of keepership data and deal with through-the-loophole breeders, who are frankly responsible for a lot of cruelty and suffering.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I rarely congratulate the Justice Secretary, but I do on this issue because he has eventually agreed with Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition about making pet theft a specific offence. On a serious note, I congratulate all the campaigners on the issue, particularly John Cooper, QC, who has done an awful lot of work on it.

The Justice Secretary knows that when the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), tabled his amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Tories rejected the idea of a specific offence time and again; I think I am right in saying that the Justice Secretary’s argument was that the Theft Act 1968 was sufficient. The taskforce has now reported, but I am not clear on when we expect the legislation to take effect. When can we expect those who are alleged to have stolen pets to face the criminal courts?

[Robert Buckland]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words of wisdom, but I will just correct him in this respect: there was a general agreement that the use of theft legislation to deal with what were more than goods and chattels just was not an adequate way to reflect not just the taking of a pet, but the suffering of the pet and of the owner. That is why abduction is a much better read-across, as he knows from the matter of child abduction, for example.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the point and I challenge him and the Opposition: if the matter is brought forward in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which they voted against again and again, will they now support it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that, as I referred to in my initial reply, we have already relaxed the evidence requirements for hardship payments and, importantly, reduced the threshold for work done by criminal lawyers to £450 from the current £5,000. It is absolutely essential that we maintain throughput, and as we move on through this year with the road map out of lockdown, I am confident that the court system will be able to list even more proactively, making sure that there is plenty of work for dedicated criminal legal aid lawyers.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]]

The independent criminal legal aid review is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to fix a vital element of our criminal justice system. There are more than 400 fewer criminal legal aid firms today than in 2015. That means that more than one in four has left the system. When these firms fold, legal aid family law departments often go with them, leaving domestic abuse victims without representation. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government cannot simply wait for the recommendations of CLAR before taking action and that we must make sure that the number of unrepresented domestic abuse victims does not increase yet further.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need for representation for domestic abuse victims. He knows, of course, that in criminal scenarios the Crown Prosecution Service will act with regard to the prosecution of offences. He will also note that, in phase 1 of the CLAR process, up to £51 million a year has already been injected into criminal legal aid fees. That is the most significant increase in investment in legal aid for a quarter of a century. We are working on the existing body of evidence with the new chair of the criminal legal aid review, Sir Christopher Bellamy QC, who is already engaging with the professions. I am confident that his work will deal not only with the situation with regard to fees in court, but, as he says, the “sustainability” of those criminal legal aid firms that are the lifeblood of representation in that sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, whom I am delighted to see back in his rightful place, speaks powerfully for the communities of Colne Valley, whom he represents and has represented so ably. He will be reassured to know that in the magistrates court a huge amount of work is being done to deal with technology and to allow for remote hearings, and the same is happening in the Crown court, where guilty pleas are being dealt with expeditiously. The issue here is about trials. He will have heard earlier the plans we have to scale up, in capacity and sitting hours, the work that needs to be done to bring justice to his constituents and many more.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Legal aid lawyers, often doing the most complex cases, are already struggling for their financial survival, but the Justice Secretary now plans to pile on more pressure through reforms of fixed fees in immigration and asylum appeal cases. He knows that this change means that lawyers will be forced to do more for an awful lot less or will simply walk away, so will he acknowledge that this ploy, pretending to give with one hand but snatching far more away with the other, will further drive lawyers away from representing the most vulnerable people? Will he now commit to working constructively with those professions to find a better and fairer alternative?.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman knows from my long background as a legal aid practitioner that I always work constructively with the professions and engage closely with the representative bodies.

[Karl Turner]

It’s cynical.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is making totally unfair comments from a sedentary position. We have started, particularly with regard to immigration, to increase the amount of money that is rightfully being paid. We are looking at trying to make sure that the money is targeted—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, perhaps he might learn something. [Interruption.]

Crown Prosecution Service: Funding

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will make that point myself. Excluding guilty pleas, conviction rates in magistrates courts and Crown courts are significantly down, despite the headline figure of an 80% conviction rate. I think the conviction rate in magistrates courts is about 50%, and in Crown courts it is about 25%, excluding guilty pleas. Since 2010, CPS staff numbers have fallen by a whopping 2,400. The CPS is suffering a brain drain and haemorrhaging experienced in-house lawyers, who leave for independent practice, or simply take the money and run.

On a serious note, I mentioned a caseworker bursting into tears in open court, clearly because of the pressure. I am told that the stress levels at the CPS are seriously high. Interestingly, a 2012 LawCare survey of the law profession revealed that more than 50% of the legal profession generally felt stressed, and that 19% were suffering from clinical depression, with more than one fifth of the profession suffering from mostly avoidable and preventable mental ill health. Stress at the CPS must be off the scale, particularly considering a recent Law Society survey in which 95% of respondents said that they were stressed at work.

Furthermore, in May 2016 the Public Accounts Committee inquiry found that

“The criminal justice system is close to breaking point.”

According to the National Audit Office report of March 2016, “Efficiency in the criminal justice system”, the number of cases outstanding in Crown courts had increased by 34% since 2013, and the waiting time for a Crown court case to be heard had increased from an average of 99 days to 134 days—an increase of about 35%.

In 2014-15, the Crown Prosecution Service spent £21.5 million preparing cases that were not heard, as the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), helpfully said. What has happened to those cases and the £21.5 million? If memory serves, it costs just shy of £1,000 to prepare a case for Crown court—the CPS says that being trial-ready costs it about £1,000—and £21.5 million has been spent on preparing cases that got nowhere. One must assume that the evidential test had been passed, and that the CPS reviewing lawyer had determined that there was enough evidence—that is, on balance, more evidence than not, and a more than 50% chance of a successful prosecution—and that it was in the public interest to prosecute that case. Twenty-five million quid was spent on preparing cases that went nowhere. The Solicitor General might be able to correct me and clear the matter up, but I assume that that is down to cases coming to nothing. In the magistrates court or, worse still, the Crown court, perhaps the CPS lawyer just gives in for whatever reason. I do not know; I am guessing. I have no idea.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

I am anxious to answer as many questions as possible. In the Crown court, cracked and ineffective trials that have not gone ahead for prosecution reasons have, as a proportion, fallen to only 13.5%. That proportion of the total is falling; it is important to bear that in mind when looking at the overall context. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

[Karl Turner]

That is a fair point, but nevertheless £21.5 million is a staggering amount of money to be spent by the CPS on preparing cases for trial only for them not to come to anything. It is easy to mention such figures, but we must have some thought and regard for the victims in the cases, who will be anxious for the case to make progress and to have their opportunity to give evidence for the prosecution, and desperate to find out what happens in the trial. In my submission, the victims suffer the most from all that. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because I have been notified by the Attorney General’s office that some Government Back Benchers have indicated a wish to make a speech in the debate.

Interestingly, Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate found that charging decisions were not correct in 18.2% of cases. There is clearly a problem between the police, who are either, in cases where they are authorised to charge a case without referring it to the CPS, authorising charges that they perhaps ought not to and probably not getting advice from a CPS lawyer, or—I say this carefully—perhaps not giving the full information to the CPS reviewing lawyer.

It would not be fair if I did not say that I have the highest possible regard for CPS lawyers individually. Prior to my election to the House, I prosecuted for a fair while from chambers, and I found that CPS caseworkers and lawyers had the highest professionalism. They were committed and extremely capable individuals who cared a great deal about the job they did. I pay tribute to each and every one of those CPS lawyers, who are under incredible pressure. I also pay tribute to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, whom I know personally. When I was shadow Solicitor General and shadow Attorney General, I met her on a good number of occasions, and I know that the Solicitor General meets her regularly, too. I find the DPP very professional, extremely impressive and extremely committed to the task in hand. Unfortunately, she is under considerable pressure, but she does the very best in difficult circumstances.

The decisions that I referred to should have been reviewed by a Crown prosecutor prior to the charge being authorised, but—this is a staggering figure—in 38.4% of cases, decisions were not reviewed before the case was first heard at a magistrates court. Prior to being elected to this place, I practised as a junior. I was the one who prosecuted for the CPS. Before my next day in the magistrates court, if I was lucky—sometimes it was on the morning—my clerk would give me a big, black CPS bag containing files for the next morning. I would go home and prepare 10, 12 or 15 files for trial. It would often take me through the night. All night long, I would drink large quantities—[Interruption] —of coffee, the Solicitor General will be rather relieved to know.

I would go into the courtroom the following morning to find that witnesses were not there, police officers were not available, shift patterns had changed all of a sudden, reviewing lawyers were unavailable, and the caseworkers who were available on the end of the telephone were not in a position to make any decisions. The defence, who were keen to crack the case and put it to bed, might offer me a section 5 public order offence, rather than the section 4 offence that had been charged. I would read the file and think that whoever had authorised the section 4 charge had been optimistic, to say the least, and would want to drop it in preference for a section 5 charge, which would be easy enough to get home and get a conviction for, but no lawyer would be available for me to speak to.

That was then. I have not been in a magistrates court to prosecute—I have recently been in one in a pro bono matter—since 2010. Things were bad enough then, but they are getting worse. Things are much worse now than when I was on my feet in magistrates courts before I left Wilberforce chambers in April 2010.

Some 38.4% of cases are not reviewed before they first come before the magistrates court. In reality, that means that if the prosecuting lawyer has been really lucky, they open their file and they have their witnesses ready, they have interviewed them individually, they have checked that what the police say in their statement is what they are about to give as evidence and is correct, and they are ready to crack on. But then they find that things are not quite right. The charge is probably not correct, in truth. Whoever has reviewed it probably has not done so very well, or things have been kept from the reviewing lawyer that are particularly important to their charging decision. The fact that 38% of cases are not reviewed means that when a prosecuting lawyer goes in to prepare cases for trial, nearly half of them will not even have been reviewed by a CPS lawyer. They have one arm very definitely tied behind their back.

I have kept Members long enough, but given that Government Members will say that everything is great, I want to talk about what the profession says—what individuals at the Bar say about their experience in the CPS. It would not be right for me to name people, but this is from an experienced CPS prosecutor of 30 years’ call:

“CPS hesitate to instruct QCs to prosecute even murders. Very serious, high publicity, or multiple murders will get a Silk prosecuting; otherwise not. The decision tree is on the CPS website”,

which I helpfully have in front of me. He continues:

“As a fairly senior junior barrister…I have over the last 5 years prosecuted some 12 murder cases. I have done this as single counsel. About 8 of those have been prosecuting against QC and a junior. One was of two defendants both with QC”

and their respective juniors. The CPS provided him with a CPS lawyer—a higher court advocate—in that case. He was against two silks, effectively—two Queen’s counsel —with their own juniors. I am talking about a junior not of the level I was at prior to coming into this place but of probably 20 years’ call, who has prosecuted and defended for an awfully long time and has a great deal of experience of being junior to leading counsel, and of prosecuting a murder on his own without leading counsel.

That CPS prosecutor says that, in contrast, judges

“have some influence on Defence getting a QC, and will say in open court ‘This being a murder case the Defendant should’”—

the judge of course is right—

“‘have leading counsel’ and the legal aid is then likely to be extended to cover that.”

In that scenario of a double-handed case with two defendants, why should the victim, whose loved one has allegedly been murdered, have counsel bringing the case for the prosecution against two leading counsel and two junior counsel? How does the victim feel in that scenario?

I hope it will not annoy you too much, Mr Hanson, if I talk briefly about some other cases that have been mentioned to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

It is all very good when it works, but people are reporting to me that, sadly, it does not work and often goes wrong—very badly wrong. Cases are vacated as a result of the very thing the Solicitor General mentions.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing some powerful anecdotes. I do not underplay anecdote; it certainly helped to inform me in my long career at the criminal Bar. However, the overall statistics tell the full story about what is happening across the system. There is no doubt that in the magistrates court, we are seeing an increase in efficiency. For example, guilty pleas at the first hearing in the magistrates court have increased as a proportion of total cases from just over 62% back in 2010 to over 70% in the past year. That is indicative—

[Karl Turner]

Of self-represented clients—litigants in person.

[The Solicitor General]

No, it is not. It is indicative of much better preparation by the prosecution of the cases, so that when defendants appear, they face a case that has been properly put together. That is also reflected by the increase in the overall guilty plea rate, which has gone up from just under 68% to 76.3%.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East talked about inefficiency. I am pleased to tell him that average hearings per case for both guilty pleas and trials have reduced. For trials heard in the magistrates court, we are now looking at just under three days, as opposed to three and a half days or more. Compliance with judges’ orders was always an issue when it came to the Crown Prosecution Service. Hon. Members will remember “mentions”—my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) will know exactly what I am talking about. I am glad to say that we have seen an increase in timely compliance with judges’ orders in the Crown court in recent years. The rate has increased to more than 80% in the last two years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

With respect to everybody who works in the pro bono area, I do not want to detract from the important work of pro bono by pretending that it is somehow a legal aid service. It is not; it is voluntary. It is a vital part of what it is to be a lawyer. Not only does it provide a benefit for those whom it serves, but it is an important part of the career development of lawyers. The Conservative party is committed to funding our legal services, and we are spending just short of £2 billion a year on legal aid. It sits very ill for the Labour party to lecture us about the amount we spend on legal aid when it merrily cut legal aid while in office.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in that my wife is a part-time tribunal judge and legal aid lawyer.

We all praise the work of lawyers who give up their time to offer advice and assistance, just as we praise law centres and citizens advice bureaux, but does the Minister agree that those individuals and organisations cannot possibly fill the gap left by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? In April 2010, more than 470,000 people received assistance on social welfare matters. Just 12 months after LASPO, the number was down to 53,000—a drop of 90%. Will the Minister please urge the Justice Secretary to bring forward the promised review of LASPO?

Crown Prosecution Service

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Solicitor General]

Very much so. A lot of us who pioneered such work in the ’90s now find that a lot of what we said and believed then is becoming standard practice, and that is absolutely right. We have heard reference to the victims’ right to review, and, as was made clear in an intervention on the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), there is an ongoing process in relation to a particular case that means that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will come back to his point about historical child sexual exploitation in a moment.

Importantly, the new victims’ right to review scheme that was established last year gives victims a further opportunity to ask the Crown Prosecution Service, with the help of independent advice, to consider again the merits of particular decisions. So far, between June 2013 and the end of September last year, 263 decisions have been overturned by the new system. It is a small proportion of the number of Crown Prosecution decisions that are made, but it is an extra safety valve that goes a long way, as I said in relation to our strategy, to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system.

I have referred en passant to the hon. Member for Rochdale, who talked with his usual power about child sexual exploitation. It is a national emergency. I entirely agree with him, and so do the Government. The way in which complainants were dealt with historically in towns such as Rotherham and the town that he represents was wrong. There was far too much emphasis on the reliability of the individual witness, who was often very young and vulnerable, rather than an overall view of the merits of the case. That is rightly acknowledged to have been an incorrect approach. The thrust of the work being carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service now very much reflects the fact that lessons have been learnt, and there are a number of marked successes when it comes to convictions in such cases. A number of so-called celebrities have rightly been brought to justice, and young victims in larger conspiracy-based cases involving many young and vulnerable complainants have now had their voices heard, as the hon. Gentleman says, and can now see that some justice has been brought in order to help them get on with lives that have been torn asunder by the abuse that they suffered.

The hon. Member for Torfaen rightly talked about pressure and efficiency and how decisions are to be made where there is a reduction in the number of lawyers. The way to measure that is by looking at some of the efficiency measurements that the CPS has conducted. The percentage of guilty pleas at first hearing is a good measurement, because that clearly demonstrates that there has been an excellent level of pre-trial and pre-plea preparation in terms of case management, which means that the evidence has been presented clearly and that those advising defendants can confidently tender advice in a proper way. The percentage of guilty pleas at first hearing has increased from 63.4% in 2010-11 to 70.6% in the last financial year. That is a significant increase.

Another vital piece of information relates to the percentage of magistrates court proceedings that are dropped at a third or even fourth or fifth hearing. That percentage has fallen from 44.2% to 34.1%. In the Crown court, cracked and ineffective trials owing to prosecution failure have fallen from 18.2% to 13.5%. That shows that those who are responsible for decision making and case preparation in the CPS are rising to the challenge and yielding significant results. I pay tribute to chief Crown prosecutors in regions such as the west midlands and the south-west for understanding the importance of the management of the huge volume of cases that come across the desks of prosecutors week in, week out, and for making sure that further improvements are made so that, from the CPS’s point of view, they are doing everything they can to ensure that the Courts Service is efficient.

It would be churlish of me not to put on the record my grateful thanks for the service of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras as Director of Public Prosecutions. He came in at a time when the service already knew that it would face important financial challenges under his stewardship, and he managed them admirably. It is in no small part due to the leadership that he showed that the sorts of figures I have been able to bring to the debate today, and the improved efficiencies in the CPS have been achieved. We are grateful to him.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about strategy, and I have given him the answer that I think needs to be set out. He also talked about lines of sight and the risks being run with regard to the impact of reduced resources at a time when it is clear that case loads are increasing. I agree with him: case loads are increasing. We have more terrorism cases and an increase in child sexual exploitation cases. He is right to ask questions. I can reassure him that, as in his day, there continue to be regular meetings between the Director of Public Prosecutions and chief Crown prosecutors to ensure that the current director is fully aware of the impact of changes in case load and resources on individual CPS areas. Further to that, both the Attorney General and I regularly meet the CPS’s director and its chief executive, Peter Lewis, to discuss a range of measures that crucially include resources and its case load mix.

[Karl Turner]

In discussions the Solicitor General has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions, has she mentioned to him and the Attorney General that the CPS urgently needs £50 million now to prosecute historical sex cases properly? What representations has he made to the Chancellor about that?

[The Solicitor General]

I wanted to come on to finance and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the CPS continues actively to discuss its requirements and resourcing pressures with the Treasury. The idea that somehow there is a nonchalant, sit-back approach to that is wholly wrong.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that not only are the pressures understood, but discussions continue at the highest levels of Government with regard to making sure—[Interruption.] I reassure him that when it comes to the prosecution of serious crime, whether terrorism or child sexual exploitation, the question of resources does not come into it. What does come into it is the threshold test that I referred to at the beginning of my speech.

The CPS continues to look at the impact of resource changes and it is working with colleagues in the Treasury as part of the ongoing spending review. It would not be appropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of that review. The debate is timely and I accept that Members are impatient, but that is where we are on the ongoing pressures and risks that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras talked about.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

It is a pleasure to reply to the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), and I thank him for allowing this important issue to be aired this evening. In doing so, I pay warm tribute to him for his commitment to reform in this area over a number of years. He came to this House with a wealth of experience in the criminal law in his practice, and he and I struck up a friendship because of our common understanding of the criminal law and our mutual experience in criminal practice over the years prior to our entry to this House. Therefore he speaks with particular knowledge about these issues. But he also speaks as a Member of Parliament, representing thousands of people who, like all of us, expect to see consistency and a correctness of approach to criminal sentencing from the judiciary.

It is right for me to say that Her Majesty’s judges do a tremendous job on the sentencing of offenders; they deal, week in, week out, day in, day out, with a variety of sometimes difficult and complex cases, and it is right for me to thank them for all the work they do. But the issues that my hon. Friend raises are important, because there will be times when errors are made. It is perhaps right for me briefly to remind the House that the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which has been operating for just over 25 years, was introduced, in a way, to deal with that concern. Prior to it, there had been no means of increasing a sentence for any criminal offence once it had been passed by the courts.

The scheme was brought in because of a public outcry over a case that many of us will remember—the Ealing vicarage case. A gang of men broke into the vicarage. There were several victims. The vicar, Michael Saward, was severely injured and Jill Saward was raped. When the four offenders were sentenced some 11 months later, there was a public outcry when the men received higher sentences for the burglary than for the rape. I take the opportunity to pay warm tribute to Jill Saward, who, in the years since, has been a redoubtable campaigner on behalf of victims of sexual violence.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced for the first time a mechanism by which sentences could be increased by the Court of Appeal. Sections 35 and 36 provide the Attorney General and the Solicitor General with the power to refer sentences passed in certain Crown court cases to the Court of Appeal for review if the sentence is considered to be “unduly lenient”.

Parliament imposed strict safeguards when that power was created. The power had to be exercised personally by the Attorney General, or by the Solicitor General on the Attorney General’s behalf, in relation to indictable only offences or certain either-way offences specified by order, and only where it was considered that the judge had made a gross error in sentencing. Creating a power to correct these grossest sentencing errors was, and remains, the key mechanism to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained when unduly lenient sentences are passed.

It is important to note that it is not a prosecution right of appeal. It is as guardians of the public interest that we, the Law Officers, exercise the power to refer cases. In other words, it is a power exercised independently of Government, but by a Minister. The power to refer a case is subject to an absolute time limit of 28 days from the date of sentence.

A Law Officer considers all cases personally. It is very important that the filter is dealt with by the Ministers themselves. The Attorney General and I feel that that is a vital part of the system. Cases may be received at any point in the 28-day period. Although some cases are referred for consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service, anyone can make a complaint about a referable sentence, including members of the public, and it will be carefully considered.

The power to refer applies to all “indictable” only offences—offences that can be dealt with only by the Crown court—which include murder, manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, rape, robbery, wounding with intent, and many others. It also applies to certain either-way offences, which have since been specified and added by order. That phrase means offences that could be dealt with in the magistrates court as an alternative to the Crown court.

The various orders that have been made pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 were consolidated by an order made in 2006, which ensured that the ULS scheme now also applies to a number of sexual offences, some drugs offences, child cruelty, threats to kill, and offences that have been racially or religiously aggravated.

Most recently, from July last year, we, as Law Officers, have been able to consider whether a sentence imposed for an offence under section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is unduly lenient. I know that the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will be interested in this, because that is an offence of holding a person in slavery or servitude and requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour.

However, it is this incremental process of adding offences that has led to the current formulation of the scheme, and I acknowledge that there are inherent anomalies, which my hon. Friend has described very clearly. I shall return to that point shortly. Much more often than not, we decide that sentences referred to us are not unduly lenient. However, I am proud to say that, in referring cases to the Court of Appeal, we have achieved some considerable successes. I am talking not just about the high-profile cases, involving well known offenders such as Stuart Hall, but much more widely.

In one recent case, which I presented in the Court of Appeal—it is an important principle that Law Officers go to court to present cases on behalf of the Government to make the point that the public interest is being served—the offender was convicted after trial of the attempted murder of three sisters from the United Arab Emirates who were on holiday in London. During a burglary of their hotel room, he attacked the women with a hammer, causing life-threatening injuries. The Court agreed with me that the 18 years minimum term of imprisonment was unduly lenient and increased it, so that the offender must serve 27 years before he is considered for release. The presence of children during the serious attack and the use of gratuitous violence with a weapon were among the serious aggravating factors.

In another example, a referral was made in a case involving the sexual abuse, including rape, of a six-year-old girl by a male offender, who was assisted by his female partner. The Court of Appeal agreed that the original sentences were unduly lenient and increased the male offender’s total sentence from 12 to 19 years’ imprisonment. The Court found him to be a dangerous offender and therefore ordered that there be a five-year extended licence period after the 19-year term finishes.

Those are two important examples of cases where great damage has been caused to victims and in which the ULS scheme has played an important role in securing justice for them. There are many more such cases.

The high-profile nature of the ULS scheme in the recent past has meant that the number of referrals has been steadily increasing as awareness of the scheme widens. Very shortly, detailed figures of the latest trends within the scheme will be published, and I think they will show that the public are becoming more aware of, and more prepared to use, the scheme.

The Government will take very careful note of what my hon. Friend has said, and we will set out our plans as soon as is practicable. It is clear that at present there are inconsistencies and anomalies in the scheme, which the extension will seek to address. Both the Attorney General and I are very clear on that point, and we understand the concerns where offences—often serious offences—do not appear in the scheme, seemingly without a clear legal, or indeed logical, explanation.

I recognise that my hon. Friend and, indeed, all my hon. Friends are keen to see the Government make progress on a clear manifesto commitment. I hope I can reassure them when I say that work is very much under way with a view to delivering on that, and that the Prime Minister has been very clear that we will deliver on all our manifesto commitments.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

What do the Government plan to do? Are they suggesting, for example, that they would include all either-way offences, or just some? Will they include only serious either-way offences?

[The Solicitor General]

That is an entirely proper question and we are developing our view. All matters need to be considered and it would be wrong of me to prejudge or ordain the outcome today, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I know that he shares a passion for ensuring that victims of crime are protected. He took important amendments to the criminal law on sentencing though this House in the previous Parliament, and I pay tribute to him for that, but I am sure that he would be the first to understand that there needs to be careful consideration, and that this will be done as soon as is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very nice to be popular.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the very low level of rape and sexual assault prosecutions in the military is a direct result of both a lack of independent scrutiny by civilian authorities and the discretion given to commanding officers to hear cases summarily themselves? Does he think it would be helpful if regular inspections of the Service Prosecution Authority were to be put on a statutory footing?

[The Solicitor-General]

May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and offer warm congratulations to him? The point he makes is perhaps more relevant to other types of sexual offences that are not included in the schedule to the Armed Forces Act 2006. When it comes to rape and serious sexual offences, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the rigorous standards used by the CPS are those adopted by the SPA as well. The joint training and joint working I mentioned allow the Attorney-General and I the reassurance we need to make sure that these serious matters are prosecuted effectively.

Criminal Bar (Public Funding)

Debate between Karl Turner and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I apologise for being late, Mr Bone. I am afraid that public transport let me down.

I declare an interest as a criminal lawyer. I was called to the Bar in 2005 and practised criminal law from a firm of solicitors in Hull for a number of years. Shortly before my election to the House, I was in the latter stages of pupillage at my local chambers, of which I remain a member. I hope, therefore, to bring practical experience to the debate as both a junior member of the criminal Bar and a solicitor who has practised criminal law and been heavily reliant on public funding.

In the time allowed, I hope to dispel a couple of myths. The first is that publicly funded criminal lawyers are taking excessive sums from the public purse. In my experience, the opposite is true. Colleagues at the Bar work long hours and receive modest fees for their services. In preparing for this debate, I asked a criminal solicitor in Hull, Mr Waddington of Williamsons solicitors, what a 25% cut to his criminal practice would mean to his business. It is worth mentioning that Williamsons is the biggest criminal firm providing services to my constituents. Mr Waddington described the prospect of 25% cuts as “disastrous”, and greater cuts as “catastrophic”.

Although no one would expect Mr Waddington to clap his hands at such a prospect, it is important to mention that he was also concerned about access to justice for the most vulnerable. As a law-abiding citizen, as he put it, he was particularly concerned about the potential effects on innocent parties in criminal proceedings, such as victims of crime and witnesses who might be subject to cross-examination by unrepresented defendants if criminal solicitors and barristers were forced to refuse instructions.

In my experience, colleagues at the criminal Bar and solicitors do not feel that the previous Government were overly generous during the past 13 years, but the cuts threatened by the new Justice Secretary and the coalition Government are likely to force them to close their doors for good.

Despite the consistent accusations of irresponsible spending, it is indisputable that the previous Labour Government streamlined and made efficiency savings, especially in criminal legal aid. As recently as March, the previous Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:

“The Government strongly believe that there must be a significant restructuring of the provision of criminal defence services in order to achieve greater value for money from legal aid, while still ensuring fair access to justice and enabling legal aid providers to remain profitable and sustainable.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 13WS.]

That is a crucial point. The solicitors and barristers to whom I speak are genuinely concerned about their practices and about whether they will be sustainable after £2 billion of cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget.

It is true that the Labour Government carried out significant reform of legal aid. Most prominently, Lord Carter carried out a review of legal aid procurement, a key aim of which was to reduce criminal defence rates. Those were substantially reduced—by 13.5%—but I am not saying that what happened was perfect, because I am aware of examples where injustice resulted. Cutting costs is clearly a priority for the Government, but at what cost? The Justice Secretary has confirmed that his Department will play its part in reducing public spending, but I submit that legal aid has been stretched enough. If the coalition Government try to stretch legal aid yet further, I fear it will snap.

The Labour Government recognised that legal aid could not reasonably be exempt from efficiency savings and, of course, I recognise that the criminal legal aid bill is more than £1 billion. However, I urge the Government to consider a number of issues in the comprehensive spending review. Cuts to criminal legal aid may well lead to defendants being unable to access appropriate legal representation, because criminal practitioners will decide that enough is enough, and that may compel defendants to represent themselves. That will inevitably lead to the system being clogged up, as defendants battle through what is a procedural and legal minefield. Miscarriages of justice may result from poor-quality advocacy caused by defendants representing themselves, or by the inappropriate use of inexperienced advocates, and there may also be expensive delays in court time.

Cuts to legal aid for criminal cases have already encouraged the use of employed higher court advocates, who offer less experienced representation. Speaking from my experience as a criminal solicitor and, indeed, a junior member of the Bar, I can say that there are some good-quality higher court advocates. However, the truth is that the Bar is very special. The training for it is very different, and there is no comparison between higher court advocacy and barristers. The Bar is far superior because barristers do the job all the time. Higher court advocates will waltz into a Crown court once a fortnight or once a month, but a member of the Bar is there continually.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point about the lack of experience of higher court advocates. Would he agree that one of the absurdities of the Crown Prosecution Service’s obsession with using higher court advocates is that people who are highly qualified in terms of civil service work are taken out of the system and away from the work that they should be doing in reviewing cases? That work is then delegated to often less experienced assistants within the CPS. The public sector unions frequently complain about that current fad, because it puts employees within the CPS under pressure.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful for that intervention. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman or have put it better myself.

Criminal practitioners are still coming to terms with a number of the significant reforms introduced by the previous Government that have impacted on pay and the availability of work. In particular, the graduated fees scheme has led to solicitors keeping work in-house, rather than instructing the criminal Bar.

As I have said, there has been a real reduction in fees of 13.5% over three years. A 4.5% reduction took place this financial year, which is bound to have a significant impact. Regardless of the merits of the reforms, they have resulted in a considerable upheaval in the funding of the criminal Bar. That should be taken into account in any future review and in any decision that the Minister needs to take. Further cuts to criminal legal aid, whether to the criminal Bar or to criminal solicitors’ fees, will lead to the social exclusion of the most vulnerable at a time when they are already likely to be suffering cuts in other publicly funded services, on which they rely heavily.

In conclusion, the criminal Bar plays an essential role in maintaining a fair justice system. Further cuts to legal aid will result in an unfair system, with access to justice being available only to those who are able to pay for it. That will inevitably undermine democracy and justice. Given the lack of sympathy that the electorate will have for the offender, it seems too easy to attack criminal legal aid. However, there is a real danger of taking that less politically damaging action and, in doing so, seriously undermining the very foundation of our society. I am very proud of being a member of the Bar and of the traditions of the profession, which I respectfully submit are being put at risk by the actions that I believe will be taken by the Government. I therefore urge the coalition to carefully consider those points and to resist dropping the axe on criminal legal aid and on such essential services.