Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]

Lord Judge Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Other Business

Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, before we get to Clause 5, I wonder whether this might be a convenient moment, this being a special Public Bill Committee, for me to say something about the way in which the committee has worked and the issues that we have resolved, so that they are a matter of public record given the unusual circumstances of the Bill.

The committee has met and taken oral evidence from Professor David Ormerod of the Law Commission and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the Minister responsible for the Bill. We also received evidence from the Criminal Appeal Office and the Prison Reform Trust, and from Professor Andrew Ashworth and Professor Nicola Padfield, both of whom are acknowledged experts in sentencing law. We received supplementary written evidence from Professor Ormerod and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which addressed the issues raised during the committee’s oral hearing. The committee agreed that this written evidence should be accepted and indeed published. Beyond that, the committee had before it the sentencing code summary, the detailed sentencing code report and the sentencing code itself—all very substantial documents. This enabled us to examine the wide breadth of the consultation programme in which the Law Commission had engaged, and the responses to that process.

It is beyond controversy that the law relating to the sentencing powers of the courts is in desperate need of clarification. The adoption of this sentencing code is an imperative. The Bill, however, is mechanical. It does not, and is not intended to, address sentencing policy problems, nor is it a Bill intended to reform the law of sentencing. For example, one current policy question is whether there are any circumstances, and if so what, in which a short prison sentence may be imposed, or whether such sentences should be abolished. I suspect that if the members of the committee—some of whom are here today—had sought to address this single question, we might have been discussing and receiving evidence about it for many months.

There are many other outstanding questions, such as the continued detention, well beyond the normal sentencing tariff, of those ordered to be subject to imprisonment for public protection. There is a whole raft of policy questions. Therefore, it is important to emphasise not only that the Bill is not intended to address complex policy questions but that, if the Bill is enacted and the sentencing code comes into force, the policy questions will remain open for further public discussion and parliamentary decision.

Beyond the policy question, we also recognise that the consolidation provisions in the Bill do not cover every single aspect of every single sentencing enactment that might apply to conviction of a particular crime in particular circumstances by a particular offender. For example, the complexity of the confiscation provisions vested in the court after conviction is notorious. That issue is addressed in a separate further proposal.

Without wanting to suggest that they are not difficult, at the other end, there are also what may be described as the fiddly bits of a sentencing decision; for example, where and in what circumstances jurisdiction to make a protection order would arise. I am speaking for myself, although I think I speak for the committee also, when I say that I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest to postpone the implementation of the code in its present form—it is a massive project, which has taken literally several years to bring before Parliament—until after the remaining questions have been addressed. At the moment, the code provides opportunity to improve and make the sentencing process much more straightforward and less prone to error; it is urgently needed.

Again, I emphasise that the enactment of the Bill and the coming into force of the sentencing code should not be seen as the end of the process but as a very large and important step in it. We were invited by Professor Padfield to treat the Bill as an interim measure; she made a powerful argument. As and when the further consolidation proposals are received from the Law Commission, I urge that the Government of the day see it as a matter of obligation to bring them to Parliament, not “as soon as practicable”—those are slightly weasel words—but forthwith. It is not a difficult process and we have not found it particularly time-consuming in Parliament, though the reading has been substantial.

The issue with which every member of the committee, and indeed many of those who responded to the consultation, was concerned can be summarised in a single word: “retrospectivity”, or perhaps in two words, “no retrospectivity”. If I may, I shall adopt Professor Ashworth’s identification of the principle at common law and embodied in Article 7 of the European convention: the defendant should not be subjected to a heavier penalty than the one that was applicable at the time the offence was committed. It is a simple and clear definition. The particular importance of applying this principle to this code and enactment is that, over the years, Parliament has steadily increased the maximum penalties for a number of offences including, for example, indecent assault. Many cases of sexual assault are now prosecuted and tried as historical cases, going back very many years. For such an offence committed in, say, 1988 or 1998, the sentence available then—not that available now—binds and limits the sentencing court.

We are satisfied that the retrospectivity issue has been properly addressed in what has been described as the “clean sweep” approach, in particular Clause 1(4). Beyond that, we did not find a single observation in the evidence which suggested or implied that there could be any doubt that the retrospectivity issue had been properly addressed. Yet further beyond that, my personal view is that if a sentence which infringed this principle were imposed, it would, at common law and under Article 7 of the convention, be corrected as an error. But importantly, the statute leaves the question beyond doubt.

Some concern was expressed in the committee about the possible extent of the regulation-making powers granted to the Secretary of State, in particular whether the Bill granted powers that would enable him or her, by regulation, to alter sentencing levels—especially, of course, to increase them. As Governments of different hues have developed what I describe as an unfortunate tendency, although that is rather polite, to try to create criminal offences punishable with imprisonment by the exercise of regulation-making powers, this concern obviously required careful analysis. I suspect that any court faced with any alteration to sentencing levels said to be derived from powers created in the Bill would be extremely dubious about construing the Bill in this way. Beyond that, however, in his recent written evidence the Minister pointed out that the regulation-making power in Clause 2(2) applies only to any potential amendments that facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation process; and that Clause 5(3)(a) restricts the amending power to pre-consolidation amendments. In my view, the regulation-making powers in the Bill, which are concerned exclusively with the consolidation of legislative provisions currently in force, is not open to potential misuse by the Secretary of State.

We were also troubled by a problem over which we have no control and which I wish to highlight. It has nothing to do with the statutory provisions with which we are concerned, but with the danger that, unless great care is taken with the enactment of criminal legislation, particularly sentencing provisions—and, if I may say so, taken with infinitely greater care than in past enactments, which has caused all the problems—the code itself will be out of date within a major criminal justice statute or two. Given the rate at which such statutes are enacted, that would not be very long—possibly before the consolidating process of what I have described as the fiddly bits has been completed.

This code is pre-eminently a provision to which the words “living instrument”—my words—should be applied. It must be capable of adaptation and development as sentencing provisions and, in due course, policies change. The whole purpose of the code would otherwise have been lost. It would have been built, in the word used by one member during our discussions, on dust. That makes it imperative that when sentencing provisions are introduced, amended or repealed, express provision should be made in that primary legislation for the incorporation of those new provisions, as I shall now call them, into the sentencing code. We, and more importantly the Law Commission, given the extraordinary burden it has carried for several years now, will otherwise have been wasting our time.

Before long, sentencing courts will be struggling with the difficult problem of deciding what the sentence should be. If I may pause there, I think many judges would say to the Minister that, with the possible exception of deciding where children should live when there are problems at home, a decision about what sentence should be imposed on an individual is one of the most difficult problems that any judge can face anyway. They would be faced not only with the difficult problem of deciding what the sentence should be but with the ludicrous task of examining complicated legislation to ascertain what the court’s lawful sentencing powers are.

I have said all that I wish to say on this beyond thanking our team, led by John Turner, very much for their help and their immediate response to a Bill that has come through the House very rapidly and needed close attention from all those involved behind the scenes.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I want to make one or two observations for the record in response to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord as chairman of the committee.

Clearly, as was observed, the clean sweep mechanism is subject to exceptions to ensure that no offender is subject to a greater maximum penalty than was available or subject to a minimum or mandatory sentence that did not apply at the time that the offence was committed. Of course, a clean sweep allows for a different sentencing disposal than would have been imposed had the code not been enacted. The guideline judgment in R and H v UK in 2011 sets out that sentencing exercises should be conducted on the basis of current sentencing law by measured reference to any definitive and relevant sentencing guidelines, and that while sentences must be limited to the maximum available at the time of the offence, it would be unrealistic to try to assess what the sentence would have been had the case been heard years, or even decades, earlier.

My only additional comment is that the clean sweep will extend the duty of the courts to follow sentencing guidelines, thereby removing the previous duty to have regard to sentencing guidelines in relation to offences committed before 6 April 2010. Accordingly, the code will extend the current duty to follow sentencing guidelines to all convictions that follow the enactment of the code.