Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

192A: Clause 101, page 86, line 20, leave out “there are exceptional” and insert “such a sentence would be contrary to the interests of justice having regard to”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with Lord Marks’ amendment to page 86, line 23, would remove the requirement for the circumstances to be exceptional before a judge was empowered to decline to impose the minimum sentence (for offences of threatening with weapon or bladed article) and would entitle the judge to do so where in the circumstances the judge concluded that such a sentence would be contrary to the interests of justice.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom I thank for adding his name to them. We have of course covered some of the ground covered by our amendments in the last group, but there remains, I suggest, considerable scope for developing these very important arguments.

These amendments are put down with two objectives in mind. The first and principal objective is to preserve judicial discretion in sentencing, which the Bill threatens seriously to undermine or remove. The second objective is to express our concerns that minimum sentences do nothing to improve our penal system or our sentencing practice, that they impede rather than foster reform and rehabilitation, and that they fuel sentence inflation.

Clause 101 would require a sentencing judge to impose minimum sentences for a number of offences in the absence of “exceptional circumstances” relating to the offence or the offender which would justify not imposing the minimum sentences. Clause 101(2) relates to the minimum sentences—called in the code “appropriate custodial sentences”, but minimum sentences none the less—applicable under Section 312 for, as we have heard, offences of threatening a person with an offensive weapon or a bladed or pointed weapon or article. For those offences, the code prescribes minimum sentences of a four-month detention and training order for 16 and 17 year-olds; a six-month detention in a young offender institution for 18 to 20 year-olds; and for those aged 21 or over, six months’ imprisonment. Those sentences currently apply unless there are

“particular circumstances which … relate to the offence or to the offender”

and which “would make it unjust” to pass such a sentence “in all the circumstances.”

The new provision proposed in the Bill would change that test to require the passing of the minimum sentence unless the court concluded that there were “exceptional circumstances” which related to the offence or to the offender and justified not imposing a sentence. The significant change is the elevation of the requirement for there to be “particular circumstances” to a requirement for there to be “exceptional circumstances” before a judge is entitled to depart from the required minimum sentence. At first blush, that may not seem to be a much more onerous requirement, but it marks a very important change.

I confess that I was a little surprised that the Minister ducked the challenge from my noble friend Lord German to define the term “exceptional circumstances”. He shakes his head, but I felt he did. My understanding has always been that, in law, the word “exceptional” has a well-recognised meaning. I have no doubt I will be corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, if he disagrees, but “exceptional” in this or similar contexts means circumstances that are completely out of the ordinary. Judges regard themselves as bound not to find exceptional circumstances unless that high bar is met.

On the previous group, the Minister drew the distinction between minimum and mandatory sentences. He is right up to a point, but the move to a requirement for “exceptional circumstances” reduces that distinction by a considerable margin. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, described them as “mandatory minimum sentences”. The fact is that the Government are trying to reduce the scope to depart from the minima. They are trying to reduce the number of people not getting those minimum sentences. My noble friend Lord Beith hit the point when he asked whether the Government were unhappy with the high number of departures from the minima on the present phraseology, which I suggest shows the fallacy in the Minister relying on the number of departures there are at present.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was right in describing this as a proposal for a default sentence. In practical terms, a judge might well believe that the particular circumstances of the offence and/or the offender—under the current phraseology—were such that the justice of the case required a custodial sentence of less than the minimum level or a non-custodial sentence. “Particular” in that context bears its ordinary English meaning. It refers to the circumstances that apply to the offence in question—that particular offence —or to that individual offender. However, the use of the word “exceptional” is calculated to require the sentencing judge, in the majority of cases, to pass the minimum sentence even if the judge took the view that the minimum sentence might cause injustice. That is the weakness of these provisions.

Clause 101(3) would impose a minimum sentence of seven years for a third class A drug-trafficking offence, subject to exactly the same test. Clause 101(4) would impose a minimum sentence of three years for a third offence of domestic burglary—again, subject to the same test. Clause 101(5) would impose the same minimum sentences for a repeat offence of carrying an offensive weapon or possessing a bladed or pointed article in a public place or in educational premises as those which apply for any offence of the threatening offences to which subsection (2) refers—again, on the same conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to ensure that the courts depart from imposing a minimum sentence, to use the words of the amendment, only where it would be

“contrary to the interests of justice”

to do so, “having regard”—and then it refers to the particular requirements in the Bill on the offender and on offending. “Interests of justice” is not defined. I do not complain about that, because the phrase is used elsewhere and the courts know what it means. I do not want to go over old ground.

It is already the case that a court has the discretion not to impose the minimum sentence where there are particular circumstances relating to the offender, the nature of the offence or, in the case of repeat offending, the nature of the previous offence that would make it unjust to do so. I underline the point that whether that exception, however phrased, is met is for the judge to decide, based on the particular facts of the case. It is for Parliament to set the minimum sentence, if it wants to, and to set the “exceptional” provision—whether that is exceptional circumstances or however else it is defined. It is then for the judge to apply what Parliament has said.

As I said on the previous group, concerns have certainly been raised that offenders too often receive sentences below the minimum term. That both fails to provide an appropriate level of punishment that reflects the severity of the offence and undermines any sensible use of the word “mandatory” in this context. Let me give a couple of examples. Among adult offenders in 2020, at least—and I will explain my “at least” in a moment—50% received a sentence below the minimum term for third-strike domestic burglary. I said “at least” because the figures do not indicate whether these cases include early guilty pleas, for which they could get a reduction of up to 20%. Even allowing for that, at least 50% received a sentence below the minimum term. Of adults convicted of repeat possession of a weapon or bladed article, at least 21%—over a fifth—received a sentence below the minimum term.

I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said and I am not going to beat about the bush, either. I am trying to be clear. There may well be a difference of opinion around the Committee, but at least let us identify it clearly. With this provision, we seek to ensure that courts depart from the minimum sentence only in exceptional circumstances. Those are clear words, and they mean what they say.

We believe that the test of exceptional circumstances is both suitable and important. Not only does it help to address problems that have been escalating in our communities for some years, especially with regard to knife crime, but it will create greater consistency in the statutory provisions on minimum sentences. The change is therefore intended to reduce the circumstances in which the court will depart from the minimum term, ensuring that this important safeguard is used only where the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances, pertaining to the offender or the offence, that would make the minimum sentence unjust.

The changes align the criteria used for these offences with the criteria for passing a sentence below the minimum term in relation to offences involving firearms, where the proviso of exceptional circumstances is already in the law. However, I underline that the judicial discretion for the court to fully consider the facts of the case before it and decide on the appropriate sentence in line with the statutory framework is therefore retained.

I listened carefully, as I know the noble and learned Lord would expect me to, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I think we may stray into almost philosophical areas, albeit very important ones, as to what a sentencer ought to do and perhaps even what we mean by “unjust” and where justice lies.

Parliament sets out the statutory framework. If the Bill is passed, Parliament will say that the minimum sentence is X years and that the proviso is exceptional circumstances. It is then for the judge to apply what Parliament has set out. That is the way our system operates. We can have an interesting debate about whether, if a judge does that, the judge can be doing something that is “unjust”. I fully understand where the noble and learned Lord is coming from, looking at “unjust” in a broader sense, but there is a basic justice in Parliament, which is ultimately where power resides, setting out what the minimum sentence and the exception should be and then leaving it for the judge to apply that exception on the facts of the case.

I heard very clearly the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about whether longer sentences actually help. Again, that takes us into a whole different area. I mean no disrespect by not replying to him at length but we believe the sentences here are appropriate and suitable.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, concluded by saying, “Are we not to require our judges to do justice?”, I do not know whether he was intentionally paraphrasing the famous argument of Abraham to the Almighty. When the Almighty is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah even though there are some righteous people there, Abraham says to the Almighty, “Will the judge of all the earth not do justice?” I hear very strongly that the ultimate requirement is to do justice, but I emphasise that in our system we start with the parliamentary legislation. That is why we collectively, here and in the other place, bear such a heavy burden. It is for us to set out the statutory framework and then for our judges and courts to apply that framework. That is ultimately the way, I suggest, that justice is done in our system.

I do not want to lecture the Committee any further on jurisprudential matters. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the speeches that we have heard in this interesting debate, particularly by those who have the most sentencing experience, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Thomas. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his indication of the Labour Party’s support.

While I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, I will return to it on Report. My concern is that the Minister, and I am grateful for the care that he gave to his response, failed to appreciate quite how loyal judges are to the law. Where the law requires a judge to find that exceptional circumstances exist before making a departure from the minimum sentence, he will do so loyally.

The point that both noble and learned Lords made is that it is simply wrong for the law to require judges, where they might have found that the circumstances of an offence or an offender dictate that the just sentence is less than the minimum, to be in the position that they have to say, “I cannot here find that the circumstances are exceptional—that is, completely out of the ordinary—and although I believe that the sentence I am constrained to pass is unjust in the sense that it is the wrong sentence, I nevertheless have to do it.” That is the result of the loyalty judges feel to the law—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, mentioned the judicial oath—and is a weakness of this proposed provision, which puts political dogma above the need to do justice. Although I will withdraw my amendment now, I hope that, given the speeches we have heard, in the next few weeks or months, before Report—depending on when that is—we can talk to the Minister, take this matter further, and see if we can get some movement. Saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 192A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard which amendments are in this slightly disparate group. On Amendment 195, I am in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and in disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I am afraid, because it would require the courts to pass a minimum sentence of seven years for rape in the absence of exceptional circumstances. I fully accept that this amendment is motivated by a determination to respond strongly to the completely horrible offence of rape, and by a desire to be seen to be determined to tackle and reduce it by bringing offenders to justice and dealing with them with the full force of the criminal justice system through long sentences of imprisonment. Nevertheless, I cannot support the amendment.

On these Benches, we will take lessons from no one on how serious a crime rape is. Members on these Benches have spoken repeatedly of the need to increase the rates of reporting rape, the approach to investigating rape, ways of increasing rates of prosecutions and the rate of successful prosecutions for rape, and ensuring that courts, juries and the public—young and old—are fully aware of the meaning of consent. But we do not believe that a minimum seven-year sentence for rape will increase the number of victims prepared to report offences—particularly in cases where the assailant is known or related to them—or reduce the difficulty for the police in investigating rape, securing the co-operation of parties close to the case, securing witness statements or getting witnesses to give evidence in court. Nor do we believe that such a sentence would make it easier to secure convictions from juries, particularly in cases they might regard as borderline, against the background of appallingly low conviction rates.

We have heard many times about the background of failure to bring rapists to justice. In the year to March 2020, nearly 59,000 cases of rape were recorded by police in England and Wales. Of those, there were only 21,000-odd prosecutions and an appallingly low 1,400-odd convictions. We have also heard many times that in 57% of cases investigated by the police in that year, the victims withdrew their support for the prosecution. There is no evidence at all relied upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—or, I suggest, in existence—that minimum sentences of seven years, or of any figure, would improve that position.

Every lawyer, investigator or judge who has ever had anything to do with criminal courts knows the extent to which one case of rape differs from another. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is right about that. Although every case represents an egregious abuse, a standard minimum sentence cannot be justified. That brings me back to the points I made in the previous group about the importance of judicial discretion and the inappropriateness of a test requiring a judge to find exceptional circumstances before being permitted to pass less than the minimum sentence.

There is a minor point as well about the drafting of the amendment: it is unclear as to the age of the offender. Proposed new subsection (1)(a) applies the clause to offenders “aged 18 or over” at the date of the offence, while proposed new subsection (3)(a) applies to an offender under 18 at the date of conviction. There is an internal inconsistency which the noble and learned Lord may wish to consider.

Rape is a scourge. We must address it, reduce it and bring offenders to justice, as well as change the culture in our society that tolerates it and, as the noble and learned Lord said, does not control the appalling epidemic of violence against women and girls. But minimum sentences will do none of that.

Amendment 196 seeks to increase the sentence for naming a complainant. The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that this offence can do great harm by removing anonymity; it can cause considerable distress and often psychological damage as well. Increasing it to a two-year maximum on indictment or 12 months on summary conviction is a sensible change to the law, which we support.

Amendment 197 would add

“the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a person”

to the offences in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code for which a whole-life sentence is a starting point. I take it to mean that the whole-life sentence would be a starting point if all three elements were present: the abduction, the sexual assault and the murder.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is correct.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

The only reason I make that point is that there was a misunderstanding—not inherent in the noble Viscount’s speech, but that might have arisen from his speech—where he talked of sexual assault as being a very varied offence; of course it is, but here it is combined with abduction and murder.

I think the starting point argument made by the noble and learned Lord is valid because the starting point applies on the statute if the court considers that the seriousness of the offence, or a combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, is exceptionally high. It is only a starting point: it does not mean that judicial discretion is removed or even significantly fettered if particular circumstances applied to make that an inappropriate or unjust sentence. I see no reason why that should not be added to the list, which we already have, of heinous offences for which a whole-life order is a starting point. But I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord that we need to keep whole-life orders to a very restricted class of cases because they are sentences without hope.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby—whose position was eloquently expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in the earlier group—oppose Clause 103 because new Section 321(3B) of the code would permit whole-life orders for those aged 18 to 20. We agree, for all the reasons they gave, and the reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave, that that is inappropriate. Whole-life orders should not be imposed in such cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to Clause 107. Its purpose, as I hope has been explained, is to prevent a prisoner who is serving a sentence for an offence which, at the time it was imposed, did not carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, having their release date changed retrospectively from the half-way to the two-thirds point.

Such an offender should not be made subject to the two-thirds release provisions of Clause 107 should the maximum penalty for their offence be increased to life at a later date, after they were sentenced. Let me give an example that I hope the Committee will find helpful. An offender is sentenced for an offence that currently carries a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. They receive an eight-year determinate sentence. That sentence is not caught by the two-thirds release requirements because the offence does not carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, so the offender is given a half-way release point. Now let us assume that, three years later, the Government increase the maximum penalty for that offence to life imprisonment. Without this amendment, the offender would have their release point retrospectively amended from the half-way to the two-thirds point of the sentence.

That was not the intention of Clause 107, and it is important that we correct this now. With this amendment, Clause 107 is future-proofed appropriately and as intended. It applies to those sentenced for offences that are increased to a life maximum in the future, but applies only to those sentenced after that increase in the maximum sentence becomes law. The amendment will ensure a fair and consistent approach to such offences. For those reasons, I beg to move this amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we support these amendments. It is obviously right to remove the retrospection and we congratulate whoever spotted the anomaly and brought the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 205 agreed.