Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Michael Tomlinson

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, my hon. Friend is an expert.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I made exactly this point on Second Reading and in Committee. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not been able to find a single other offence in which the sentence in a magistrates court is exactly the same as the sentence in the Crown court, and I hope to develop that point in due course if I am given the opportunity to make a speech.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, he is an expert in this field. The fact that someone with his expertise cannot think of another offence that carries the same penalty in both courts says a great deal, so why would we do it in this Bill?

I hope the Minister is making profuse notes, because I feel I am scoring some runs here. I do not think many people would disagree if he were to say he is prepared to accept these new clauses. I do not think there would be many Divisions on them. That raises a question: if he will not do that, why does he think that this offence should be unique in the criminal justice system by carrying the same penalty in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, and why does he not believe that the Crown court should have powers for harsher sentencing, which happens, as we have just heard, in respect of every other offence we can think of? I hope the Minister will reflect on that during the debate and perhaps give us a positive response. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) said he mentioned this on Second Reading and the hon. Member for Rhondda said he hoped we would come back to this point on Report, so my amendment seeks to make sure that we do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

If she is not going to make a speech, I am very disappointed. I look forward to her further interventions and certainly to her further work in the area of justice, because she speaks powerfully for it and is absolutely right in this case.

There are other examples of sentences in the Crown court where there is no penalty of imprisonment, but those fall into a different category. They are generally regulatory offences—exciting offences such as Town and Country Planning Act offences and the like, which get lawyers very excited and passionate, but perhaps no one else. In my research I could find no other equivalent, so it is worth pausing and reflecting on the fact that the Bill breaks new ground in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham came up with one other example of where there is a sentence of two years—he will probably dwell on that in greater length and with greater expertise than I ever could—in relation to contempt of court and the like, but again, that is slightly different.

We are breaking new ground in the Bill by having the same sentence for the magistrates court and the Crown court. However, in case anyone has not been following closely, I add that clause 1(4) clarifies that until section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is brought into force, the sentence will be six months rather than 12 months in the magistrates court. I am sure that that is part of the reason for the difference in sentences.

That brings me neatly on to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) made and to new clause 3 and amendment 11. I welcome the opportunity to touch briefly on both. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I disagree fundamentally on many things about criminal justice and the criminal justice system, but he is right to say that there should be honesty in sentencing—we probably believe that for equal and opposite reasons, to be clear. He is also right to point out that the sections of the 2003 Act that would give magistrates this sentencing power have not been commenced.

One of two things should happen. Either we in this place should say that we want magistrates courts still to have the power to give sentences of six months and no more, or we should say that it is absolutely right to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers from six months to 12 months. If that is the position—from the earlier exchange, I think that respective Governments have held that view—we should get on and do it. I know that some Members in the Chamber who have sat or currently sit on the Justice Committee have looked at that issue, and I want to hear from them in greater detail. New clause 3 is also attractive for that reason, because it draws attention once again to the fact that the law supposedly passed in 2003 is not yet on the statute book. If we think it is the right thing to do, we should get on and do it.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems rather bizarre and pointless for the Government to agree to a piece of legislation that gives magistrates the power to send someone to prison for 12 months for a particular offence and then not give magistrates the power to send someone to prison for 12 months?

Prisons and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Michael Tomlinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I consider to be his support for my amendment. I only need the support of the Opposition and about eight more on our side and we should be in business. I will put my hon. Friend’s name down as a likely supporter.

The Library briefing paper confirms:

“There were 6,430 assaults on prison staff, 761 of which were serious. This was an 82% rise on the number of assaults on prison staff in 2006 and was a 40% increase from 2015.”

Prison officers have a very hard and, at times, dangerous job. I am sick of hearing about the pathetic additions to sentences for prisoners who assault them. I hope the Government will deal with that in the remaining stages of the Bill.

I would also like to see an amendment to limit the use of fixed-term recalls. When prisoners are released early, they do not even go back to serve the remainder of their sentence when they are convicted of a further crime. They just go back into prison for 28 days, for what I would consider a mini-break. They can usually keep an eye on their criminal activities knowing that they will be back in prison for only 28 days. I hope the Government will deal with that.

I would recommend giving consideration to making judges accountable for their decisions, particularly when they do not hand down custodial sentences that are perfectly justifiable and possibly even expected, and particularly when the offender goes on to reoffend. I do not need to say now what the consequences of collecting such information should be, but it should be clear to many that where a judge consistently allows offenders to avoid prison, and those offenders go on to make others suffer as a result of their continuing crime spree, there should be accountability and consequences for that judge.

I would like to table an amendment to allow magistrates to sentence people to prison for up to 12 months for one offence, instead of the current six-month limit. We already have the law in place to do that, and it just needs a commencement date. That is something the Government have been promising for years, but they still have not got round to doing anything about it. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us when he intends to activate this part of Government policy.

I would like to recommend increasing the age limit for magistrates and judges to 75, and I will table an amendment to that effect. As of 1 December 2016, the Government increased the age limit for jurors to 75, and I cannot really see any difference between being a juror and determining someone’s guilt or innocence in a serious criminal trial, and, for example, sitting as a member of a bench of magistrates. Surely, the same rationale applies to both.

I am not a fan of release on temporary licence, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. If prisoners serve only half their sentence, the least they can do is actually serve that half in prison, rather than being released in advance of the half for which they are automatically released. It is ludicrous to count time out of prison as time in prison, and I am considering tabling amendments to cover some instances of release on temporary licence.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way, because my time is almost up, and I want other people to have the chance to speak.

I want to place on record my continued interest in seeing male and female offenders treated equally by the courts, not only for sentencing purposes but in all aspects of the criminal justice system. It is increasingly accepted that women are treated more leniently than men. For every single category of offence, a man is more likely than a woman to be sent to prison. In the interests of equality, this matter needs to be looked at. However, we should look after women in the criminal justice system by abolishing sharia councils, which discriminate against them terribly, although the Government sit idly by and allow that to continue, which is an absolute disgrace.

Finally, on a more positive note, I am delighted to support the Secretary of State when she said in a speech last month that:

“the wrong way to address the problem would be to shorten sentences or to release offenders earlier. That would be reckless and endanger the public. And it would restrict the freedom of the independent judiciary to choose the most appropriate sentence for each offender.”

I could not agree more. She is certainly on the right lines. If she sticks to that kind of principle, she will be doing okay. I hope to be able to support the Bill by strengthening it in its remaining stages.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Michael Tomlinson

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Someone could argue that it is no good deporting foreign nationals if border control has no way of knowing whether people have got a criminal conviction; they will simply re-enter the country in no time at all. If deportation is to be meaningful, it seems to me that we have to do something different at the border control to make sure that these people cannot come straight back into the country again.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The 10,000 figure relates to prisoner numbers, but according to clause 1(4), far more than that would be caught by these provisions. It is not those who are sentenced that counts on the face of it, but those for whom a term of imprisonment for an offence “may be imposed” by a court, which means far more than 10,000.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, indeed—and that is good news, as far as I am concerned. I am not sure that my hon. Friend would agree, but it is good news for me. I shall come back to the detail of that provision later because it raises an important point.

Interestingly, when it comes to this Bill, my hon. Friends have removed the provisions that make it applicable to someone sentenced only for 12 months or more, which was the intention of the 2007 Act. There had to be that trigger point, and the issue was raised in interventions earlier. I believe it important that the Bill removes the 12-month criterion. There are many reasons, but basically, I do not think we want any foreign criminals in the UK—whatever the length of prison sentence, which should be irrelevant.

This issue has led in some cases to what I would call dishonest sentencing. Sentences have been deliberately manipulated in order to avoid the deportation trigger. In the case of the Crown v. Hakimzadeh in 2009, the Court of Appeal approved an adjustment in the structure of the sentence in order to avoid the automatic deportation criterion, imposing instead two consecutive sentences of nine months and three months. This not only promotes dishonesty in sentencing, but undermines the basic principle of abiding by the law. In another case, a drug dealer was sentenced in the Inner London Crown Court in 2011. In sentencing him, the judge said:

“The sentence I have had in mind was 12 months, but it seems to me that it isn’t necessary for me to pass a sentence of 12 months, because a sentence of 11 months will have the same effect, and it would take away the automatic triggering of deportation. I have taken into account that if you were to be deported it is bound to have a devastating effect on your three children, who I’m told are lawfully here in the UK.”

So we have judges who are not giving the sentences they think should be given, on their admission, in order to avoid the 12-month trigger. That cannot be right.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has highlighted two important and interesting cases where judges have explicitly stated their reasoning for giving a sentence lower than they might otherwise have done. Again, however, we are in danger of criticising lawyers and judges—a very popular thing to do—when it is in fact the law that must be clear. If this Bill is to pass, it must be absolutely clear, and it should be this place that determines the policy, not our judges.

[Philip Davies]

I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but he is being kind to judges, which is typical of the legal profession. On the same principle, MPs are always kind to the Speaker because they feel that something bad will happen to them if they start criticising. It seems to me that the law is clear. If someone is sentenced to prison for 12 months, they get deported. There is no problem with the clarity of the law. The problem is the judges manipulating the sentence to show a wilful disregard for the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It is not for me to answer for the Ministry of Justice, but it seems that the policy it adopts is that foreign national offenders are treated just like any other prisoner and, even if they are subject to a deportation order, will be sent to an open prison if they meet the criteria. One can understand that logic, but clearly there is a flaw in the procedure when somebody has an easy way of avoiding deportation.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to the issue of cost, I want return to his point about lawyers. I am not trying to be kind or nice to lawyers or judges, but simply make the point that the cases he cites emphasise the need for us in this place to pass laws that are as clear and simple as possible so that the will of Parliament can be effected.

[Philip Davies]

Yes. I agree with and endorse my hon. Friend’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I agree with his sentiments and I, too, rise to speak in favour of the Bill. Having sat in the Chamber throughout this debate, it would be remiss of me not to add one or two words, but I note your earlier stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will keep my comments brief.

I used to practise at the bar, and came across at first hand the experience of attempting, at sentence, to deport foreign offenders, so I have seen the difficulty for the courts and the contortions they have to go through under the current regime. I want to praise the simplicity of the Bill. Many comments and criticisms have been levelled at lawyers and judges—not just during this debate, but elsewhere—but I fear that many of those criticisms are unfounded. This place has a duty to ensure that the Bills and laws we pass are as clear and simple as possible to remove any risk of lawyers being able to make such arguments in court. I therefore praise the simplicity of the Bill and how the provisions are set out. I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for setting out the principles behind the Bill so clearly.

I want to pick up on one or two points, the first of which is the question of what is a qualifying offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested that he would be satisfied if there were no such definition and the Bill covered all offences for which foreign offenders are convicted. As it stands, clause 1(4) states that it is an offence for which

“a term of imprisonment may be imposed by a court of law.”

We have heard an exchange on what precisely that means and what it covers. My view is that it is clear and that it covers any offence for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend address my point about the sentencing guidelines? Is there not a doubt about whether the Bill would apply to cases in which somebody commits an offence for which prison is not an option within the sentencing guidelines?

[Michael Tomlinson]

My view is that there is not. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, but my firm view is that it is clear: on a plain reading of the Bill, any offence where a term of imprisonment may be imposed would be caught. We discussed theft and the example of shoplifting a few moments ago. My view is that, because there is a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, the offence is clearly covered by the Bill, even though shoplifting is towards the lower end of the scale and one would not expect there to be a sentence of imprisonment in any event.

[Philip Davies]

But in a case of shoplifting, particularly if it is a first offence, the judge may not impose a custodial sentence, because that would be outside any kind of sentencing guideline, so surely in such a case, the Bill may not apply.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I do not believe that to be the case. My firm view is that, on a plain reading of the Bill, even shoplifting would be covered.

I want to make the slightly different point that perhaps that is going a bit too far for shoplifting. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that it was his view and that of Migration Watch that a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months was about the right level. There could be a debate about what precisely is the right level, but as drafted the definition is very wide indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering spoke about the number of prisoners for whom no nationality has been recorded. I believe the figure was 434 or thereabouts. I would like the Minister to address that point, because if the Bill is to have effect, we cannot have foreign national offenders or, indeed, any offender flouting our laws by refusing to give up their nationality.

I also ask the Minister to address the point that has been raised with regard to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. As drafted, the Bill is very simple. The intention behind clause 1(1) is very clear when it says:

“Notwithstanding…the European Communities Act 1972”.

My fear is that the Bill may still be caught by article 8. Perhaps the solution is around the corner with the British Bill of Rights. This place will have the opportunity to address each and every one of the articles and determine whether it is right or not for them to be included in our British Bill of Rights.

I must touch on the issue of cost, which has been impressed upon me by constituents. I am staggered by the figures that have been given in this debate—up to £1 billion. I am not sure whether that includes the costs that would be saved by shutting prisons. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I are on slightly different sides of the argument on this point, but I firmly believe that if 10,000 foreign national offenders were deported, it would give us an opportunity to make even more savings by closing prisons down.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) raised the issue of risk assessments. I fear that bringing in that sort of test would undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is very clear and simple. If someone comes to this country, they are very welcome if they want to work hard—they can come to Mid Dorset and North Poole, work hard and add to our economy. If someone commits an offence, especially one so serious that it can lead to a term of imprisonment, the principles behind the Bill are that it is right for them to be deported. No risk assessment, no delay, no quibble—those are the rules, pure and simple, and I praise the simplicity of this Bill, which aims and intends to do just that. Given the time and your earlier strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there, but I entirely support the purpose and thrust of this Bill.

Prisons and Probation

Debate between Philip Davies and Michael Tomlinson

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

First, may I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and other Members: I have a meeting at 6.15 pm with the relevant Minister about the flooding in my constituency so I will be away from the debate for that time? No discourtesy is intended, and I hope my apology will be accepted.

I want to concentrate on one thing that I believe is seriously overlooked in debates on justice: the use of fixed-term recalls, one of the biggest injustices in the criminal justice system. Most people believe that if someone is let out of prison early—whether halfway through their sentence, a quarter of the way through on home detention curfew, or at some other point before they should be let out—if they reoffend during that time or breach their licence conditions, they should go back to prison to serve the rest of their original sentence at the very least, and some, like me, might argue that they should be sent to prison for longer. Unfortunately, that is not always, or even often, the case.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to introduce fixed-term recalls. It was not done because it was the right thing to do; it was done to reduce the prison population when it got out of hand under the last Labour Government and they did not have the necessary capacity. A fixed-term recall occurs when an offender reoffends or breaches their licence conditions, and as a result they do not go to prison for the remainder of their original sentence; they go back for 28 days—just 28 days.

The overwhelming majority of the public believe offenders should serve the whole of the sentence they were given in the first place. In fact, a poll by Lord Ashcroft found that 80% of police officers, 81% of the general public and 82% of victims believe sentences are already too lenient, but thanks to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, as of 3 December 2012, the eligibility criteria for fixed-term recalls were relaxed further to make them available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew and those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence.

I recently asked a parliamentary question and found that in 2014 an astonishing 7,486 people were given this 28-day, all-inclusive mini-break in prison for reoffending or breaching their licence conditions. These included a staggering 3,849 burglars and 546 people whose original offence involved violence against another person, including wounding, manslaughter and even murder.

The sheer number of offenders being returned on these 28-day recalls appears to show that people are being let out when they are not ready to be released into society, yet those who have committed the most serious offences, such as murder, who are released and breach their licence conditions are still required to come back to prison only for a mere 28 days. Anyone who thinks someone on licence for murder should simply be returned to prison for 28 days for reoffending or breaching their licence condition surely needs their head tested. This kind of initiative is ridiculous in an age when public confidence in the criminal justice system is so low.

The Ashcroft poll found that more than two thirds of people—69% —believed that rates of reoffending were high because sentences were too short and prison life was not hard enough. Just recently I was made aware of a case of a local serial offender who was released early on licence for burglary only to commit multiple offences weeks afterwards. That offender was returned to prison, but he was not required to stay there until early 2017, as he would have been if he had had to serve his sentence in full. He was just given his 28-day fixed-term recall. How can that possibly be right? How can that possibly protect the public? That should be the first duty of the Government, rather than making speeches in here trying to make it look to the wider world as though we are compassionate. Do I want people to think that I am compassionate just for the sake of my own reputation? We should be concentrating on how we protect the public from becoming the unnecessary victims of crime.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Surely, if rehabilitation is effective, it will protect the public and reduce the number of future victims of crime. Is not my hon. Friend making the wrong argument on that point?

[Philip Davies]

According to the Ministry of Justice’s own figures—the Minister can confirm this—the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend. There should be a lesson in there for my hon. Friend. In fact, the punishments with the lowest reoffending rate of all were the indeterminate sentences that were introduced in the name of public protection—the very punishments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) scrapped, even though he said at the time that his main purpose was to reduce reoffending. Let us stick to the facts about what actually works, rather than trying to make ourselves sound good to our constituents and to the wider public.

An equally staggering fact is that many of the offenders who are released on licence and who then reoffend or breach their licence conditions and are recalled for 28 days and then go on to reoffend or breach their licence conditions again once they have been re-released are still only recalled for 28 days on that second or subsequent occasion. Between September 2013 and September 2014, 1,160 offenders received more than one fixed-term recall, including 49 offenders who were serving sentences for violence against the person and 705 who were serving sentences for burglary. That is absolutely outrageous, as my constituents in Wilsden and Harden, who are facing a spate of burglaries at the moment, will know only too well. Perhaps we should ask them to listen to some of this liberal claptrap while they are having their homes burgled every five minutes by people who have been released from prison on fixed-term recall.

This weak response to reoffending is becoming so well-known in the criminal community that some people are taking their chances and reoffending, knowing that the punishment will be pathetic. Worse still, some are deliberately trying to get themselves back into prison for 28 days, as that is just enough time for them to make money from dealing drugs and committing other crimes on the inside before being released again. They are deliberately going back into prison because they know that it will only be for 28 days, and that they will not have to serve the rest of their original sentence. The concept of the fixed-term recall takes dishonesty in sentencing—which is already bad enough with people only serving a maximum of half their sentence—to a new low. Fixed-term recalls are completely unjust and unjustifiable, and they should be scrapped with immediate effect.