Sentencing Regime for 17-year-olds

Debate between Tom Hunt and Jim Shannon

Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I rise to outline in detail a quite tragic incident that took place in Ipswich—an incident that really shook the town and caused great upset and hurt. I hope it can spur some reform with regards to the criminal justice system.

Richard Day was a constituent of mine. I only had the opportunity to represent him for a short time. I did not know Richard Day—I had not met him—but having met his brother and a lot of people who did know him and were touched by him, it is very clear that Richard Day was an incredibly popular man who touched the lives of a huge number of Ipswich residents. He was a 45-year-old man with three brothers. He was an engineer with UK Power Networks. He had just completed four years of training. He was incredibly passionate about what he did. He was a season ticket holder at Ipswich Town football club. He was passionate about his town, he was passionate about his family and he was passionate about his friends. In the words of his brother Krissy, “He would give you the shirt off his back.” That was the kind of man he was. He would have done anything for anyone. He was the sort of man who deserved only good things to happen to him and only good things to happen to those who were closest to him.

On 22 February 2020, Richard went to see Ipswich play Oxford in a football game. Ipswich lost one-nil, which has happened a fair bit over the last few years, but I think he had probably got a bit used to it, so he was in good spirits, despite the fact that Ipswich lost that game. He went to the Cock & Pye pub. He met up with his brother Krissy and his younger brother. His younger brother was involved in a music band, and he went somewhere else in town to see his brother playing. For the first time in a long time, all four brothers were together on that night, Saturday 22 February.

Richard was the eldest brother, and not only did he provide invaluable support to each one of his three brothers, but he cared for his mother, who had health problems. He did everything he could to support her. After the gig, he walked home to watch, I believe, a boxing fight that was taking place that night. It was before midnight, and he walked up St Matthew’s Street, which is a pretty prominent street in Ipswich. It is a street that I myself have walked along when I have walked up to where I live after going to a bar or a restaurant.

Earlier that day, Andrea Cristea, who had a youth detention order and was awaiting sentencing for a violent crime, was going about his business, frankly, pretty determined for trouble—pretty determined to cause a lot of damage to someone and a lot of grief to someone. Unfortunately, that person was Richard Day. Richard Day was set upon by this individual. He was attacked violently. There was a punch thrown to the neck, which would end up being the lethal blow.

We could say, “Well, it got a bit out of hand; it was something that happened,” but far from offering assistance when Richard Day lay on the ground dying, Andrea Cristea went through his pockets, stole his wallet and was seen standing over my constituent—as he was dying—laughing. This happened in the town that I represent, it happened before midnight, and it happened in a prominent place. Clearly, this has caused immense upset to the family of Richard Day, all of his friends and everyone who knew him, but it also shook the town and, frankly, I do not really think that we have recovered from it.

I was very thankful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for visiting Ipswich in March 2020. I spoke to her about this incident, which had caused great nervousness in the town. Frankly, there have been many antisocial behaviour problems in the town that I represent, and when something like this happens, it causes great unease. I was grateful to the Home Secretary for visiting Ipswich, talking to residents and talking to the local police force. That is the effect of what happened on the family and the town.

On 26 April 2021, a judge issued the sentence for Mr Cristea. He got four years in a youth offenders institute, but of course he will be let out automatically halfway through, so it is pointless calling it four years. It is not four years; it is two years. This individual had already served a significant amount of time on remand, so we are looking at him being released incredibly soon and presumably back on the streets of Ipswich. I have spoken to people with a wide range of views on law and order issues, but not a single person in the town I have spoken to about this particular sentence believes that it is appropriate or that it delivers justice. They believe it is far from that.

I wrote to the Attorney General to ask whether they could review the case in the Court of Appeal. I knew it was a long shot, and in some senses the family felt that the judge’s hands were tied because a lot of it was to do with the Sentencing Council guidelines, but we thought we would give it a try. We were unsuccessful, and I understand the reasons why we were unsuccessful. I am grateful for the letter I received from the Solicitor General, who sent me the letter and discussed it with me offline as well, to explain her immense sympathy with the family, but also why she felt she was in the position that she was in.

There are several consequences that I can think of now. There are the consequences for the family. Their belief is that no justice has been served. As the family of the victim, their confidence in the criminal justice system has been shaken as a result of this. They are so far away from feeling like justice has been served. They believe this pitiful sentence is almost an insult. What kind of deterrent does it provide to anybody else potentially involved in this kind of illicit behaviour, when somebody who behaves like this can get away with it?

There is also the consequence for public safety. As I said before, this particular individual, who had committed multiple crimes before he ended up in the offenders institution where he currently is, could well be back out on the streets of Ipswich again. How can we guarantee that he will not do something similar again? The judge said that he took public safety into account, but that an extended sentence would not help the situation. I find that hard to believe.

Why did I apply for this Adjournment debate, which is only my third Adjournment debate? First, I did so because I wanted to put on record the remarkable man I have learned about and the contribution that he made to his family and to his town, and the fact that he should never be forgotten. I also did it because of the sense of anger felt not just by his family but by pretty much everyone in the town, and hopefully to try to spur some of us to think about the consequences of this and about how unhealthy it is that so many people’s confidence in the criminal justice system is so shaken by a sentence such as this. It is a sentence that we can all look at and know it is wrong.

I simply do not think it is enough to abdicate responsibility and say, “Oh well, it’s the Sentencing Council, it is this and it is that.” Ultimately, people look to their elected representatives to put in place a law and order system that they can have confidence and faith in and that they believe delivers justice. So I believe that this House and this Government need to look at the system and take appropriate action to ensure that sentences such as this are not issued in the way that they are.

It was manslaughter that Mr Cristea was found guilty of, but for me it was an incredibly sinister kind of manslaughter. He has shown no contrition whatsoever for the damage he has done or for the life he took away that will never ever be forgotten by the family of Mr Day. He was 16 when the incident took place and 17 when he was sentenced. It seems wrong that, if he had been over 18, he probably would have got something like nine years and there is such a dramatic difference if you are a 17-year-old as opposed to if you are an 18-year-old—almost more, I believe, than the difference if you are a 12-year-old and if you are a 17-year-old. I understand that the Government are looking at a sliding scale in relation to murder, but not in relation to manslaughter, which is what we are talking about today, and which is what caused such immense destruction to the life of Richard Day.

I am very serious about the point about public safety. I do not know what the plan is for Mr Cristea when he comes out of where he is at the moment. My view is that I do not want him to step foot in the town that I represent ever again. I believe that he is an appalling man, and I believe he could do further damage. I would like an assurance that he will not be back in the town that I represent. I do not know what his nationality is. I understand he is not a British national, but I may be wrong. I do not know whether he has been able to apply for settled status while he has been in the criminal justice system. If he has done, I find this ludicrous, and I would think there is a very reasonable argument to be made for deportation. I see very few redeeming features in this individual. I think he has had nothing but a negative impact on our country and our town. At the very least, if we cannot look at his sentence, it would be some comfort to know that he is going to be deported.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House tonight? He has done his constituents proud. His dutiful attention is on record, and we thank him for it. Does he not agree that the automatic halving of sentences should not apply to cases involving manslaughter, and that we in this House have a duty to the families of victims to ensure that changes are made to legislation in every area of the UK? Legislation may enable his constituent’s killer to serve only 10 months after sentencing, and it is absolutely right that he should be getting more.

[Tom Hunt]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who I am very honoured has made an intervention in the second out of three Adjournment debates. I do not think he has intervened in all of them.

The Government have made some very good moves. They have ended automatic release for those found guilty of some of the most serious offences. If someone gets sentenced to 25 years in prison, no longer are they let out automatically halfway through, so there have been some moves in the right direction, but I agree: I think we need to go further. I am perhaps quite old-fashioned, but I like things to be what they are called on the tin, so that if someone gets four years, they get four years; if they get two years, they get two years; if they get nine years, they get nine years. Unless there is exceptional behaviour and a very good reason for early release, they should not get early release. Do not call it four years if it is not four years.

There is a wider point here about the extent to which we as elected representatives can shape these issues, because I think the public should have input into our law and order. I do not think we should be scared of trying to have an influence. I will conclude now, because I would like the Minister to have time to reply. I guess I wanted to have this debate as I wanted to put on record Richard Day, the man that he is and how he will be remembered. He will always be remembered. I am not just saying this. He was loved—much loved—by a very large number of people in the town. He was a typical Ipswich man: good, honest, good values, and patient with his football team. He deserves for there to be a legacy. That involves us remembering him, but also being determined that other families do not have to go through the pain that his family have gone through. That is how I would like to leave this debate, and I would be very grateful if the Minister outlined to me what steps will be taken to strengthen our criminal justice system to ensure that people such as Mr Cristea pay a much, much higher price for the unbearable pain they have inflicted.

Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between Tom Hunt and Jim Shannon

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

May I begin by paying tribute to some of the speeches that have been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke passionately about a number of issues, particularly special educational needs, which I am incredibly passionate about as well. We need to make sure that we do something on that in this Parliament, otherwise we will have huge problems as a country. I predict that I will disagree with the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on quite a few issues in the next however many years, but she made a very good maiden speech. I am not saying that just because it is customary to say so; she is clearly a powerful orator. She mentioned her ancestors, and I am sure that they will be incredibly proud of her and the speech that she made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench to the debate, and the glimmers of hope that he sees. While acknowledging that the history of the British empire was chequered, to say that no positive contribution was made at all is wrong. The incessant need to prioritise apologising for our country the whole time and not saying anything good about us as a country and our history and why we are special is the reason why lots of patriotic voters up and down the country abandoned the Labour party at the last election, because it turned its back on them. By the looks of things, it will continue to do so.

It is a privilege to speak on Commonwealth Day in this debate on the Commonwealth of Nations in 2020. The historic bonds between the 54 countries of the Commonwealth are of immense personal significance to many people in Ipswich, as well as to millions of people across the country and around the world. Unfortunately, however, although those bonds have endured in people’s hearts, this country’s relationship with our Commonwealth partners has been neglected over the decades. As we have been shackled to the European Union and tied into the dogmatic pursuit of ever closer union, we have been drawn away from some of our closest friends and most loyal allies in the Commonwealth. This has left many around the world, including me, with a deep sense of regret.

Before our exit from the European Union on 31 January, we were members of an artificial and Babylonian construct that sought to govern the peoples of Europe and attain the power to coerce their elected Governments. Rather than bringing people together, this form of supranational government often drives people apart. This outdated and undemocratic model—which former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso likened to the creation of a new empire—stands in stark contrast to the values and principles of the Commonwealth. Our Commonwealth of nations is based on a voluntary association of sovereign states, with no country exercising power or dominance over any other. Commonwealth countries retain their right to opt out of any arrangements, and there is no obligation to hand over legal or regulatory powers to unaccountable bodies. This intergovernmental system reflects the sense of security that Commonwealth countries have in their own identities, and the respect that they hold for each other as equal members of our Commonwealth community. It fosters a working environment based on agreement and respect that makes positive and consensual co-operation possible.

Unlike the EU, which is driven by the idealism of an elite few, the Commonwealth is grounded fundamentally in what unites its peoples. These bonds are practical and tangible, but also immensely personal in many ways. They were forged in our shared history, trade, common culture, the language we speak, common law, shared values and the movement of people, and even as brothers in war. These are the elements we must consider as we debate the Commonwealth in 2020 and as we look to our global future.

If we are to reignite our relationship with this modern and dynamic community of countries, free trade must be at the heart of our efforts to make up for lost time. We must not forget that free trade was laid down in the Commonwealth’s Singapore declaration as one of our core common values and goals. Trade between Commonwealth nations is already estimated to be worth approximately £425 billion a year, and it is projected to rise to over £532 billion this year. Some 60% of the Commonwealth’s 2.4 billion population are aged under 30 and it also has some of the world’s fastest growing economies, so the opportunities for mutually beneficial trade are enormous.

Now that we have taken back control of our trade policy and left the stagnant and protectionist EU bloc—which frequently raised tariffs to the rest of the world as it struggled to get its own trade deals over the line—there is no reason why we cannot grasp the opportunities of intra-Commonwealth trade with both hands. The EU has trade agreements with 23 Commonwealth states but those deals represent only a small fraction of what is possible. India-EU negotiations have been ongoing since 2007 without success, and the Canada deal, which did eventually pass, was almost vetoed at the last moment. We could not rely on the EU to prioritise our Commonwealth links.

That is why I welcome the targets set out by the Commonwealth Heads of Government to boost intra-Commonwealth trade to £1.5 trillion by 2030. We must be ready to play a full role in building new trade deals with our partners on the foundations of the legal, linguistic and cultural norms we already share. While these important aspects are already in place, this country must also be prepared, as I have said before in this place, to be nimble, flexible and determined in the world as we seek to free ourselves from the EU’s protectionist customs union. India alone has a population of 1.3 billion, which is double the size of the EU’s. We must have the right tools in place if we are going to embrace our future as a truly global free-trading nation. In the past, Belgium has often traded more to India than we have. The European Union has been a barrier to our embracing the growth that was happening in India. If we are going to embrace this opportunity to trade with the Commonwealth, we must have first-class infrastructure to support ports such as Ipswich and Felixstowe, and to ensure that all parts of this country share in the benefits of increased trade.

If this country is to broaden its horizons to the Commonwealth and the world, we must also have a laser-like focus on the parts of the country that have untapped trading potential. The new role that we can play in the Commonwealth will be determined more than anything by our investment and belief in places such as Ipswich and the east of England.

A great deal of belief and investment in our town has already been made by the great number of Commonwealth citizens and Commonwealth-origin Brits who have made Ipswich their home, and I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. Among them are members of the Indian community, who play a vital role in our town, with many dedicating themselves to caring for others by filling many of the roles in our local NHS. We also have a great Bangladeshi community, which has produced some of our town’s most successful business owners and entrepreneurs. Their care for the wider community must not be understated either. The Bangladeshi Support Centre in Ipswich supports not only vulnerable people from the Bangladeshi community, but people from over 50 different nationalities across the town.

I have been lucky during my time as an MP to have many positive interactions with these communities, and of course that has been aided by the common language shared throughout the Commonwealth—I am of course referring to the language of cricket. Some Members might have spotted that I am wearing the tie of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket. We need to have a big screen in Ipswich town centre for the next cricket world cup, and indeed the next time there is an England-Bangladesh game or an England-India game. We need to embrace the festival of cricket to a far greater extent than we have in the past.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand how important it is to support Ipswich Town football club as well. My eldest son supports Ipswich Town, who are well known as the Tractor Boys. They are not doing so well this season, but they are still a team worth supporting.

[Tom Hunt]

Absolutely. Things are not great at the moment for Ipswich Town—we are 10th in the third division and things look pretty bleak. Only four weeks ago we beat Lincoln 1-0 and we were top of the table, so how quickly things can change—maybe I was a bad omen. Cricket unites Commonwealth citizens across the continents and is truly a great symbol of what we share, as last year’s world cup demonstrated.