HL Deb 29 January 1987 vol 483 cc1455-7
Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied the comments of Judge Norwood at Isleworth Crown Court in sentencing Joseph Hanson for offences which he committed after release from prison on weekend leave which he had been granted notwithstanding his having absconded when released on parole in 1985: why he was released on weekend leave: and who was responsible for the decision to release him on this occasion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, we are aware of Judge Norwood's comments when sentencing Mr. Joseph Hanson for offences committed when he was unlawfully at large, having failed to return from home leave. Taking into account all relevant factors, the governor of the prison in which Mr. Hanson was serving his sentence decided, on the advice of the Home Leave Board, to grant Mr. Hanson two days' leave to help maintain his ties with his family and prepare him for his eventual release.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, does my noble friend not find it a little odd, as the learned judge who tried the case found, that a man should be released from prison within a year of his having absconded from a previous grant of parole? Is he aware of the fact that the decision to release him resulted in the commission of further offences; considerable wrongs being done to several members of the public; and very considerable police effort? Is it not curious that the previous absconding should be completely ignored in a decision to release the prisoner on this occasion?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that certainly on this occasion, as on all the other occasions, such previous behaviour of the prisoner is not ignored when it comes to the consideration for home leave or parole. All these matters were before the Home Leave Board. But, in view of Mr. Hanson's exemplary behaviour in an open prison, the decision was taken to let him go for home leave. We must all realise that it is a case where balance has to be struck between the risk and the benefit; namely, the risk to the public of failure, and the benefits to the prisoner of maintaining his family ties and easing his progress towards his eventual release.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, does not concentration upon the exceptional case which is bound to arise—of which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is so fond—leave one with a misunderstanding of the advantages of the short home leave and the terminal home leave? Are they not very necessary for any hope of civilised resettlement for prisoners? Are we not behind many other countries, including the United States, Sweden, Denmark—and I could go on—in our generosity in this discretionary right?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord on the point that he makes with regard to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is very important that these matters are brought to our attention in order to make sure that the policy we have is right, and from whichever side of the House such comment comes it provides a very good check on the situation. For that reason, I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that the present policy is the right one.

Lord Renton

My Lords, can my noble friend say how rarely or how frequently these cases do go wrong?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we do not collect figures as a matter of routine; but I can tell my noble friend that figures that have been collected show that 4,400 prisoners were granted home leave in 1985–86 and only 203 prisoners failed to return in time.

Lord Elton

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that we regard him as absolutely right to welcome scrutiny of these cases? Will he also bear in mind that we are talking about offences committed on leave in preparation for final release, and that final release can be an equal opportunity for the commission of such offences? For the offence to be committed in an experimental period is a greater protection to the public than if the prisoner is finally at large.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my noble friend has tremendous experience of these matters; and, of course, he is absolutely right.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that first, this prisoner was in an open prison; secondly that there was no record of violent offences as far as he was concerned, and thirdly that home leave is an absolutely critical factor in the preparation for an offender to return to the community? Is the Minister aware that these are difficult questions of judgment which rightly should be left to the governor of each individual establishment.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, if I may say so: yes, yes, yes and yes.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that judicial comment on the circumstances of release can at times work very great mischief?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on what anybody may say about this. We have justified the policy and the policy must be continued.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is any administrative system not improved by the knowledge that if errors are made, as they were in this case, they will have attention drawn to them? Is it not a fact that this particular man was not due for final release until spring 1988? So, it was somewhat premature to regard this release, on which he committed these offences against two innocent girls, as having anything to do with preparation for final release.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend that errors were made. With hindisight one can differ with the opinion; but I do not believe that that justifies the contention that an error was made. As a result of the control review committee of 1984 we changed our policy on 1st April, 1986, to try and encourage improvement in the terms for a short home leave at four-monthly intervals. I think, as I proved to my noble friend Lord Renton on an earlier answer, that this has in the great majority of cases been of enormous benefit.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, does the Minister agree that examination of the factors involved in determining the eligibility for home leave is extremely complex? It is not a scientific matter amenable to mathematical calculation. Therefore, is it not quite wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to describe as an error a process of careful judgment by the authorities concerned which occasionally leads to a prisoner absconding?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I agree that all factors have to be taken into account. As I said earlier, it is a decision between the risk and the benefit.

Back to