HC Deb 02 November 1916 vol 86 cc1862-8

A person convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, shall, where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract with His Majesty or any Government Department or any public body or a sub-contract to execute any work comprised in such a contract, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years:

Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the infliction in addition to penal servitude of such punishment as under the last-mentioned Act may be inflicted in addition to imprisonment.

Sir A. SPICER

I beg to move to leave out the word "nor" ["for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years."]

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

There is some misapprehension as to this Clause. It is thought that we are proposing not only that a maximum penalty of seven years should be imposed for these offences, but that there should be a minimum penalty of three years, and that the Court will not be able to impose less than that sentence if a conviction is entered. That is not so. Of course, it would be very wrong to attempt to lay down a minimum sentence in a case such as this, and, indeed, I think Parliament almost invariably in modern legislation has not attempted to enact minimum penalties. The Clause as it stands simply adds to the powers conferred upon Courts by previous Acts a new power to impose certain sentences of penal servitude. It does not repeal powers previously conferred. Therefore, the Court can exercise its powers under previous Acts and impose a penalty, say, of two years' imprisonment or less than three years, or a fine of £100 or a fine of less than £100. It may be asked why we insert the words "a minimum of three years." The Penal Servitude Act of 1891 lays down the rule where penal servitude can be afflicted that the minimum term is for three years, but this rule does not apply to enactments passed since that date. I hope that I have made that clear. The Act which establishes our present system of penal servitude says that three years shall be the minimum. If the Court were to inflict a penalty of two years' penal servitude it would upset the symmetry of our present system of penal servitude, and unless these words were put in the Bill the terms of the Act of 1891 would not apply, with the result that the Courts would have power to impose sentences of one or two years' penal servitude. That is not desired by the House, and certainly is not intended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That is why the Bill is drafted in this way, and I hope that the Committee will accept it in its existing form on the clear understanding and assurance that the three years' penal servitude is not a minimum penalty, but only the minimum penalty of penal servitude. Any Court can impose imprisonment or a fine. As a matter of fact, the Penal Servitude Act of 1891 specifically provides, where any Statute allows penal servitude to be imposed, that the Court can alternatively impose imprisonment with hard labour.

Sir H. DALZIEL

As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman intends that there shall not be any sentence less than three years?

Mr. SAMUEL

Less than three years' penal servitude.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Yes, penal servitude. That is obviously the intention of the Bill, and that is why it is put in. There are two considerations I should like to put before the right hon. Gentleman. Is there any precedent for having that minimum in a matter of this kind, because I have no recollection of it? It occurs to me that a jury, under the impression that no sentence less than three years' penal servitude can be imposed, may hesitate to convict a person who is obviously guilty, and that the Section therefore may work very much in favour of the guilty man.

Mr. SAMUEL

That is not the minimum sentence.

Sir H. DALZIEL

It is the minimum sentence of penal servitude.

Mr. SAMUEL

It always has been so. There is no one now in penal servitude who has got less than three years.

Sir J. SIMON

I am hot surprised that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) should have raised that point, because as the Section is now drafted many persons might suppose that the minimum punishment which could be inflicted under it is three years' penal servitude. I feel quite certain that a good many people reading the Act of Parliament in the newspapers would think that is the effect. My right hon. Friend has explained that is not so for the reason, as he has pointed out, that there is a general provision of our law that when an Act of Parliament says penal servitude may be the punishment, then, unless the Act of Parliament makes an express provision to the contrary, the alternative of imprisonment with hard labour or the imposition of a fine is always open to the Court. No doubt, therefore, the way in which it will work out will be that these smaller punishments will always remain in proper cases, but I wish it could be made a little plainer in the actual Section, because I share the fear of my right hon. Friend. If it gets into the heads of a jury that anybody who is convicted under this Act can never get less than three years' penal servitude, there will be the same sort of impression made upon them as every practising barrister knows is sometimes made upon a jury who feel that if a person is convicted of murder he must be hanged. It would be quite a mistake to suppose that is the real effect of this Section, but I would invite the Home Secretary between now and the Report stage to consider whether he could not pass his Clause in a form which would show to everybody, and not only to lawyers who happen to know the Penal Servitude Act of 1891, that is not the effect of it. It is not that anyone is in the least unwilling to see severe penalties provided for what is a dreadful offence, but it is contrary to all notions of good jurisprudence to say that once a man is convicted there is a minimum sentence below which the Court cannot go. We do that now in the single case of murder in order to relieve what otherwise would be a most terrible responsibility upon the judge or the jury, but we have never done it in any other case.

Mr. SAMUEL

I am disposed to agree with my right hon. Friend that the Clause as drafted is open to misunderstanding by the lay mind, although the lawyer no doubt will fully understand that the three years' penal servitude is not the minimum punishment. No doubt in any case which came into Court that would be made quite plain to the jury. Between now and the Report stage, however, I shall be glad to consider whether I cannot put on the face of the Bill the fact that the penalties under the earlier Acts are preserved and maintained in this Act, and I shall be pleased, too, to consider the alternative form of Amendment which my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Spicer) adumbrated in his remarks just now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commander WEDGWOOD

I beg to move to leave out the word "Section'' ["Provided that nothing in this Section"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."

I have an Amendment further down on the Paper adding a second Sub-section to the first Clause, and hence the necessity for this alteration. At the present time offences can be summarily dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1891, and there seems to be no such difference between the classes of offences as would justify a distinction being drawn in connection with those coming under this Act. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction has certain powers, which are dealt with under Sub-sections (a) and (b) of my proposed Sub-section, and it does seem to me that offences of this sort might wisely and rightly be dealt with in a Summary Court of Jurisdiction under this Bill. The object of my proposal is to make this Act more operative and more easily brought into use in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith)

The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was considered in connection with these offences, and there is a power to proceed in this matter summarily Under the earlier Acts. It was thought, not unreasonably, that that power which exists of dealing with these matters summarily under the earlier Acts really afforded all the conveniences of summary procedure in ordinary cases when it was desirable it should be adopted. I should have thought it was not necessary in the case of this Bill to deal with that particular matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will agree not to press this matter at present, I will have the point further considered.

Commander WEDGWOOD

In view of that promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. SMITH

I beg to move to leave out the words "last-mentioned Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "above-mentioned Acts."

This is purely a drafting Amendment, the object- of which will, I think, be apparent to the House at once. If the Committee will look at the Clause it will find the words:

"Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the infliction in addition to penal servitude of such punishment as under the last-mentioned Act may be inflicted in addition to imprisonment."

But it has been pointed out there might be some confusion, in consequence of the way in which Section 1 was drafted, whether it would be possible under this Bill to do what was possible under earlier Acts, namely, in cases where it might seem reasonable and desirable to impose a fine in addition to imprisonment. I think, on the whole, that apprehension was well founded. It is, the Committee will see, quite reasonable to maintain that power, as there may be cases where the accused may actually have in his pocket at the time thousands of pounds as the result of his corruption. Hence this proposal.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words proposed there added.

Commander WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following Sub-section:

(2) A person may be summarily convicted of an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, and if so convicted shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

Provided that nothing in this Subsection,—

  1. (a) shall authorise a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to deal with an offender under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 2 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889; or
  2. (b) shall be construed as taking away or diminishing any liability which would have been incurred if this Sub-section had not been enacted, so however that no person be twice punished for the same offence.

Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end, insert, (2) In Sub-section (]) of Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, for the words "four months" and for the words "fifty pounds" there shall be .substituted the words "six months" and the words "one hundred pounds," respectively. I am anxious to increase the penalty which it is possible to inflict in cases such as these in a Court of summary jurisdiction. At present the maximum term of imprisonment is four months, and the maximum fine £50, and it does seem to me it might be practicable to give the Court of summary jurisdiction slightly extended powers. I see no reason whatever why the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction should not be six months, and the maximum fine £100, and, therefore, I beg to move this new Sub-section.

Sir F. SMITH

My hon. and gallant Friend has struck a point which engaged the attention of those who were concerned in the drafting of this Bill, and I can assure him that the matter was very carefully considered. Among other matters, we discussed whether the period of imprisonment, or the amount of the pecuniary penalty, should be increased. On the whole, we came to the conclusion, which I think is well founded, to adhere to the provisions embodied in this Bill, and in this, I think, we shall carry the Committee with us. These offences are in all cases, of course, morally very grave offences, and the number of cases dealt with in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction is not likely to be very large. Indeed, I feel sure the general sense of the moral element being present in these cases will have a good effect, and that being so, I think the Committee, on the whole, will see that where the offence is serious enough to justify a fine of £100, or imprisonment for six months, it should not be dealt with in a Court of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. LOUGH

I hope the Government will stick to their decision and not alter-the penalties contained in the Bill. We-may err on the side of being too severe, and thereby defeat the ends we have in view.

Commander WEDGWOOD

We have a maximum penalty. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Sir F. Smith.]

Sir H. DALZIEL

I desire to ask the-Attorney-General as to a point which was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that is in regard to the use of the Attorney General's fiat in these cases.

Sir F. SMITH

There is an Amendment down on the Paper later dealing with that very point.

Question put, and agreed to.