HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc874-5

Lords Amendment: No. 74, in page 37, line 45, at end insert: () No sentence shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to consider a social inquiry report in accordance with rules under subsection (1) of this section, but any other court on appeal from that court shall consider such a report in determining whether a different sentence should be passed on the appellant from the sentence passed on him by the court below.

Miss Bacon

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 46(1) empowers the Home Secretary to require courts in certain cases to consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence. If in such a case a court failed to consider a report and passed a custodial sentence, there would be some doubt about the validity of the sentence and, consequently, some doubt about the propriety of continuing to detain the offender. To allow the offender to go scot free would give him an undeserved benefit, and in some cases the sentence might be for a long time in order to protect the public.

The appropriate course would seem to be that the appellate court should repair the omission of the sentencing court, and the Amendment accordingly provides that failure to obtain a statutory social inquiry report shall not invalidate the sentence and that on appeal the appellate court shall consider such a report in determining whether to substitute a different sentence.

Sir D. Renton

I welcome this as a good Amendment. On a very superficial view, it might be thought to make nonsense, but the fact that the Government have agreed to the insertion of provisions as to what shall happen on appeal when no social inquiry report was before the court of first instance puts the matter right.

It is worth placing on record, even although the record of the House is not binding on the courts, the fact that the lack of a social inquiry report in the court of first instance will not automatically grant a right of appeal. That will be a matter for the court of appeal to consider, but that does not need to be written into the Bill. I think that the Government have got this right and I welcome the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.