HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc790-1

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 14, line 9, at end insert new Clause "E": E. Where a magistrates' court has power to commit an offender to a court of quarter sessions under section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (incorrigible rogues) or section 28 or 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (committal for sentence), the court may instead of committing him in custody commit him on bail.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

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

Perhaps at the same time we can discuss Lords Amendments No. 89, No. 217, No. 220, and No. 230.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the House agrees.

Mr. Taverne

The substantive Amendment is the new Clause, the other Amendments being consequential. At the moment, where magistrates commit an offender to quarter sessions for sentence under the provisions of Section 28 or Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, or Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, they have no discretion as to bail and must commit him in custody.

We do not think that there is sufficient reason to make a remand in custody mandatory in these cases. In the first place, if an offender committed for sentence under these provisions appeals against his conviction by the magistrates, bail can be granted by the High Court. It does not seem right that bail should depend upon the somewhat fortuitous existence of an appeal against conviction. Indeed, the anomaly may have the effect of encouraging frivolous appeals for this purpose. Just under one quarter of the offenders so committed in 1965 did not receive custodial sentences at all. There seems, therefore, good reason for granting this discretion.

Question put and agreed to.