HC Deb 09 June 1969 vol 784 cc1065-71
Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 18 in page 6, line 12, at end insert: (6) Where in any care proceedings the court finds the offence condition satisfied with respect to the relevant infant in consequence of an indictable offence within the meaning of the Magistrates' Court Act 1952, then, whether or not the court makes an order under section 1 of this Act—

  1. (a) section 34 of that Act (which relates to compensation for loss of property or damage to it) shall apply as if the finding were a finding of guilty of the offence and as if the maximum amount of an award under that section were one hundred pounds: and
  2. (b) the court shall if the relevant infant is a child, and may if he is not, order any sum awarded by virtue of this subsection to be paid by his parent or guardian instead of by him unless it is satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found or has not conduced to the commission of the offence 1066 by neglecting to exercise due care or control of him, so however that an order shall not be made in pursuance of this paragraph unless the parent or guardian has been given an opportunity of being heard or has been required to attend the proceedings and failed to do so; and
  3. (c) any sum payable by a parent or guardian by virtue of the preceding paragraph may be recovered from him in like manner as if he had been convicted of the offence in question;
but where the finding in question is made in pursuance of the preceding subsection, the powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable by the court to which the case is remitted instead of by the court which made the finding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we are discussing the sub-Amendment after '1952', insert 'or of an offence under section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914';

Amendment No. 20, in line 26, at end insert; and a person ordered to pay compensation by virtue of the preceding subsection may appeal to quarter sessions against the order; and

Amendment No. 21, in line 27, after first 'of', insert 'the preceding subsection or'.

Mr. Callaghan

This is an important Amendment which provides for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances. It is in response to a discussion which took place in Committee, when my hon. Friend promised that we would look at the matter again. We have done so, and the Amendments are the result of the Government's reconsideration.

The new subsection (6) which I am proposing to insert provides that where what is called "the offence condition" is satisfied in care proceedings and the offence is an indictable one, Section 34 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952 shall apply, subject to a maximum of £100. That Section is the provision which enables magistrates' courts to make compensation orders in criminal proceedings.

The effect of this Amendment is to enable the court, in care proceedings for an indictable offence, to make compensation orders in the same circumstances and for the same offences as in criminal proceedings. The Amendment provides for a maximum of £100, which was the figure suggested by the Opposition when they moved their Amendment. I have accepted that figure. There is a good case for saying that in these circumstances the limit of £400 which was provided in the Magistrates Courts Act is too high.

It provides for compensation to be made payable in care proceedings for offences by children under the age of 14. In the great majority of cases, any compensation that was ordered by a court would have to be paid by the parents, and it seems right therefore to fix a limit of £100 for the vicarious liability of the parents for an act committed by their child. The Amendment enables the court to make an order for compensation whether or not it makes an order under Clause 1. That is an important point.

The last three lines of the Amendment provide that where, under subsection (5), the court finds the offence condition satisfied and remits the case to the home court, the power to order compensation shall rest with the court to which the case is remitted, because it is undesirable that two courts should make separate orders in the same case.

The second Amendment gives a person ordered to pay compensation the right of appeal to quarter sessions. The third Amendment provides that where there is an appeal against a compensation order following a finding of guilt in one court and remittal to another court, an appeal against the compensation order shall be heard by the same court of quarter sessions as appeals against a finding or any other order made.

It is the Government's intention that a juvenile court shall be able to order the payment of compensation in care proceedings where it finds the child or young person guilty of an offence under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914; that is, malicious damage to property.

This is an Amendment which the Opposition felt would help the Bill. I can see the arguments for it, and I accept them. It will bring an added sense of responsibility to parents in certain cases. It will be for the court to judge whether it thinks that it is appropriate, and I think that that is right. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Goodhart

In Committee the Home Secretary, replying to the debate on the principle of compensation, said: I am glad to accept the principle of the Amendment, and perhaps we could have a go at drafting it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee G, 27th March. 1969; c. 103–4.] I was not very impressed by the result. In 1967 malicious damage cases on indictment numbered a mere 154 for children under the age of 14 and 120 for children under the age of 17, while malicious damage cases dealt with in the magistrates' courts on non-indictable offences were, in both instances, more than 10 times as great. Therefore, the Sub-Amendment, after "1952" insert or of an offence under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914 was put down because it seeks to increase substantially the number of malicious damage cases to which this applied.

I was not wholly clear from his speech whether the Home Secretary had accepted our Amendment. Had the Home Secretary accepted the Amendment?

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Briefly, the position is that the Opposition Amendment to the Government's Amendment cannot be accepted, since it gives rise to a complex question of law, the full effects of which are being considered. Nevertheless, it can be stated categorically that it is the Government's intention that a juvenile court shall be able to order the payment of compensation in care proceedings where it finds the child or young person guilty of an offence under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914, which is malicious damage to property. If it was necessary for an Amendment to be put down, it would be put down in another place.

Mr. Goodhart

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. I am sure that improves the position greatly. Clearly, in the larger number of non-indictable cases of malicious damage it is right that compensation should be paid. I am glad that the spirit of the Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment will be accepted, at least in another place.

As we made plain in Committee, this is a form of treatment of malicious damage cases which accords with the natural sense of justice of the child and is accepted by a substantial number of parents, too, as being a right way of dealing with comparatively minor cases of damage perpetrated by their children. I am grateful to the Government for having fulfilled their pledge in Committee.

Mr. Peter Mahon

I should not wish to increase the amount of £100 by any large figure, but it will be considered by and large, in view of the circumstances of malicious damage committed by many young people, to be rather a derisory figure. Desecration and serious damage is often done by children of 12 to 14 years of age to their own schools. When children leave school, they return again and again to their alma mater and do tremendous damage.

We must set a limit in these cases, but I am pleased that reconsideration of this aspect can be given in another place, because it is a serious situation which is by no means diminishing. Whether fines will have the salutory effect for which we all hope, I do not know. This situation is sorely trying to people who are doing the best they can in the sphere of education.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

I did not understand the Home Secretary to say that the Government would necessarily be reconsidering the maximum amount in another place. Although we all have sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), a balance must be struck somewhere. Although children often do damage to an amount greater than £100, a moment's consideration shows that it would be unreasonable to give through the criminal courts what would in effect be power to fine to a higher sum. If the child was an older child, the fact that compensation was awarded through the courts would in no way inhibit a civil action from being taken by the authorities against someone who could be successfully sued.

I want to understand exactly what the Under-Secretary meant in his intervention. We are glad to hear that he accepts the spirit of our Amendment to the Amendment. As the Home Secretary said, this provision is intended to cover malicious damage. For malicious damage in amounts less than £100, proceedings are normally taken under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. Therefore, this seemed to me to be a necessary Amendment. I could not understand what the Under-Secretary meant by his statement that the Government would amend the Clause if it was necessary to do so. The point is that the Clause provides limits to where the offence has been proved and the offence is an indictable one under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. The whole point of the Amendment is that an offence under the Criminal Justice Administration Act is not, as I understand it, an indictable offence within the meaning of the Magistrates' Court Act, 1952.

All that I am asking the Under-Secretary to say is that it means that an Amendment must be necessary. An offence under the Criminal Justice Administration Act is not included within the words indictable offence within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act". It may be that the Amendment is in the wrong terms, but surely an Amendment is needed if an offence under the 1914 Act is not included under the term indictable offence within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 which it cannot be, because the maximum punishment is three months' imprisonment.

I am glad that in Committee the Secretary of State willingly conceded the point on compensation. This was a matter of genuine concern which was raised by several of the bodies interested in the Bill. They believed that there was a gap in the law. I believe that the Home Secretary will agree that there is a strong feeling that courts should where possible have wider powers to grant compensation to the victim of crime rather than the reverse. I hope that merely putting the power to grant compensation into the Bill will not be the last we shall hear of extending the provisions of compensation in the criminal courts during the next few years.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has asked me to explain exactly what I had in mind. Under Section 14(1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, malicious damage to property not exceeding £100 may be dealt with summarily and the magistrates' court is empowered to order the payment of compensation to the party aggrieved. There is, therefore, a special power to order compensation and the precise relationship between this and the power relating to indictable offences generally in Section 34 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, is now being considered.

The position is complicated by Section 14(2) of the 1914 Act which amends Section 51 of the Malicious Damage Act by repealing the limitation to cases of damage in excess of £5 but goes not to provide that a person shall not be committed for trial except where the damage exceeds £5. This is not necessarily the case in law. It is necessary to consider the possibility, which I admit is theoretical rather than real, of a bill of indictment being preferred, and what for all practical purposes is only a summary offence may, therefore, in law be a hybrid offence. It is on account of that complication that we are unable to say at the moment whether or not it will be necessary for an Amendment to be moved at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 19, in page 6, line 12, at end insert: (6) Where in any care proceedings the court finds the offence condition satisfied with respect to the relevant infant and he is a young person, the court may if it thinks fit and he consents, instead of making such an order as is mentioned in section 1(3) of this Act, order him to enter into a recognisance for an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds and for a period not exceeding one year to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour; and such an order shall be deemed to be an order under section 1 of this Act but no appeal to quarter sessions may be brought against an order under this subsection.

No. 20, in line 26, at end insert: ';and a person ordered to pay compensation by virtue of the preceding subsection may appeal to quarter sessions against the order'.

No. 21, in line 27, after first "of", insert 'the preceding subsection or'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Back to
Forward to