PENALTIES IN CONNECTION WITH EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER PART II OR UNDER (Hansard, 11 July 1973)

§ Mr. Onslow
I beg leave to move Amendment No. 26, in page 21, line 7, leave out from Act 'to 'to' in line 13 and insert: 'shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

1679 (7) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;

(b) on conviction on indictment'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
With this amendment we can take the following:

§ Mr. Onslow
The purpose of this amendment is to modify the existing penalties under Clause 20 relating to offences under Clause 16 to provide that a person guilty of an offence under Clause 16 shall be liable on summary conviction, as an alternative to a fine not exceeding £400, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.
Following the discussion in Committee, we have again considered carefully the penalties for offences under Parts II and III of the Bill. Our approach to this involves two closely related considerations: first, that the offences under Clause 16 which may include unlawful possession of firearms or explosives are more serious than offences under Clause 20 which are largely regulatory offences. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the maximum penalties which the courts may impose in respect of different offences reflect the comparative seriousness of those offences. Secondly, it is necessary to make sure that similar offences in different fields of legislation are not made punishable by widely differing maximum penalties.
I hope I carry the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) with me in that, bearing these considerations in mind and the views expressed in Committee, the Government accept in principle that a penalty of imprisonment may be made available on summary conviction of an offence under Clause 16. However, we do not consider that this should extend to offences under Clause 20 because we do not believe that the seriousness of offences under that clause merits such a penalty. It is the policy of the Government to try to get away, wherever possible, from the provision of short 1680 sentences of imprisonment on summary conviction.
In general, under Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, anyone charged before a magistrates' court with an offence punishable on summary conviction by more than three months' imprisonment has the right to claim trial by jury. If, therefore, we want to be sure that cases can be tried by magistrates and that imprisonment is available on summary conviction, which I think was the hon. Member's intention, then it would be appropriate to restrict the term of imprisonment to a maximum of three months rather than six months.
It is for these reasons that the amendment in my name is confined, on the one hand, to offences only under Clause 16 and, on the other, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Hon. Members will recall that all the offences under Clauses 16 and 20 are hybrid offences—that is, offences which may be tried either summarily or on indictment—and that substantial sentences of imprisonment are, of course, available on conviction on indictment.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the Opposition will agree that we have made a constructive response to their proposals, and that the Bill can be amended accordingly.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
The Minister has been partially constructive. Perhaps if the Solicitor-General had been here he would have been wholly constructive, and we are sorry that he is not. As drafted the Bill represented an obvious lacuna which has now been partially cured. On summary conviction previously there was no provision for imprisonment for offences under Clause 16. That was an absurd situation. The court would have had the power only to fine. Now there is to be a maximum term of three months' imprisonment.
We would have preferred that to have been six months, which would have been more fitting for an offence of this character. It would also have given the right of election for trial to the accused, which we would have preferred. The right of election has been retained for the prosecution, because the Crown can proceed to indictment, which must be dealt with in a higher court.
1681 For offences under Clause 20 the Government have still chosen not to go for a term of imprisonment on summary conviction, and I challenged the Minister in committee, and I repeat that challenge now, to say where else in our statutes for a serious criminal offence—and the seriousness of these offences should not be minimised—only a fine is imposed on summary conviction. The point that the Minister made that he did not want there to be substantial penalties of imprisonment for offences of this character was an argument he put forward for Clause 16 previously. He is therefore now in the completely illogical position of making a concession on that clause. He said that the Government had set their face against short terms of imprisonment, but that is not the case with Clause 16.
The fact that the prosecution has the right to elect for trial on Clause 20 is not germane. The real danger is that the prosecution might fel that simply because there is no penalty of imprisonment available for a Clause 20 offence they are obligated to proceed to trial. That could involve unnecessary expense and delay and I would have preferred some short period of imprisonment, albeit not more than three months, to have been included for an offence under Clause 20.
I know that the Minister has set his face against it until now, but will he consider the matter further so that it can be dealt with once again in the House of Lords, because it is wholly unusual that no penalty of imprisonment should be imposed for a summary offence of this character and it is something I have not come across before.
I may be wrong but I should like to hear the Minister make some even more constructive proposal.

§ Mr. Onslow
I rise only to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I fear that I cannot make a response that he would regard as more constructive. I had hoped that an advance of 50 per cent. of the way towards his position might have satisfied him. I am sorry that it has not. However, I fear I cannot move any further.