§ 5. Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reject the James Committee recommendations to deprive people of the right to trial by jury if accused of shoplifting goods to the value of less than £20.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonAs my right hon. Friend indicated in the reply he gave on 25th November to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead West (Mr. Horam), we wish to 565 assess reactions to the report generally before reaching conclusions on particular recommendations.—[Vol. 901, c. 105–106.]
§ Mr. AdleyIs it not an obnoxious principle that access to a jury should be denied by rationing by cash value? As the increase in shoplifting can be attributed largely to the increase in the number of supermarkets, particularly food supermarkets, and as people who are accused of shoplifting offences are frequently those who have never found themselves on criminal charges before, would not the Home Office be better employed in concentrating its activities on trying to deal with the problem at source—namely, the trading methods employed by the supermarkets? Would it not be better to approach the problem in that way than to try to ration justice in the manner recommended by the James Committee?
§ Mr. LyonIf the hon. Gentleman reads the appropriate part of the James Committee Report, he will find that the Committee tried to balance the consideration that he has put forward, a consideration of considerable public policy, against another consideration of public policy—namely, that the higher courts should not be burdened with cases which, on the whole, are trivial. This is a question of judgment and a matter on which the Government will have to come to a decision in the light of all kinds of representations, including that put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Greville JannerIs my hon. Friend aware that a respectable person does not regard shoplifting as a trivial offence? Is he aware that it is a charge that can not only ruin a person's good name and career from a very small sum but cause the person concerned to suffer a nervous breakdown, even if acquitted? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the feeling of most hon. Members on both sides of the House that the right to jury trial should be retained for these offences?
§ Mr. LyonWe are listening to these expressions of opinion, but my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the James Committee paid attention to the consideration that he has just laid before the House. Is it any more right that a person who is alleged to have made a 566 false declaration in claiming social security benefit, for example, cannot obtain a jury trial, whereas someone who is alleged to have stolen £1 is afforded that opportunity? This is a consideration to which a balance or argument should be applied. It is a matter that we shall have to decide in due course.