§ 38. Mr. Molloyasked the Attorney-General whether his noble Friend will convene a sentencing conference to discuss the question of sentences in cases of violent sexual assaults.
§ The Attorney-GeneralSentencing conferences, at which sentences in cases of violent assaults of all kinds, including violent sexual assaults, may be diccussed, are already convened from time to time for judges, magistrates and others concerned with sentencing policy. In July 1975 a working party to review the scope and content of training of the judiciary and the methods whereby it is provided was set up jointly by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. The working party issued a consultative paper in June 1976 and it is hoped to have its final report by the end of this year. The desirability of making changes in the present arrangements for sentencing conferences will be considered in the light of the working party's recommendations.
§ Mr. MolloyIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a vast amount of public concern has been expressed about recent cases of violent sexual attacks and the fact that appeal courts have made the most asinine comments, which we cannot discuss because Mr. Speaker will not allow us, and that these 1147 have exacerbated the position? Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether these were unanimous decisions of the Court of Appeal or whether any member of the court dissented? Does he not agree that this House and the public have a right to know? Therefore, in view of the grave dissatisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] My question is not too long for the woman whom the accused man attempted to rape. In view of the grave dissatisfaction amongst the public generally, ought not my right hon. and learned Friend to consult the Lord Chancellor to ensure that an emergency conference on this very disgraceful business is set up very swiftly?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy hon. Friend asked a number of questions which, unfortunately, I cannot answer. I am sure he will understand why. On his last point, I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will note what he said.
§ Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a lot of disquiet about the matter which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) raised, leaving aside the emotional claptrap which he spoke? As a mater of urgency, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to arrange for an early special sentencing conference?
§ The Attorney-GeneralAnyone who reads newspapers or listens to what is said in this House must be aware that there has been a good deal of disquiet. Whether some special sentencing conference is the answer to it is a different matter. As I have said, I shall bring these matters to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend.
§ Mr. John MendelsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), under the disguise of reproving other people for making a comment which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order, was permitted to give his own opinion and to use vituperative language against those citizens who take a different view from his own, ought not those of us who take a different view from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be given the same opportunity?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) could not have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who asked the following Question.
§ Later—
§ Mr. AshleyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify your ruling on an earlier matter which occurred during Question Time? Tomorrow I have a Ten Minute Bill asking for the right of the prosecution to appeal in cases of rape and sexual offences. This afternoon you have told my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) that we cannot criticise judges in this House. That is a fairly well-known rule, yet you appeared to allow the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) to make criticisms about this case. You did not allow my hon. Friends the Members for Lambeth, Central and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to attack. One hon. Member was allowed to attack and two others were not. I should be grateful if, before tomorrow when I propose to do some attacking of my own, you would clarify the rules of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerObviously I am always anxious that the House should not feel that I have been unfair. The position is that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) referred to the judge and used the word "disgraceful". While the House obviously is free to discuss the judgment, comments on judges themselves are not in order, except on a substantive motion. I have tried—I try hard enough, goodness knows—to hold the balance fairly between both sides.
§ Mr. LiptonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter is already the subject of a motion. All I complain about is the fact that we have had no time given for discussing the motion. I take whatever opportunity I can of reminding the powers-that-be that this motion exists, and until it is discussed I shall continue to take umbrage.
§ Mr. John MendelsonFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier but I did not proceed with it because you asked us not to waste the time of the House during Questions. It was quite clear when the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made his submission that 1149 it was a biased and one-sided submission. It was also more than other Members were allowed to make. The hon. and learned Member's submission was made in defence of the judge. There is more than one way of referring to a judge's decision and a particular case in detail. The hon. and learned Member's praising it is just as much a reference as a criticism would be. Hon. Members on this side of the House should be given some rights and an opportunity of showing that there are strong feelings against the judge's decision. The hon. and learned Member has been allowed to whitewash it, but we are not allowed to criticise it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) should bear in mind that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was referring to the decision. Immediately afterwards the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to it also, in directly opposite terms. What I said is in the memory of the House—I objected to the word "disgraceful" being applied directly to the judge. Any Speaker would have done the same. I do not want to appear to be unhelpful. I hope that the matter can rest there.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that any comments on the judge were out of order. You will remember the debate in 1972 surrounding Mr. Justice Donaldson when the comments which described him as a wonderful judge were in order. The comments criticising him were ruled out of order. There are many precedents of this kind, of which this is the most recent. I ask you to take the point that this presents us with very great difficulty. One can say what wonderful people judges are but one can never say what terrible people they are. If derogatory comments are ruled out of order, all comments, even commendations, should also be ruled out of order.
§ Mr. EnglishFurther to that point of order Mr. Speaker. The present procedure of the House puts you in difficulty. Could you discuss this matter with the Front Benches and consider the possibility of treating any motion relating to a judge in the same way as motions of confidence or no confidence in Governments are treated? If a motion of no 1150 confidence in a Government is put down, it is customary for it to be discussed. The problem with motions relating to judges is that they are not discussed. It is fairly clear that this was a case in which the judicial decision showed incompetence in that there was a lack of knowledge of the registrar of the court in the belief that something was correct which turned out to be incorrect. That must be incompetence on somebody's part, though on whose part I do not know. The matter should he discussed in this House because this House, together with the other place, is the only body capable of dismissing a judge.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is an expert on our procedures. He knows that this is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I am sure that all those responsible will have listened to him with care. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) should have reminded me that my rulings were the same as those of my predecessors. Of course, I shall consider the matter further.