HC Deb 02 February 1978 vol 943 cc667-9
3. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to ensure that no appeals against conviction result in harsher sentences being issued in some courts.

Mr. John

This is, in effect, the position with appeals to the Court of Appeal. An appeal to the Crown Court, however, is different. It is a complete rehearing of the case, and the appropriate sentence in an individual case is, within the limits prescribed by law, a matter to be decided by the court. We have no proposal to amend the law in this respect.

Mr. Skinner

Surely it is a scandal that this can happen, as in the case of Christopher Roys, the Bradford student who appealed against a fine imposed by a magistrates' court for supposedly obobstructing the police at Grunwick and was then put in gaol. If it does not apply to certain other courts, especially those used by people who have "brass" and start off at a different level, surely the system is wrong? Is it not being used as a deterrent against other people who might have been charged arising out of matters at Grunwick? Should not this anomaly be removed?

Mr. John

There are a number of misconceptions in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. First, the Court of Appeal is not a rich man's alternative route to appeal. The Court of Appeal deals with cases on the basis of facts already heard. An appeal to the Crown Court from a magistrates' court, which is the sole method of appeal from magistrates' courts, is by way of a rehearing. All the facts are canvassed again and all the evidence is reheard, so that it is, in effect, a new trial. All I would say is that the court that retries the case should have powers, within the limits prescribed for the offence, to impose an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Is it not the case that the decision by a past Parliament to remove from the Court of Appeal the power to increase a sentence has resulted in far too many people appealing on cases without merit, with the result that people who have genuine merit in their appeals have to wait far too long before they are heard?

Mr. John

Who can judge which case is without merit? That is a purely subjective judgment. All I can say, as someone who looks at wrongful conviction cases, is that it seems to me that everyone who is convicted believes that he ought to have been successful in his appeal.

Mr. George Rodgers

Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a special look at the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which has caused a great deal of disturbance? The youngster who has been sentenced to gaol could have his whole life and career affected by this extraordinary turn of events, which reaches far beyond the immediate situation at Grunwick. Will my hon. Friend give that undertaking?

Mr. John

As I have said, Ministers do not interfere with what is a matter for judicial decision alone. Therefore. I shall not comment upon an individual case. But I have made it quite clear that there is no proposal to give the Court of Appeal powers to increase a sentence.

Mr. Hooson

Does the Minister of State agree that it is contrary to the tradition of English law and English legal practice to increase sentences when there is an appeal against conviction, because there is a need for certainty in those matters? As the hon. Gentleman knows, judges tend to vary in their views on certain cases. A man should not risk different sentences before two different tribunals.

Mr. John

What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said would be more accurate if the matter did not proceed by way of a new trial. What one has in the Crown Court is an appeal that is a complete rehearing of the case.