Powers of Criminal Courts (Amendment) (Hansard, 7 December 1983)

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the criminal courts of England and Wales to pass wholly and partly suspended youth custody orders; and for connected purposes. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 replaced orders of borstal training with youth custody orders and also reduced the minimum period for detention centre orders. Much of the thinking behind the changes was designed to give the courts much needed flexibility in sentencing young offenders, especially in the light of the long and frustrating experience which the courts had as a result of part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1961.

Undoubtedly, the Criminal Justice Act 1982 has brought about improvements. Judges are now able to make subjective assessments both of the case and of the offender and determine the length of youth custody orders, whereas under the old borstal provisions they were not free to determine the length of borstal orders. However, there have been cases in which it has been found that there remains a shackle that ties the courts. That shackle is the non-availablility of either wholly or partly suspended youth custody orders and the non-availability of suspended youth custody supervision orders.

This problem was highlighted by Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, in the Court of Appeal criminal division, in the recent case of Regina v. Dobbs, which was reported in the law report in The Times dated 8 November this year. It is a good example of the type of case in which a partly suspended youth custody order might arise. The accused, Dobbs, was a young man of excellent previous character and reputation. One night, in drink and out of character, he attacked an innocent man who was out walking his dog. His behaviour was barbaric, and a custodial sentence was inevitable. A detention centre order would have been too short, and unsuitable for the defendent. On the other hand, a wholly served custodial sentence could have done far more harm than good from the public standpoint.

The Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said: Doubtless, from the point of view of the public and the victim, a comparatively lengthy term of custody was appropriate … On the other hand, one would like, having made the point, to allow the young man his liberty after a certain length of sentence had been served. The "clang of the prison gates", as it has often been called, within a sentencing framework acceptable to the public might be the most effective sanction, without the need for a lengthy period of custody to be served. The totality of that sanction cannot be obtained under the present law.

There are undoubtedly cases in which wholly suspended sentences would be suitable for young offenders. While the interests of the public and of the victim may demand the imposition of a custodial sentence, in some cases there are special reasons where total suspension of the sentence may be effective and ensure that, while the offender does not undergo all the difficulties of being taken out of the community and having to resume life within the community, he will not re-offend. It is as bad as that. In some cases judges, in reality, face the choice between a wholly served youth 343 custody order and an order of conditional discharge. That can never be a satisfactory choice for a judge to have to make.

I hope that the net effect of my proposals would be some reduction in the number of young offenders held in custody—an aim that I share with the Secretary of State for Social Services, who spoke to that effect in Birmingham yesterday. It is by no means a measure that would weaken the authority of the criminal courts. It can only strengthen the role of the courts in dealing with the young offender by removing unnecessary restrictions.

In the case of Dobbs, to which I referred, the Lord Chief Justice, in his customarily straightforward way, expressed the hope that Parliament would see fit to make it possible to pass suspended youth custody sentences. His hopes have support on both sides of the House. I ask right hon. and hon. Members not to ignore those hopes, but rather to translate them into the useful legislation that my proposal would represent.