§ 35. Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General how many charges of grievous bodily harm have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the most recent convenient period.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers)Causing grievous bodily harm is not an offence that has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. In addition, other reportable cases may disclose possible offences of this nature, which are then considered by the director. In the week commencing 16 July 1984 the director considered five cases of causing grievous bodily harm, none of them connected with the mining dispute.
§ Mr. AdleyIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his last few words will cause surprise? Does he agree that most normal people are well aware that the National Union of Mineworkers is deliberately sending people around the country, who cause grievous bodily harm daily, which is seen nightly on our television screens by millions 14 of people? Is it not about time that those matters were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the specific circumstances that are now upon us?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not think that my hon. Friend has quite understood my answer. I was asked about cases that had been considered by the director. In cases considered by the police, there have been 14 charges of grievous bodily harm arising from the troubles, and 235 cases of causing actual bodily harm.
§ Mr. Simon HughesAlthough this is unrelated to the miners' strike, can the Attorney-General give hon. Members guidance as to the way that we should proceed if, after charges such as grievous bodily harm have been made as a result of cases going to the DPP, other evidence comes to light between then and the trial that suggests that more severe charges should be made, but the DPP refuses to consider that other evidence? This has happened in a constituency case. This is an urgent matter and I should be grateful for general advice, but I shall write to the Attorney-General about this.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI cannot think of any case in which the DPP or any of his senior officials have refused to consider evidence. Such cases are always given the most careful attention, but I should like to have a letter from the hon. Gentleman and I shall look into the matter.
§ Mr. CashCan my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there are a number of cases before magistrates' courts that are being unnecessarily held up? Will he be good enough to take such action as is necessary to speed things up?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe administration of justice at the magistrates' courts is a matter for the courts. The Lord Chancellor has power to appoint an additional stipendary if he is requested to do so by the petty sessional division. He does not do it off his own bat. As I understand it, it is proposed, as a result of the requests, to appoint three stipendary magistrates to assist with the work.
§ Mr. RymanI recognise that this question is not, strictly speaking, within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. However, has he read the extraordinary speech last Friday by the chief constable of Warwickshire, in which he advocated that: the judiciary should alter its sentencing policy in respect of certain types of cases? If so, will the Attorney-General confirm that the prosecution is in no way concerned with the sentencing policy of the courts, which is entirely a matter for the judiciary?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI always admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in avoiding the strict principles. I did not read the speech, but I can confirm that no Government of any kind would ever seek to interfere with the complete independence of the judiciary, which includes sentencing policy.
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorHow many prosecutions in general have arisen out of the miners' strike, and in particular what action has been taken regarding miners who have been threatened in their own homes? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the law is adequately protecting those families?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI shall answer this question by referring to the number of charges, rather than prosecutions, because many of the cases have not yet been 15 brought before the courts. The courts have dealt with about 20 per cent. of over 4,000 arrests. The charges for arrest range from minor cases under the Public Order Act 1936 through to more serious ones. There have been 100 under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which is the offence of besetting somebody's house. This is the intimidation charge, which I consider to be serious. There have also been 59 arrests for drunkenness, 164 for unlawful assembly, 112 for riot and 19 for affray. There is a wide range of charges, including many for theft, resisting arrest, offensive weapons and such like. I can be more specific, but I shall overrun my time.
§ Mr. John MorrisThe Attorney-General referred to the deployment of three stipendiary magistrates. To which areas will they go, and, in particular, will they be considered for those mining areas where there is considerable disquiet as regards the working of the Bail Act?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which areas the stipendiary magistrates will go, because I would be guessing, although I think that one is to go to Rotherham. They are being allocated to assist the petty sessional courts in getting through this most unexpected increase in their work load. I make it clear that they will not deal only with mining cases, but with all cases. The view is taken that those who are not concerned in mining cases and awaiting trial should not be held up by what is going on now.