§ 30. Mr. John MarshallTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the number of appeals he has made about the leniency of sentences.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew)Twenty-five cases referred by me have been heard by the Court of Appeal. In 21 of them, a substantially heavier sentence was 13 substituted. Additionally, I have referred two cases in Northern Ireland and in each a substantially heavier sentence was substituted.
§ Mr. MarshallI congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a success rate of more than 80 per cent., which demonstrates the need for the powers that he exercises. I congratulate him, too, on creating a tariff structure of which judges will take account in future sentencing policies.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening words, but the Court of Appeal creates the structure--through the valuable guidelines that it publishes on cases that I have referred under the power that Parliament conferred two years ago.
§ Mr. MaclennanDoes the Attorney-General agree that the peculiarity of our sentencing compared with that of other countries is not its over-leniency but that many more of our offenders spend much longer in prison than is the case in other western European countries? As to the problem of disparity, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman study with renewed interest the possibility of establishing a sentencing council?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One can make a number of international comparisons, but it is important to remember that sentencing is an art, not a science—and a very difficult one at that. It calls for sense and sensitivity, learning and not a little courage. Although the new power is valuable, it is reassuring that in only a tiny proportion of cases—about one in every 1,000—does the Court of Appeal feel it necessary to advise a junior court that its sentence was unduly lenient.
§ Mr. HoltMy right hon. and learned Friend's statement is much welcomed. Does he intend to take powers to stop the current practice whereby courts are allowed to impose penalty points for driving offences concurrently, when topping up would usually result in a ban? Recently in my constituency, a man with eight penalty points on his licence was given an additional three points, but they were imposed concurrently—and that after he had killed someone in a road accident.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI shall not comment on an individual case. Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary. The Executive cannot interfere, but the legislature can. Whether it should do so is initially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
§ Mr. BerminghamDoes the Attorney-General agree that, although he has been careful with the sentences referred to the Court of Appeal, in the light of the letters that many right hon. and hon. Members receive from the public asking why a certain sentence was not the subject of an appeal, it might be helpful to have more publicity about the guidelines used by his office in determining which cases will or will not go to the Court of Appeal?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We recently exchanged correspondence about a painful and distressing case in his constituency. The guidelines are published in the law reports. I believe that I am right in saying that each time an appeal results in an extended sentence, the result is 14 published in the law reports. I must, of course, adhere to the guidelines, because there would be no point in my referring a case that fell fair and square within the ambit. One must also remember that the statute refers not to a lenient sentence but to an unduly lenient sentence.