§ 29. Mr. John MarshallTo ask the Attorney-General how many appeals he has made against unduly lenient sentences.[25662]
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer)Since 1989, 294 cases have been referred in England and Wales, and 15 have been referred in Northern Ireland. Twenty-two of those cases were subsequently withdrawn. Of the cases heard to date by the Court of Appeal, 85 per cent. have resulted in an increase in sentence.
§ Mr. MarshallMay I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which demonstrates the irresponsibility of those who opposed the introduction of that power? His answer will be warmly welcomed by the many people who believe that some judges no longer sit on this planet.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralTo convert my hon. Friend's sentiment into concrete cases, 201 persons whose sentences have been increased would have escaped justice had the Opposition got their way. Among the persons who would have escaped justice are those who have committed crimes of manslaughter, rape, robbery and others of the most serious crimes in the criminal calender.
§ Mrs. DunwoodyBefore the hon. and learned Gentleman congratulates himself too much, may I ask him how many of those cases relate to rape? There is very worrying evidence that sentencing in such cases is becoming lighter and that fewer people are sent for trial than was the case even five years ago.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe hon. Lady is mistaken in suggesting that sentences for rape have fallen; the reverse is the case. Since the guideline case of R v. Billam, sentences for rape have increased quite markedly. The starting point for sentencing in such cases is five years, in cases in which there is one or more aggravating features the starting point is eight years; in the worst cases, double figure sentences are reached. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have referred 31 cases of rape since the jurisdiction was conferred on us, which is 11 per cent. of the total. Rape cases are the fourth most likely type of case to be referred by us. The most likely cases to be referred are robbery, those under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and death caused by driving. Rape comes somewhere down the list.
§ Mr. John MorrisThe Solicitor-General will be aware of the Home Secretary's concern that the actual term 766 served in prison is too lenient. Does the Solicitor-General agree with Lord Justice Rose's view that there is "tangle and confusion" in court sentencing powers, a tangle that flows directly from—and as recently as—the Government's Criminal Justice Act 1991? Has the Attorney-General been consulted by the Home Secretary about his determination to reduce judges' discretion and to compel Them to impose minimum sentences? Will he tell the House what are the Attorney-General's views?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe right hon. and learned Gentleman will, indeed, be off this planet if he takes the view that the vast majority of the British public are not completely behind my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the proposals that he has introduced. In his remarks, Lord Justice Rose was referring to the impact of sentencing provisions on a juvenile case at a particular time. Those provisions are no longer in force.
§ Sir Ivan LawrenceIs it right that one of those "tangles" was sorted out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and that the most important action that can be taken to ensure that unnecessarily lenient sentences are corrected is to adopt the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—particularly in the sphere of rape, to stop those who rape repeatedly from raping again until such time as they are fit to be released into society?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralMy hon. and learned Friend is quite right. We have referred a number of rape cases in which the defendant has raped once before, has been given a substantial term of imprisonment, has been released and, before long, has committed a further rape. In some such cases, the defendant has been punished by a further determinate sentence. It would be quite unrealistic to view such a defendant as being safe to be released into the community on a particular day but, under current sentencing provisions, there is nothing that can be done about it. Surely something should be done to put that matter right.