OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT (Hansard, 17 December 1996)

§ Mr. Bennett
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out 'summary'.

The Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 25, after `conviction', insert 'on indictment'.

§ Mr. Bennett
I realise that the Government want to differentiate between clauses l and 2 and clauses 3 and 4, but would not the decision on what is harassment and what is reasonable be far better taken by a jury than merely by magistrates?

§ Mr. Kirkhope
I am somewhat puzzled by the amendments. The effect would be to require the person charged with the offence of harassment to be tried in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. I am puzzled because the amendment does not propose any corresponding increase in penalty. The penalty set out in the Bill—a six-month sentence of imprisonment or a level 5 fine, or both—is the maximum penalty available for any offence tried in the magistrates court. It would be an 836 unjustifiable waste of resources to deal in the Crown court with an offence that attracted those penalties. It would also create unnecessary delays.
The amendments also run contrary to the general thrust of the past 20 years or so to find ways of ensuring that cases which can be dealt with in the magistrates court are retained there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to attack the excellent justice meted out by our magistrates courts. The pressure of time and the delays in the Crown court, as well as the much higher costs attendant on trials there, also militate against what he suggests. I can find no other reason for his suggesting the changes.
As the royal commission specifically recognised, if more business is retained in the magistrates court, more resources can be devoted to ensuring that the more serious cases going to the Crown court are better prepared and more quickly heard. It is in no one's interest to increase unnecessarily the number of cases sent for trial to the Crown court. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Bennett
If someone's reputation is at stake and rests on the question of what is harassment and what is reasonable, there is a much greater safeguard in being able to put a case for the defence to a jury rather than to magistrates, many of whom, perhaps as a result of their jobs, become somewhat case-hardened. However, I realise that the Committee wants to make progress, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Kirkhope
I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert— '(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted— (n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment)."'. The amendment replaces the power of arrest provision in the Bill with somewhat stronger provisions which accrue to offences that are arrestable under the provisions of section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
I am persuaded that the additional powers are needed for the police to deal effectively with stalkers. The power under section 18 of the 1984 Act for the police to search for evidence is particularly relevant and necessary if the menace of stalking is to be tackled effectively.