§ 32. Mr. HansonTo ask the Attorney-General how many cases with unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal in each of the past four years. [270]
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lye11)My right hon. Friend and I referred 32 sentences to the Court of Appeal in 1993, 50 in 1994, 81 in 1995 and 49 so far this year. The court has increased sentence in 161, or 84 per cent., of the cases so far heard.
§ Mr. HansonI am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those figures. Will he agree to undertake an early review of the criteria for determining what constitutes an unduly lenient sentence? He knows of the case in which a person was fined £200 at Chester Crown court for an indecent assault on the eight-year-old son of constituents of mine. My constituents feel that that sentence was not acceptable or a severe deterrent or form of punishment. The Attorney-General refused to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. A review should be undertaken into what constitutes unduly lenient sentences.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to that case, about which he has written to me. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I considered the case carefully. The Court of Appeal has held that an unduly lenient sentence must be one that falls outside the range of sentences properly available to a trial judge. In all the circumstances, we did not consider that that sentence met that criterion.
§ Mr. WallerIn view of the success of the system for referring unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people want an extension of that system rather than some of the mandatory sentences included in the Crime (Sentences) Bill which is to have its Second Reading this afternoon? In the case, for example, of someone convicted for the second time of rape, would it not be appropriate to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal if it seemed that a sentence of life imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public, but that sentence had not been imposed?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly outline the details of the Bill. To an extent, the two systems run in harness. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the system 907 of referring unduly lenient sentences. Particularly in relation to third-time burglars, the two systems will work well in harness if the House gives the matter its approval.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileDoes the Attorney-General agree that the guideline cases that the Court of Appeal has issued have been an entirely appropriate way of dealing with sentencing? Does he further agree that the Government have failed to find one instance in which they can criticise the Court of Appeal for the severity of sentences which it has declared to be appropriate, both for serious and less serious offences?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf the hon. and learned Gentleman is approving, as I believe he is, the system of referring unduly lenient sentences and the opportunity that system gives the Court of Appeal to lay down guideline criteria for sentences, I agree with him that it is extremely valuable. If, however, he is making points relevant to the debate about to come, I have no doubt that he will make them more fully then.
§ Mr. Harry GreenwayIs my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that juveniles sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for murder will be so detained and not released back to the community—if at all—before serving long sentences and before being thoroughly reformed?
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy hon. Friend's question falls outside the area of competence of my Department; but such cases are extremely carefully and professionally reviewed before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to consider them. I think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied as to that.
§ Mr. HoonDoes the Attorney-General agree that one reason for the number of references involving lenient sentences is the failure of the Court of Appeal to set out comprehensive sentencing guidelines for judges and magistrates? Is it not time for the criminal division of the Court of Appeal to be given a proactive, consultative role so that the court does not depend on the particular case appealed against but can instead develop guidelines for all the main categories of criminal offence?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his serious point. I believe that the opportunity afforded by normal appeals against what are regarded by defendants as over-severe sentences, coupled with the opportunities afforded by my hon. and learned Friend and I referring to the Court of Appeal what we consider to be unduly lenient sentences, gives the Court of Appeal a full opportunity to lay down guidelines for sentences. I do not think that needs extending by a sentencing commission or something of that sort—which would seem to underlie the hon. Gentleman's question.
§ 33.Mr. SpringTo ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of referrals arising out of lenient sentences. [271]
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer)In deciding whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, we apply the test laid down by the court—whether the 908 sentence is not merely lenient, but outside the range which a judge could properly pass. We may also refer a sentence where it is appropriate to give the Court of Appeal the opportunity to reconsider sentencing guidelines.
§ Mr. SpringWhat sort of cases have been referred and seen to be most useful in that referring process? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the power which has been vested in this instance is most welcome to the public but was, characteristically, opposed by the Labour party?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralMy hon. Friend is quite right. When the Bill was proceeding through the House, one Labour Member—I shall spare his blushes—said that it was a cruel and heartless power, but that did not prevent him from writing to us when we were considering a rape case, encouraging us to refer it to the Court of Appeal. Since he wrote in confidence I shall naturally respect that confidence.
We have referred 74 cases of robbery, which is 26 per cent. of the total; 64 cases of offences under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which is about 23 per cent. of the total; 42 death by driving cases, which is 15 per cent.; and 31 of rape, which is 11 per cent.