PUBLICATION OF REPORTS

HC Deb 15 January 1997 vol 288 cc417-20

Mr. Llwyd

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 29, line 16, leave out 'child or young person' and insert 'person of over the age of sixteen years'. The amendment would restrict the identification of juveniles in reports of youth court proceedings to those aged 16 or over.

Clause 42 allows convicted juveniles who appear in the youth court to be publicly named if the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so". The current legal provisions on the anonymity of children and young persons are governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 49 prohibits the identification of children and young persons who appear in youth courts. There are only two exceptions, which apply if the court believes that allowing publicity is appropriate to avoid injustice to the child—for example, if it is the only way in which to locate alibi or other defence witnesses—or if a young person involved in proceedings relating to a serious offence is unlawfully at large. In that instance, the court can authorise identification only on an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 39 of the Act states that the Crown court may direct that media reports shall not identify a child or young person. In practice, Crown courts normally prohibit identification, but exceptionally, after conviction, judges sometimes order that they may be identified.

When clause 42 was debated in Committee, it transpired that the Government intended not that youth courts should follow the Crown court's current practice of using the power to identify juveniles sparingly, but that they should use the power extensively for certain categories of offender. On 10 December, the Minister of State said: some people are persistent offenders. In their case, I should expect the power to be used extensively rather than rarely … I hope that courts will use the relevant power widely in the case of these offenders, as the rule rather than the exception. That would permit members of the local community, such as the chamber of commerce, traders, retailers, the neighbourhood watch, the police—or councils, perhaps, in instances of council estates being terrorised—to effect limited publication in a defined area of the names of those people for whom innocent members of the public should look out."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 316–17.] The Magistrates Association has not asked for any change in the law on the matter. When the proposal was canvassed in the media in late 1996, the Association issued a statement, which stated: It is the Magistrates Association's view that reporting restriction on young offenders should not be changed … The Association points out that young children have a different psychological perception and are treated differently in youth courts where they are dealt with by magistrates who have been specifically training in dealing with juvenile matters. Repeat offenders for whom school, family etc have been a failure, gain kudos and popularity amongst their peer groups from offending and naming them would make them heroes. Probation service organisations and those involved in resettlement of offenders have also opposed the proposals. Their arguments were summarised in a statement, on 27 November 1996, by the Penal Affairs Consortium, which stated: Naming young offenders … will hinder rather than help the prospects for steering young people away from crime. The reason why the names of juvenile offenders are not normally published is that it can seriously hinder their rehabilitation. This is as true now as it was when the rule was introduced in 1933. The way the media have hounded a few young offenders after Crown Court trials, sometimes for years afterwards, shows how necessary the rule of anonymity is. I should say that I have 18 years' experience of juvenile courts, and to this day I have never met a juvenile who did not, on balance, have more good than bad in him or her. If we are to close the door on them and stigmatise them from the very beginning, one of the four core points of any penal code—rehabilitation—will go out of the window.

In a briefing sent to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation opposed the amendment. It stated: Judges already have the power to lift the provisions which stop juvenile offenders being identified. This is only used very sparingly at the moment and where it has been done it has made work with the offender significantly more difficult. The Government have advanced two principal arguments for the amendment: first, it would help to protect the public; and, secondly, it would have a deterrent effect. On the first point, on 10 December 1996, the Minister said in Standing Committee: It is important that members of the public should be protected from young offenders and that courts should be able, in the public interest, to permit identification of youngsters who have been convicted, especially when they are released into the community for punishment. He also said: We are taking this action largely because the community does not know the names of persistent offenders and is vulnerable to further attack from them. The Minister went on to state: But I am concerned about the hundreds of young offenders whose names are never revealed, so the public remain innocent dupes ready to be attacked by them the next time.

Mr. Maclean

That is right.

Mr. Llwyd

However, as the Magistrates Association pointed out in its statement on the proposal: It is not necessary to name children in order to alert communities as they are already well known in their local areas. I believe that it is essential to realise how important the rehabilitation of young offenders is to the protection of communities and that—as bodies working with young offenders have pointed out—the rehabilitation of young offenders is likely to be damaged by this measure, which could very well be counter-productive and expensive because of the money expended and society's failure.

The Government's second argument for the measure is based on deterrence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said: I also believe that the prospect of being identified publicly should prompt many young offenders—and their families—to think more carefully about their actions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 310–15.] However, young offenders are the group least likely to be deterred by this type of measure. A high proportion of juvenile crime results from impulsive behaviour, risk-taking, the escalation of anti-social behaviour in groups and in other situations in which rational calculations of deterrence play a small part. The possibility of public identification is also likely to have very little effect on the minority of young offenders who plan their offences more carefully as their principal concern is to plan and not get caught.

By preventing the identification of juveniles under 16 in the reports of youth proceedings, the amendment would avoid the unnecessary stigmatisation of this group and reduce the damage to the rehabilitation of young offenders which would otherwise result from the clause. The clause is wrong in principle and will be detrimental to the cause of rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the clause is illogical and impractical. For very good reasons, juvenile cases have been held in camera-in other words, the general public has been excluded. How can one therefore honestly say that it is acceptable to name a juvenile, perhaps in a sketchy and skewed reference in the local press, and, at the same time, to exclude the public, thereby depriving them of the true opportunity to hear the case in its totality? Sadly, I conclude that the clause has more to do with pre-election, right-wing muscle flexing than improving the criminal justice system. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Maclean

The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed verbatim exactly the argument that he advanced in Committee. He has also been kind enough to read out the answers that I gave him.

Mr. Llwyd

I did not speak to such an amendment in Committee so I do not know where the Minister gets that idea from. Perhaps it is a bit late in the day for him.

Mr. Maclean

I recall the same argument being rehearsed verbatim. I am not impugning the hon. Gentleman's integrity but someone must have borrowed someone else's notes because I remember it well. How was the hon. Gentleman able to recite my answers if I did not reply extensively to the same debate in Committee? I have tonight heard the same argument as I heard in Committee. If it was not advanced by him, I apologise.

There is not much more that I can add to what I said in Committee other than to stress that the court will have the discretion whether identification shall be made. The court may consider identification inappropriate in the case of some first-time offenders convicted of a less serious crime but think otherwise in the case of some hardened, persistent young thugs and hooligans who, unfortunately, exist in this country but are—thank goodness—in a minority.

I am thinking of the type of hooligan about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) used to speak and who were called the Sutton posse. Gangs of dozens of youngsters terrorised town centres but could not be named although shopkeepers and members of the public were desperate to know who they were. They are the sort of offenders that we believe the court should have the power to name.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has not made a convincing case for us to accept the amendment. The arguments that I advanced today and in Committee still stand.

Mr. Llwyd

I am not convinced by that reply which was no doubt also trotted out in Committee, although I do not recall the exact words. I am increasingly becoming a fan of the other place which, I hope, will put the clause where it belongs—in the dustbin.

Amendment negatived.