§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House as to his proposed restrictions on trial by jury.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sends his apologies. He has a longstanding commitment to speak at the Police Federation conference. I am sure that hon. Members would want him to keep that commitment.
In response to a written question that appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Home Secretary has announced—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I ask Members who are leaving to do so less noisily. We still have business to do here.
§ Mr. O'BrienThank you, Madam Speaker.
The Home Secretary has announced that the Government propose to change the way in which the mode of trial is determined for those cases that are triable either way.
In 1993, the royal commission on criminal justice and, more recently, the 1997 Narey review of delay in the criminal justice system recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried in the Crown court in either-way cases where magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear the case.
We have considered that recommendation, along with the responses to the consultation paper that the Home Secretary issued on 28 July last year. Today's answer to the parliamentary question indicates that we will be introducing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish the ability of defendants to decide for themselves whether to be tried in a magistrates court or the Crown court in either-way cases. Magistrates should decide whether the trial should properly take place in the Crown court.
Some believe that to remove the defendant's veto on the magistrates' decision that they should hear a case would erode fundamental individual liberties that were established in the middle ages, if not by Magna Carta itself. However, although trial by jury is ancient, a defendant's ability to choose to be tried by a jury rather than by the justices was introduced in 1855.
The Government agree that jury trial is right for certain sorts of case. The question is whether it should be available on demand by a defendant, or whether it should be restricted to business that objectively warrants it. In the same way as defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, judge or jury hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose where their case is tried. In Scotland, there is no ability to elect for trial. Indeed, the prosecution decides the venue. I know of no other country in which such an ability to elect is allowed on this scale.
The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost, sometimes using 1066 up valuable police time to little effect. Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 people who elect to be tried in the Crown court have previous criminal convictions. It is clear that some persistent offenders are abusing the system of election. The Government's proposal will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system: defendants demanding Crown court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings and the evil day when they should be sentenced.
There will be safeguards for those of good character. When determining the mode of trial, magistrates will be required to have regard not only to the defence's representations, but to such features as the gravity of the offence and the complexity of the case, as legislation already requires. There will be an added safeguard, in that the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation should be taken into account.
In addition to the automatic right of appeal to the Crown court against conviction, defendants will be given an extra safeguard—a right of appeal to the Crown court against the magistrate's decision on mode of trial. We believe that our proposals will ensure that justice is delivered in a fair, just and efficient way.
§ Mr. HoggI thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. Does he understand the concern in this House that the Home Secretary should have failed to make a statement in this House with regard to a matter of this magnitude, but rather preferred to announce it outside on the radio this morning, and—as I understand it—in a speech this afternoon? I hope that proposals of this importance will be made the subject of a White Paper and, thereafter, that a Bill will be published early and then referred to the Special Standing Committee procedure.
Is it true that the proposals are motivated primarily by considerations of finance, not by considerations of justice? Will the proposals apply to persons of previously good character? If so, does the Minister understand the real concern that will be felt in the House? In respect of the right of appeal, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that any proposals to that effect will give the trial judge an unfettered discretion in the matter of the decision of the magistrates court, that there should be no presumption in favour of that decision, and that the trial judge should have a right to take into account the damage to the reputation and good name of the defendant?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely the class of offences to which the present proposals relate?
§ Mr. O'BrienAs for the way in which the matter was announced, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary has a reputation for being scrupulous about the prerogatives of the House. He certainly intends no discourtesy and would regret it if anyone believed otherwise. The Home Office consults on a wide range of issues, and normally reports the results—if there is a wide-ranging series of conclusions—in a statement. However, a more narrowly based statement of a broad intention is often given in a written answer, as it was today. In due course, perhaps a consultation paper or a White Paper on the detail might be the time for a statement.
1067 In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was to speak to the Police Federation conference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Police Federation conference—like party conferences and other events—is a place where broad-based statements can be made. My right hon. Friend was anxious to be scrupulous about the way in which he dealt with the House. He wanted to be sure that a parliamentary answer was given today, before he made the statement, so that he could be sure that the House was aware of the situation—even though all the detail was not in this statement.
During yesterday afternoon, it became clear that the press had been alerted by a question on Tuesday's Order Paper, and was making inquiries of the Home Office press office. I am assured by the press office and officials at the Home Office that they did not actively brief, but reacted to inquiries in broad terms. However, there was a concern this morning that some of the press might mislead in their reports, so the Home Secretary decided to clarify matters on "Today". However, he is scrupulous in the way in which he deals with this House.
The change is not motivated primarily by finance: it is a recommendation of the royal commission and the Narey report. There will be safeguards for people of previous good character, as I set out in my original reply. There will be a right of appeal on venue, and the judge can take into account the effect on the reputation of a person of good character. That will apply to either-way offences.
§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)What evidence is there that the existing arrangements are widely abused? My hon. Friend says that many people who have elected for a jury trial plead guilty at the door of the court. Is not that in many cases because the charges have been substantially reduced?
§ Mr. O'BrienMy hon. Friend is right: some defendants seek Crown court trial for all sorts of reasons. I have already said that Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 are not persons of previous good character. People choose Crown court trial to apply pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the seriousness of the charges, as he suggested, and they think that it is less likely that prosecution witnesses will attend, because of the elapse of time—which could also make memories more vague—and because those witnesses may be fearful of the Crown court. They also do it simply to put off the day of sentence, so that they can be held in a local prison, perhaps close to their friends and partners in crime, enjoying the privileges of being unconvicted prisoners for a longer time.
§ Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in protesting at the way in which this announcement has been made. Over the past two weeks, we have had important announcements on refugees from Kosovo, on privatisation of the Tote, on the Macpherson leak inquiry, and now on trial by jury, and in not one of those cases has the Home Secretary volunteered a statement to the House. Indeed, he is not even here to offer a response today.
There will be a strong feeling among Government as well as Opposition Members that that is an entirely wrong way to treat the House. Does not the Minister realise what 1068 resentment is caused throughout the House when self-evidently important announcements are first leaked and then announced outside Parliament?
Does not the Minister feel that there is a particular obligation on the Home Secretary to volunteer a statement when, as in this case, he has totally reversed the position that he set out two years ago? Is not it a fact that on 27 February 1997 the Home Secretary spent half his response to the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on criminal justice attacking the very proposals that he is now making? Did not he say on that occasion that time was needed to see whether the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 improved the position? In so doing, he put his finger on one of the reasons why we will oppose the proposals.
Do not the Crown Prosecution Service figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) show that, whereas in 1988 46 per cent. of those charged with an either-way offence elected for trial in the Crown court, the figure for 1998 was down to 28 per cent.? On the radio this morning, the Home Secretary suggested that some other European nations regard the English and Welsh system as unusual, but surely the view of other countries is not remotely the deciding factor in changing our law. By and large, our system of justice has worked well; above all, it has the confidence of the majority of the public.
The Home Secretary made his announcement to the Police Federation conference in Blackpool, where I was yesterday. Many will feel that if he wants to tackle crime effectively, he should concentrate on strengthening the police rather than changing the jury system.
§ Mr. O'BrienI have already dealt with the way in which the announcement was made. I gave a full explanation, and I will not take the synthetic anger that the right hon. Gentleman displays, after everything that we have seen in the House from his party over the years.
The Home Secretary properly gave a written answer to a question, so as to give notice of a view that he had taken following a consultation. He did that in the proper way, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are justified. However, my right hon. Friend does not wish anyone to think that he is less than scrupulous in his approach to the House. He always seeks to do things in the proper way, which is why the question was tabled.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about people changing their minds, but the Conservative Government were committed to taking away the right to jury trial. They made an announcement to that effect, without putting in the safeguards that my right hon. Friend now wishes to see included.
§ Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)Wrong.
§ Mr. O'BrienIt is true that my right hon. Friend changed his mind. He has considered the evidence, and the possibility of other safeguards that were not proposed by the previous Government.
Those safeguards include a right of appeal to the Crown court on venue, and the fact that magistrates will have to consider the issue of reputation before deciding at which venue the trial will take place. My right hon. Friend 1069 believes that, with those safeguards, the proposals of the royal commission and the Narey report should be supported.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Is there not something seriously wrong when the Home Secretary does not even recognise that this issue is sufficiently important to require a Minister to appear before the House and answer questions? Is there not also something seriously wrong with arguing that a right that has been an important principle of the justice system of England and Wales should be removed simply because it does not apply in other countries, however different their jurisdictions may be? In Scotland such cases are tried before a professional judge, not by magistrates, so that comparison is not appropriate.
Will the Minister confirm that the consultation elicited many expressions of concern about the proposal, not least from representatives of the ethnic minorities, who had particular fears about its effect? What will be the grounds on which people can appeal against magistrates' decisions? Will there be legal aid for such appeals? Does the Minister not realise that the Government will create a new bureaucratic complication, just to take away a right exercised only by a limited and falling number of people?
§ Mr. O'BrienI am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman dismisses with such cavalier disregard both the report of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report. Those reports fully considered the issues surrounding the right to choose the venue, and dealt with the arguments in a sound and reasoned way. We should have due respect for the views of the royal commission and of Mr. Narey.
There have been some suggestions that the ethnic minorities will have concerns, yet according to the statistics, ethnic minority defendants tend to be given longer sentences, partly because disproportionate numbers of them elect for Crown court trial—and following conviction, Crown courts can give longer sentences.
The Lord Chancellor is engendering greater confidence in the magistrates courts among ethnic minorities by appointing more magistrates from ethnic minority communities. That process is under way; we are also putting in additional safeguards to help to build confidence among ethnic minorities. Not only will more magistrates come from such communities, but they will be able to consider the impact on the reputation of a person within those communities before determining the venue.
There will be a right of appeal on venue to a Crown court, where all those issues can be considered, if necessary. There will also be an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court on a sentence or a finding of guilt. Those safeguards will be sufficient to ensure that ethnic minorities are satisfied with the way in which the decision has been made.
§ Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)May I say, with a heavy heart, that I agree immediately with the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who asked the private notice question? The way in which 1070 this fundamental matter has been brought before the House is a disgrace, and shows contempt for hon. Members on both sides.
I shall make one or two observations and ask questions in respect of the matters that my learned Friend—or rather, my hon. Friend—raised. First, does he not understand—from his experience, or anecdotally—that the vast majority of people elect for trial by jury on advice because they believe that they will thereby obtain a better standard of justice in a more judicial arena?
Secondly, does my hon. Friend seriously advance the proposition that those of bad character—that is to say, those who have had the misfortune, probably justly, to have been convicted in the past, and sentenced and punished—should now be rewarded with the further penalty of the loss of their rights in perpetuity to jury trial?
Thirdly, and while we are on the subject of saving money—because we may suspect that the proposal is Treasury driven—how will it save money to have three hearings instead of one? If the proposal is adopted, a Bench of magistrates will have to decide whether someone has a right to be heard in the Crown court. That Bench of magistrates cannot later try the trial, because they will have heard all about the defendant's antecedents. The trial will have to go to another Bench of magistrates, but before that it will have gone to the Crown court on appeal, no doubt on legal aid, for the benefit of the profession.
If a person with a string of previous convictions is convicted in the magistrates court, he will be sent back to the Crown court because that is the only place where he can be sentenced. That would make four hearings instead of one. How much research has been done into how many people would arrive at the Crown court in any event but will now, under this procedure, spend so long getting there?
§ Mr. O'BrienMy hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, and he is obviously concerned that the issues that the legal profession holds close to its heart are safeguarded. I, too, am a lawyer and like him I have represented people who sought to go to the Crown court merely to delay the point at which they would have to go to prison. They wish to remain on bail for longer, or to remain on remand for longer with the privileges of remand prisoners. I find it difficult to believe that he has not had clients who have taken that view and pleaded guilty at the door of the court, because throughout they have sought to abuse the system of election for trial. That has unduly wasted the time of prosecution witnesses and the police, and given rise to costs for the Exchequer.
Police time would be better spent on catching criminals than on sitting outside a court door waiting for banisters and their clients deciding to plead guilty after all. It is about time it was recognised that nine out of 10 defendants who elect to the Crown court have previous convictions and many are simply abusing the system.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I felt as if I was in court during the last questions. Now may we have brisk questions, and only one from each Member?
§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)Quite apart from the bizarre way in which the matter 1071 was announced, the Minister has overstated his case. More than 90 per cent. of criminal cases are already dealt with in the magistrates courts. Are not those people the Minister describes as manipulating the criminal justice system exactly the people who will appeal each and every time and clog up the Crown court with needless appeals?
§ Mr. O'BrienNo, we do not believe that there will be needless appeals. The hon. Gentleman is right that most people who are accused of offences are dealt with in the magistrates courts. Indeed, when given a choice, most people of previous good character choose to be dealt with in the magistrates courts.
There is much hot air and theory, particularly among some lawyers who believe in an ancient view of the protection of the right to election. Once we cut away from the stories and fairy tales about the right of election, we get down to reality. The magistrates courts are capable of delivering efficient and effective justice. We have had faith in them for many years—since the middle ages, indeed—and we should continue to have faith that they will be able to deal with appropriate cases and that matters that should be referred to the Crown court will be referred there.
§ Audrey Wise (Preston)I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the radio this morning when he implied that some new evidence had emerged that had caused him to change his mind. Exactly what new facts have emerged in the two and a half years since we heard my right hon. Friend give his statement, to great approval from the Labour Benches? Will my hon. Friend also accept that some of us are less than enchanted with the idea that we are going back only 150 years rather than to the middle ages?
§ Mr. O'BrienMy right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had re-examined the issue and considered whether new safeguards could be introduced which the previous Government had not suggested when they supported change. My right hon. Friend had felt that there were insufficient safeguards for defendants, but now takes the view that an additional requirement that magistrates should look at the reputation of a person who is convicted and the impact on his or her livelihood would provide an extra safeguard. A right to appeal to the Crown court on the issue of which court—venue, as the lawyers call it—the case should be tried in would provide the additional safeguard that would allow my right hon. Friend to support the views of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report into dealing with delays in the criminal justice system.
§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)Is not the protection afforded by the right of appeal illusory when one considers that magistrates will have the discretion to make a decision and that appellate courts rarely interfere with the discretion of the lower courts? While the Minister may pump up his story about the protection of the appeal, there is no such protection in reality.
§ Mr. O'BrienI am sure that magistrates will exercise their judgment in a considered and proper manner. If there is no such due and proper consideration, a Crown court will, 1072 on appeal on the issue of venue—a new procedure—be able to make an alternative decision if appropriate. That is a good and effective safeguard.
§ Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East)Having been a magistrate rather than a criminal lawyer who might benefit from cases taking a much longer time, I very much welcome my hon. Friend's statement. He is right to say that nine out of 10 of those who elect to go to Crown court are people with previous convictions. In my experience, the vast majority of the people who turn out to be innocent want their trial to take place as quickly as possible. The adage that justice delayed is justice denied is one that hon. Members on both sides should consider carefully.
§ Mr. O'BrienMy hon. Friend is entirely right and her welcome for the proposals is justified. I suspect that constituents of Members on both sides will feel that our proposals are about delivering a system that puts the criminals where they ought to be while safeguarding the rights and interests of the individual.
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)Has the Minister no shame at having to give the House a preview of what seems to be a Queen's Speech, at seeming to defend clauses in a Bill that the House has not seen and at arguing for something that we will address in due course, perhaps next year? Is this the Queen's Speech? Will he publish the draft Bill so that we may read it? Will he accept that for many of us, the constant tilting at the interests of the innocent—those whose interests are the first that our system was designed to defend—is deeply disturbing? The Government, in their bureaucratic rigour, are increasingly squeezing out some of the classic freedoms of this country.
§ Mr. O'BrienThe hon. Gentleman rather overstates his case. A majority of the people who elect for crown court trial plead guilty. They are not innocent; they plead guilty. Nine out of 10 are not of previous good character. The hon. Gentleman has to be careful about over-egging the pudding. The matter has been the subject of a royal commission, a report, and a consultation paper. We are merely announcing now the results of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman is just overstating things.
§ Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)As my hon. Friend said in his answer, there is no right of election in Scotland. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I practised for 20 years in that system. The choice of forum—as we call it in Scotland, not venue—lies with the prosecutor. Only 2 per cent. of criminal cases in Scotland are prosecuted before juries. It is instructive that the system in Scotland has enjoyed the consistent support of both the House and the Scottish people. Does my hon. Friend believe that the system of criminal justice in Scotland is inherently less fair than the system in England and Wales?
§ Mr. O'BrienThe system in Scotland is not inherently less fair. As my hon. Friend says, there is broad support among the Scots people for the criminal justice system. It does not include the right of election, which some criminals have been able to abuse. We are now cleaning up some of the problems in our legal system. Far from 1073 undermining public support for our legal system, I suspect that we shall restore confidence among the English and Welsh people in our criminal justice system.
§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)I shall put to one side for the sake of brevity what has already been said about the way in which this announcement has been handled—I agree with those remarks. I have been in precisely the same business as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), probably for the same number of years. I urge the Minister to reject comprehensively everything that he said.
The Minister has referred on four occasions now to the effect that a court case can have on reputation, and he has said that reputation will be an aspect of his proposals. If a thief with a long criminal record were convicted of the theft of £100, his conviction would make little difference to his lifestyle or his reputation in his community. However, if many people, including the Minister or me, were convicted of stealing just £10, our careers would be wrecked and destroyed for ever.
I do not ask for a definitive reply to my question, but will the Minister at least consider that, where a person of previous good character is tried for the first time for an offence in which there is an essential ingredient of dishonesty—in which dishonesty is the mens rea—there should be not just a discretion to allow that person to elect a Crown court trial but an absolute right to do so? Who knows?—the Minister may then find that support for his "disgraceful" proposals is rather wider than he thinks.
§ Mr. O'BrienThe hon. Gentleman makes a point that will no doubt be the subject of debate when the matter comes before the House as a Bill in due course. We currently intend that magistrates will have to consider the impact of conviction and sentence on the reputation of a person of previous good character in their community, and perhaps on their livelihood too. We believe that magistrates are able to make an informed and reasoned decision and to make the best judgment as to where the case can be dealt with.
§ Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest)I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but having heard protestations on behalf of what I can only describe as the lawyers' party rather than the party for which Opposition Members were elected, may I ask my hon. Friend to put the matter in context? Does he agree that someone who appears before a court accused of an offence as serious as assaulting a police officer, which could well carry a sentence of six months' imprisonment, has to be tried before magistrates; yet someone who steals a Mars bar from the corner shop has a right to trial by jury and can cost hundreds of pounds and many months of delay by making an election?
§ Mr. O'BrienMy hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and is well able to understand that the courts are able to deal with these issues effectively. The magistrates courts deal with many cases involving people of previous good character and many others in which people have many serious issues before them. The magistrates court adjudicates on these cases and is a perfectly good venue for dealing with them. My hon. Friend is right.
§ Madam SpeakerWe shall now move on.