§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables, who were convicted of the murder of James Bulger. This statement follows my oral statement to the House, on 16 December 1999, which was the day on which the judgment was given. I said then that the Government accepted our obligations under the European convention on human rights to abide by the Court's findings, but that I would need to study the detail and would report back to Parliament as soon as possible.
My statement today relates to England and Wales. Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers have been considering what action will be necessary there, and announcements will be made in due course.
First, I offer my profound sympathy to the family of James Bulger, whose grief at that terrible murder is compounded by what must appear to them to be a never-ending cycle of court judgments on their son's murderers. Although I know that it will be of no comfort to them, the European convention on human rights has been an international obligation of the United Kingdom for 50 years, and successive Governments have been bound to give effect to the judgments of its Court. That Court, as the House will recall, is an institution of the Council of Europe and not of the European Union. From 2 October 2000, the convention itself will be incorporated into our domestic law, under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was welcomed and supported by all parties in the House.
The Court's judgment in the case of Thompson and Venables concerned both the law on sentencing and court practice and procedures. It therefore has to be dealt with through a mixture of legal and administrative changes. I have consulted the Lord Chief Justice about the conduct of Crown court trials. On 16 February, he issued a practice direction to judges on the trial of children and young persons in the Crown court. A copy of the direction has been placed in the Library. The direction is a key part of the response to the judgment.
The first issue on which the Court found against the United Kingdom was in respect of article 6(1), on the right to a fair trial. The Court said that, although special arrangements had been made in the Crown court, the two youths—then aged 11—were highly unlikely to have felt able to follow the proceedings properly or to pass information to their lawyers.
The European Court did not conclude that young people should not be tried in the Crown court. For our part, the Government believe that serious crimes with serious penalties continue to need a high-level judicial process, before a judge and jury. Rather, it is necessary to ensure that those trials take account of the particular circumstances of young people, although that must never undermine the seriousness of the proceedings or make it more difficult to convict the guilty.
If justice is not open, it cannot be seen to be fair. Therefore, juvenile trials for serious crimes must be held in open court. However, to avoid an unnecessarily 22 overbearing atmosphere in the courtroom, the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction makes it clear that, although the proceedings must be in open court, judges should be prepared to restrict attendance of the public at the trial to a relatively small number.
On facilities for the press, courts already have discretion to limit the number of press representatives in court, taking account of the public's right to be informed about trials. The Lord Chief Justice has advised that limits on press numbers should, as necessary, be coupled with arrangements for audio and, if possible, closed-circuit television feed to another room in the courthouse.
As to reporting cases in the media, the practice direction also makes it clear that the courts already have powers to order that nothing should be reported that would lead to the identification of juvenile defendants, but, as now, the detail of the case and the arguments made in court should still be fully reported.
Given the Court's judgment, I have considered whether any legislative changes are needed on media attendance and reporting. I have concluded that they are not, although I know that the House will expect me to keep the implementation of the practice direction under review, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.
The practice direction requires courts to take positive steps to ensure that a juvenile defendant understands court procedure and that, where practicable, all the participants in the courtroom should be on the same level. The Government will be inviting Lord Justice Auld, in his review of the working of the criminal courts, to look in more detail at working of juvenile trials in the Crown court.
On the sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder, following a separate European Court of Human Rights decision in February 1996, which was accepted by the previous Administration, a provision in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 ended the Home Secretary's role in determining the final release date of those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and passed that function to the parole board.
This latest European Court of Human Rights decision covers the other end of the sentencing process—the initial procedure for setting the tariff, which is the minimum period that a juvenile convicted of murder should serve in custody. Until now, that has been set by the Home Secretary of the day. However, in this case, the Court found against the United Kingdom under article 6(1), concluding that Ministers, as members of the Executive, should not set tariffs for juveniles sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Given that clear Court decision, I am bound to bring forward legislation, which will be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill this Session, to provide for tariffs to be set by the trial judge in open court, in the same way as they are currently set for adults subject to discretionary life sentences, which apply to any offenders apart from those sentenced for murder. The tariff will be appealable either by the offender or by the Attorney-General if he believes it to be unduly lenient. I also plan to ensure that the views of the victims and their relatives are better taken into account. I shall announce our proposals in due course.
About 250 people, sentenced as juveniles, are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and fresh cases continue to go through the courts. For new cases, pending the necessary change in the law which I have announced, 23 I shall set any tariffs in line with the recommendation that the Lord Chief Justice makes to me in each case. For existing cases, I propose a fresh review of tariffs in line with the principles in the judgment. I shall be inviting representations from those whose tariffs have not yet expired.
Where no representations are received, the tariff will be set in accordance with the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice in that case. Where acceptance of the Lord Chief Justice's original recommendation would mean that the tariff had now expired, I shall refer those cases to the parole board immediately. Where the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers, the tariff would not be increased.
Where existing detainees wish to make representations, they can be made to the present Lord Chief Justice, who will then make a recommendation to me. I will then adopt his recommendation on what the tariff should be.
I now come to the question of the tariffs of Thompson and Venables. Part of the history of this is well known, but some of it is not. The trial judge recommended a minimum of eight years—the tariff. The then Lord Chief Justice recommended 10 years. My predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), decided in 1994 to set the tariff at 15 years. However, that tariff was quashed as unlawful by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 12 June 1997. There is, therefore, no tariff for either offender in this case at present.
The decision of the European Court and the requirements of the general law mean that I have to treat the process in this case, as in any other case, in line with the procedures that I have just outlined. Representations have already been received from Thompson and Venables: they will be referred to the Lord Chief Justice for his recommendations to be made—which, as I have explained, I am bound to accept.
I appreciate that this continuing uncertainty will be distressing to James Bulger's parents and relations in particular. I hope that the process can be concluded as quickly as possible but they, and the wider public, may take some reassurance from the fact that the tariff set is a minimum for the requirements of retribution and deterrence. An offender, once his tariff has expired, is released only if the parole board, after a very thorough consideration, is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk to the public.
The processes that I have outlined in this statement replace the tariff-setting and review arrangements for cases involving detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. Those were set out in the written answer of 10 November 1997, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) about the implementation of the House of Lords judgment in the Thompson and Venables case.
The murder of young James Bulger was horrific. It is seared into the memory not just of his family but of the public as a whole. What I have sought to do is ensure that the binding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are implemented in a way that secures that young people who commit dreadful crimes are properly brought 24 to justice in an environment that is as open as possible, and that the interests of victims and their families are properly taken into account.
§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)I thank the Home Secretary for that statement and for his usual courtesy in letting me have an early sight of it. I am less pleased that much of it—although not all—appeared to be widely trailed in the press and media yesterday. In a case of such seriousness, it would have been more appropriate if the statement had come first.
I join the Home Secretary in extending to the relatives of Jamie Bulger the sympathy that all hon. Members feel for them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the continual reopening of the case must have made their suffering worse. I understand that Jamie Bulger would have celebrated his 10th birthday this week. This further reopening of the case must be causing his relatives considerable distress yet again.
I also welcome the Home Secretary's statement that, in future, more account will be taken of the views of victims and their relatives.
As regards the detail of some of the right hon. Gentleman's other announcements, we will reserve our position pending further examination, but we accept that he could not have defied the ruling that he received. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman had no alternative but to comply with it.
However, that said, I am sure that the ruling will cause great disappointment and offence to many people in this country. I personally believe that 15 years was an appropriate tariff, given the severity of the crime, and that this ruling is a most unwarranted interference in a system that was working well.
The Home Secretary said that he would review tariffs, and that he would set them at the level recommended by the Lord Chief Justice. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate—if not, perhaps he will write to me—of the number of cases in which that could involve a lower tariff? What would be the greatest reduction involved?
The Home Secretary said that, when the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice would mean that the tariff had expired, he would refer the cases to the parole board immediately. Will there be any consequences for people being detained who, under the new system, should not be detained, in terms of any legal action that might be taken, or any suits that might be made for compensation? Again, if the Home Secretary cannot give me the details now I shall be happy for him to write to me.
Will the Home Secretary now answer the questions that I asked him following his statement on 16 December, which—quite properly, given that he had reached no conclusions about his response to the judgment—he was reluctant to answer then?
Should not a tariff reflect simply the circumstances of the crime, and the penalty that is appropriate for retribution and deterrence? Does the Home Secretary agree that, in the setting of a tariff, account should not be taken of whether individuals will transfer to other parts of the prison system during their sentences? There has been considerable speculation that it was because Thompson and Venables would have to transfer into the adult system that a lower tariff was recommended to avoid their having 25 to do so. Does the Home Secretary agree that that should not be a relevant consideration? Does he agree that, in the setting of a tariff, the only considerations should be reflecting the circumstances of the crime, and setting a suitable time to be served to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that, in 1996, the Court of Appeal upheld the Home Secretary's right to adopt the same policy for young offenders as for adults, and that the power to increase tariffs has been used hundreds of times without challenge? Will he also confirm that, notwithstanding the verdict of the Court that a fair trial was not received, it is still the case that the original verdict of guilt is unassailable, and that, even if the trial had been conducted under the new arrangements that he seeks to introduce, the result would have been the same?
Finally, may I ask the Home Secretary this? Does he not consider it an essential part of rehabilitation to accept the consequences of what one has done? Does he not agree that it is not in the interests of the perpetrators for them to regard themselves as victims of the system, and that, instead, they should regard themselves as perpetrators of an unthinkable crime? Is it not that with which they should come to terms, rather than their being encouraged to think that they have received unfair treatment?
§ Mr. StrawI share the right hon. Lady's regret about the fact that the matter was widely trailed in the media. I do not suggest in any way that this was the source, but we felt it necessary to warn the representatives of the families a week ago—the family of the victim, and, of course, the legal representatives of Thompson and Venables—that a statement was likely to be made some time this week. We also warned them on Friday that the statement would probably be made today. I think it will be well understood that it would have been unconscionable to make a statement without warning the Bulger parents. I hope the House will also acknowledge that I try very hard to ensure that the House learns first of any decisions that are made.
I am glad the right hon. Lady accepts that, given the European Court's ruling, we cannot defy that ruling. She said, however, that the European Court's decision represented an unwarranted interference. What she described as an unwarranted interference arises from an entirely voluntary decision—made successively over the past 50 years, by her party as much as by mine—to accept the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and also from her party's endorsement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European convention on human rights in British domestic law. That being so, there will be occasions when the European Court makes decisions which, individually, we do not like. I have made no secret of the fact that I did not wish the Court to make the decision in this case. It was precisely because I believed that the previous system was correct that I ensured that the United Kingdom Government vigorously defended the action that had begun under the previous Administration. However, the decision of the Court was made, and certain consequences have followed from it.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the number of people who are detained who could expect a lower tariff. I am told that there are 12 detainees with unexpired tariffs 26 whose recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers. She asked whether a court action could follow for some of those who are tariff-expired at a tariff set by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not believe that there are any grounds for claims for compensation, which I think is what the right hon. Lady had in mind. It is perfectly possible, given the ingenuity of English lawyers, that one or two may try that, and it is a matter for the courts whether they are accepted.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the way in which the tariff should be set. We shall be able to discuss that in greater detail during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. I understand her point, but in setting a tariff for juveniles, account has been taken not only of the crime and its circumstances but of the relative age of the offenders.
The right hon. Lady's last point concerned the victims of the system. Of course I accept that we should take full account, always, of the interests of the victims of crime. That is what we have been seeking to do, and I intend to bring forward proposals on that in due course.
§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it will reflect no credit on anyone, either in this House or among the red-top tabloids, if they seek to turn the case of Thompson and Venables into the same kind of vendetta that is being pursued against Myra Hindley? Will he none the less make it clear, and repeat, that when the time comes for Venables and Thompson to be considered for parole, that is all that that means, and there is no automatic entitlement to release? Will he also make it clear that if and when they are released, they can be called back to prison if they reoffend or show any signs of doing so?
§ Mr. StrawI am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on record. It may provide some reassurance for members of the public as well as Members of the House to know that in respect of adult lifers, whose release dates I have to determine, the majority of the cases that I consider are those of people whose tariff has expired at least a year before, and in some cases many years before. The criteria for determining release for juvenile offenders, as for adults, has to be whether it is safe to release such individuals once they have served their minimum term. Once they are released, they remain on life licence should they attempt to reoffend.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)May I first associate Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments of the Home Secretary that no right-minded person could think other than that this was the most shocking crime? We continue to want to show the family of James Bulger sympathy and solidarity. One way in which we can respect their wishes is to join with the Home Secretary, across parties, to ensure that in future the law takes more account, as the right hon. Gentleman intends that it should, of victims before and after trial. We are happy to assist him in seeking to formulate a way that meets to the maximum the demand for that to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to accept the judgment. The judgment was quite right that there should be a system for trying young people that is seen to do justice to everybody, and that the setting of minimum sentence—the tariff—should be separated from political decisions and handed over to judges. That must be right, and we are happy to support that proposition.
27 To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), may I ask that the minimum sentence should remain a minimum? Can the Home Secretary confirm whether defendants who have been convicted as juveniles but who are now adults will, in addition to the assessment of risk when the tariff period runs out and as part of the process, have to accept and understand the reality of what they have done, and, as it were, apologise for it? That would be right for all juveniles who are convicted, however serious their crime, because it is proper to give them the chance of a new start.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for my approach. However, there is plainly a difference between his approach and the Government's on one important point. On the merits of which system should operate, I should make it clear—as I think my statement did—that but for the ECHR's decision, which is binding on the Government, we should not have been minded to change the existing system. Given the extensive judicial supervision that already takes place of decisions made by the Secretary of State, I feel that the system was working satisfactorily and with a high level of public confidence.
§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. I remain of the view that 15 years is the minimum period for which Thompson and Venables should be detained, but I, too, accept that the Court has tied the Home Secretary's hands.
Can the Home Secretary make any sense of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wynne that it is not a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the cases of adult murderers and the decision that it is a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the case of juvenile murderers? Will he renew the efforts made by the previous Government to increase the respect shown by the ECHR for national courts, so as to ensure that it intervenes much less often in their decisions?
§ Mr. StrawI find it difficult to follow a clear line of logic in the two cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Buried in the dense text of the judgment, there is some elucidation of the point—although perhaps not much illumination. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, I think, and the view is widely shared, that the United Kingdom has suffered from the fact that the European convention had not been incorporated into our law—paradoxically, given that the convention was drafted by English jurists—so that we have not had the margin of appreciation, as it is called, that many other countries have enjoyed.
I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about our need better to educate jurists in Strasbourg about the nature of our common law system. A fundamental problem is that most of those jurists were brought up in the Roman tradition, which differs in many respects, and which I would suggest is not a better tradition. As our courts begin to implement the 28 jurisprudence of Strasbourg, we shall benefit more in the future from that margin of appreciation than we could have in the past.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I deny that I am making a cheap, yah-boo point at the expense of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but should politicians, even if they are Queen's counsel, alter tariffs at all? Some of us were extremely uncomfortable about the former Home Secretary's decision, feeling that he should not have done such things. What is the view of the current Home Secretary?
§ Mr. StrawMy view is that the system that existed before the Court judgment was working satisfactorily. I make final decisions about the release of those sentenced to life for murder. In practice, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) makes the decisions about the setting of tariffs, except in respect of those for whom a whole life tariff may be appropriate, or in terrorist cases. The system commands public confidence; it is operated fairly. Furthermore, because the decisions are made in a quasi-judicial way, the process that is followed isrightly—the subject of intense judicial scrutiny.
I have already referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in the summer of 1997. The decision of the previous Secretary of State in respect of the 15-year tariff was quashed as unlawful. The tariff of 15 years was not quashed as unlawful; it was the process by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman achieved the decision that was quashed. However, as I recall, no judgment was made by the Court as to the merits of that tariff. That is water under the bridge as far as juveniles are concerned; the Court has made its decision—it is our job to implement it.
§ Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)In future such cases, from whom will the Home Secretary seek advice on whether the state should offer new identities to prisoners when they are at the point of release? Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to offer new identities in this case?
§ Mr. StrawThere are standard arrangements for the offer of new identities in exceptional cases. I can recall seeing no papers on the question of identities for the prisoners in this case.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)The right hon. Gentleman may know that, subject to the authority of the then Home Secretary, I was responsible for setting tariffs for two years or so. The impending legislation is an opportunity to consider the tariff-setting for adult offenders on whom a mandatory life sentence has been imposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my anxiety about any involvement of Ministers at all? Does he agree that there is a strong argument for leaving the question of tariffs exclusively to the courts—not to the Lord Chief Justice—subject only to the right of the Home Secretary to apply to the court for an extended order subsequently, if it appears that the offender is likely to pose a danger to the public
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider abolishing the mandatory life sentence entirely and enabling a trial judge to impose a determinate sentence?
§ Mr. StrawI am completely opposed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second proposal. The regime 29 that has operated in this country in respect of murderers has worked satisfactorily, and has ensured public confidence. Murder is the worst possible crime in the criminal calendar. There is some connection between the exceptional care we take over the sentencing of murderers and the fact that our murder rate is one of the lowest in the western world, despite the fact that other crime rates—for acquisitive crime—are relatively high. I do not want to disturb that regime.
The fact that someone who has committed a murder is on a life licence—however long he or she may be out of custody—is extremely important in ensuring the safety of the public, and in ensuring that the person goes on to lead a law-abiding life. Happily, most such people do so. That cannot be said of the majority of those released from prison after determinate sentences.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I am not persuaded of the case that he makes—to say the least. However, I dare say that he will make that case during the Committee or Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
§ Sir Peter Lloyd (Fareham)Will the Home Secretary explain why the public reaction to the horrific child murder committed by the child Mary Bell a generation ago was apparently so much more mature and less crudely vengeful than much of the reaction has appeared to be in the case of Thompson and Venables?
§ Mr. StrawI am not sure that I share the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what happened in the Mary Bell case. The only two observations that I would make are, first, that it took place many years before the terrible murder of James Bulger, and secondly, that the parents of the victims of Mary Bell were not put through the judicial mill as the parents of James Bulger have been. Of course everyone, including prisoners, has their rights and I understand why continual court appeals have been made, but, as I said at the outset, we must all have the profoundest sympathy with the parents of James Bulger and their relatives and friends, given the constant resurfacing of the case.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)In his first two and a half years as Home Secretary—until the 30 Court's ruling in December—on how many occasions did the Home Secretary find it necessary to change the tariff set by his predecessors?
§ Mr. StrawI do not think that I ever changed a tariff, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if that is the case.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)Does the Home Secretary agree that it was hardly fair of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place—to refer to "a vendetta" by the press and the public against Myra Hindley? Surely what happens in these terrible cases is that even the popular press gets it right by reflecting the horror that the public feel when terrible murders are carried out, whether by adults or by children.
Does the Home Secretary also accept that there have been a number of cases of murders involving young people as perpetrators where the influence of violent films and videos has been directly traced, although not necessarily in this case? Given those data, will he consider reviewing the admissibility of violent content in films and videos, which takes a great part of the responsibility for depraving the moral standards of young people where crime is concerned?
§ Mr. StrawIn response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, each of us is responsible for the language that we use in the House or outside. All these terrible cases must be approached in a judicious, as well as a judicial, manner, but when approaching them in that manner we must take full account of the appalling trauma suffered by the parents and others close to victims of such crimes—distress to a degree that few of us could possibly even imagine, still less undergo—and the much wider public revulsion at the nature of such crimes.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I believe that the whole House accepts the need for proper controls of such violent and depraved videos. It will be a matter of note that the Court of Appeal is shortly to hear an appeal in which the parties will be the British Board of Film Classification and the Video Appeals Committee, concerning the powers of the BBFC in relation to that matter.