CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1922)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)
My Lords, the prolonged debates on this Bill will be fresh in your Lordships' memory, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to explain at any length the purport or the objects of the measure which I am now recommending for Second Reading. The Bill as it is presented to-night is substantially the same, in fact, I think it is actually the same Bill, as that which left your Lordships' House last year, with four Amendments which have been introduced in another place during the present session.
The first of these Amendments is the only one of any importance. It occurs in Clause 2, to which the following proviso was inserted:— Provided that in the ease of a man of twenty-three years of age or under the presence of reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen years shall be a valid defence on the first occasion on which he is charged with an offence under this section. 883 This Amendment to the original proposal does this. It makes the defence of reasonable cause valid as at present up to the age of twenty-three. There was, as perhaps your Lordships may be aware, considerable opposition in another place to the principle of this clause, and in order to protect young men two proposals were put forward. The first was that a court of summary jurisdiction should be empowered in suitable cases, instead of committing young offenders for trial, to deal with them under the Probation Act; the second, that the defence of reasonable cause should be retained in the case of first offenders for men under the age of twenty-three.
In the first instance the Government were inclined to favour the former alternative, because that would enable young offenders in suitable cases to be dealt with under the Probation Act without the stigma of a conviction. But this proposal gave rise to prolonged controversy, and ultimately those members in another place who were most interested in the success of the Bill agreed to accept the second alternative which is now in the Bill. The Government, accordingly, accepted the Amendment; not, however, as an ideal solution but as a compromise on a question which gave rise, and gives rise, to very strong and divergent opinions. When that was accepted a substantial agreement was reached that if that clause which is in the Bill was accepted no other Amendment of substance should be made in the Bill. That is the Bill as I present it to your Lordships.
There is another Amendment in Clause 2. The original proposal was that the limit of time mentioned in the second proviso to Section 5 of the principal Act should be twelve months instead of six, as at present. That has been changed into nine months, a compromise of three months having been accepted. The next Amendment is in Clause 3, and it does away with the third penalty. There are only two paragraphs prescribing penalties, (a) on first conviction, and (b) on second and subsequent convictions; and not on first conviction, second conviction, and then on third or subsequent convictions. The other Amendment is also in Clause 3, and it omits all the provisos at the end of the clause giving power to require a delinquent to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour. That provision was 884 removed at the instance of the Law Officers of the Crown, as they held that those words did not strengthen but rather limited the powers of the magistrates.
With those alterations, the Bill is the same as that which originally left your Lordships' House, and I trust, in view of the debates in another place and the arrangement which has been come to, your Lordships will agree to accept the Bill as it stands and to permit it to be read a second time. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON
My Lords, as one who originally brought this matter before your Lordships I think you will expect me to say a few words on Second Reading, but they shall be very few. As the noble Earl has said, the only Amendment of substance which has been made in the Bill in another place has the object of safeguarding a boy or a young man up to the age of 23 on the occasion only of his first offence. This afternoon I hastily summoned a meeting of all the various societies which have been behind the Bill from the start, and they have all agreed to advise me in their name to support the Bill without amendment here; that is to say, to accept this Amendment. As the noble Earl has said, we would rather not have it in but, remembering that the Bill failed at the last ditch on a previous occasion in another place, owing to the rejection of an Amendment we have decided to accept it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept this Bill without further amendment.
The reasons that compel us to accept the Amendment in question are these. We were never out to "get" these men up to twenty-three; we were never anxious to "get" them at all. The Amendment which was sought to be made in the Bill a year or two ago so that it should not apply at all to a young man of twenty-one, was another story altogether. But we do not consider the insertion of a provision for the protection of male first offenders up to the age of twenty-three a sufficient reason for us to oppose the Bill now. Another thing that I would point out is that this Bill is in many ways a better Bill than we had last year; that is to say, there is no amendment at all to the first clause. One of the opponents of the Bill fought very hard to amend it so that the 885 girl should be guilty of misdemeanour, but that was defeated. Therefore, our first clause comes back unadulterated by any amendment. We are very thankful for the extension from six months to nine months, because that will be an enormous help in bringing the guilty to justice. I hope very much that your Lordships will allow this Bill to go through.

LORD SEMPILL
My Lords, I intend to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, in a few words, to Clause 3, paragraph (a), where I see the punishment may take the form of a fine not exceeding £100, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months. It strikes me that that is an inadequate punishment. I happen to be on the visiting committee of a prison in Aberdeenshire, and I take the trouble of inquiring as to the offences committed by the criminals I come across. I look the opportunity last year of finding out how many prisoners had been sent there for indecent assault. During the year 1920 there were twenty-eight cases of that kind, and in twelve cases the punishment that had been awarded was three months' imprisonment or less. That does not look very much as if the punishment was a sufficient deterrent.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the punishment that is awarded by some police court magistrates? Here is one case: A serious charge was brought of indecent assault on a child of three years. For this a labourer at Aberdeen police court was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment without the option of a fine. Can your Lordships imagine a more inadequate sentence than that? The gentlemen who were on the Bench said cases of this kind were too common in Aberdeen and had to be stopped. Is that a punishment likely to stop a crime like this? It is totally inadequate, and it is time that children who have to go about unprotected should have more protection than is afforded by sentences of that kind. Last April, on reading a newspaper one day in Aberdeen—I do not usually read the police news—I came across one or two I cases. One of these ruffians, who had been twice brought up for indecent assault, was in each case fined £2. I looked a little lower down the police news, and I found that two unfortunate Italian ice cream vendors had each been fined £2 for selling 886 chocolate or ice cream after the permitted hour. It seems to me that in Aberdeen it is as cheap to commit an indecent assault as to sell chocolates at 9 p.m. I hope that the Government will see their way to alter this clause, and make the term of imprisonment longer. As to the fine, I should prefer to see it knocked out altogether.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. I do not think this Bill applies to indecent assault. I have not the principal Act here, but I do not think this Bill applies to the offence which the noble Lord has mentioned.

LORD SEMPILL
That is my objection to having these things done by reference. One cannot tell, without looking up a number of Acts of Parliament, what effect a Bill really has.

THE EARL OF DESART
My Lords, as on previous debates on these Bills I have been among the protagonists who have endeavoured very strongly to maintain the right to the defence of reasonable cause, I am glad that some provision is made to meet the objections that we raised to the, Bill as it stood, and to meet the Amendments that we then moved. I have not seen the Bill itself, it is true, but I understand that it is the same Bill that left us last year, and I remember more or less what it contains. I am not going to object-to the Second Reading, because I am gratified to hear what has been done. I am also glad that the Bishop of London sees his way to accept the Bill as it stands. Not having seen any Amendments, or the Bill itself, I must reserve any possible right to act in Committee, but from what I understand it seems to me that the objections we made have been reasonably met. So far as I can judge at present, I do not think we ought to offer opposition at any stage, but I say that subject to the reservations I have just mentioned.