HL Deb 27 July 1926 vol 65 cc258-62

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

House in Committee accordingly:

[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CHAIR.]

Clause 1:

Power of court to substitute penal servitude for consecutive terms of imprisonment.

1.—(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of two or more offences to which this Act applies in respect of which he is liable to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to a period of not less than three years, the court may, Instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to penal servitude for any term not exceeding the aggregate period for which he might have been sentenced to imprisonment, so, however, that no sentence of penal servitude imposed under this section shall be for a term exceeding seven years.

(2) This Act applies to all indictable offences not otherwise punishable by penal servitude except blasphemous or seditious libel and other offences of blasphemy or sedition, unlawful or riotous assembly, offences under any enactment relating to corrupt and illegal practices at elections, and offences of inciting or attempting or conspiring to commit any such offence as aforesaid.

(3) In the application of subsection (1) of this section to Scotland the expression "the Court" shall mean the High Court of Justiciary, and the power to award penal servitude conferred by that subsection shall be exerciseable in the case of a person remitted to the said High Court for sentence under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1887 and 1921, as well as in the case of a person convicted before the said High Court.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert the following proviso at the end of subsection (1):— Provided that if, on an appeal by a person sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences with which he was charged on separate indictments, it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the appellant, though not properly convicted on some indictment, has been properly convicted on some other indictment, the Court shall have the like powers as if the appellant had been convicted of the offences on different counts or parts of the same indictment; but where an appellant convicted of two or more offences, whether on one or more indictments, has been sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences and his conviction of any such offence is quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court shall not affirm any sentence passed at the trial or pass any sentence in substitution there for which is more severe than would have been warranted by law if the appellant had been acquitted at the trial of any charge in respect of which his conviction is quashed.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically a consequential Amendment if the Bill is passed. It is of a technical character, and its object is to make certain changes in the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not know that I need go into it in detail as I understand my noble friend opposite agrees.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD PARMOOR

I understand that this applies to the Criminal Appeal Court?

LORD DESBOROUGH

To the Criminal Appeal Court entirely.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

As I understand the Amendment it is merely to insert a safeguard that the present provisions regarding the Criminal Appeal Court will apply with equal force to sentences passed under this Bill as they do at present to sentences passed under the ordinary procedure. In these circumstances I accept and welcome this Amendment, although I am not quite sure that under the wording of the Criminal Court of Appeal Act it is absolutely necessary. But whether it is necessary or not, it is manifestly better that it should be made clear that persons who are sentenced under the provisions of the present Bill will be under no disability with regard to appeal but will be in the same position as persons sentenced under the present law.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or riotous" and, after "assembly," to insert "rout or riot" The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really a verbal Amendment. I think it is quite clear when one looks at the Bill that the framers of subsection (2) had in mind certain definite matters, but unfortunately I think they fell into inaccurate wording. The subsection as drafted contains the words "unlawful or riotous assembly." There is no such offence, as far as I know, in this country as riotous assembly. There is unlawful assembly, that is to say, an assembly of persons assembled for an unlawful purpose. There is rout, that is, when, having gathered in an unlawful assembly, people have got to the point that they have begun to carry out their common purpose, which purpose is unlawful. Finally you get riot, where that purpose is being carried out by force or violence. It is quite obvious that subsection (2) was meant to take in these particular forms of offence and the Amendment I am moving is merely to put that intention into accurate legal language. It will then read, "unlawful assembly, rout or riot."

I have carefully considered the words of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack on the question of leaving out subsection (2) altogether, and if I may say so respectfully I entirely agree with what he said. Speaking personally I can see no sort of foundation, either in logic or in sense, for retaining the subsection, but others do not think as I do and there are many people who attach great importance to this subsection. What I feel is that if we attempted to leave out subsection (2) altogether undoubtedly there would be considerable diversity of opinion and it would become a controversial matter in another place. Considering the late period of the Session and the fact that this is still a Private Member's Bill, although backed by the neutrality of the Government—which is said to be benevolent—there is a possibility that if we begin to get into any controversy there may be a grave danger of the Bill not passing at all. For that reason I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice my sense of logic to my sense of what should be done, and consequently I move this Amendment, Hi order to get more accurate language instead of moving the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount on the Wool sack—namely, that the subsection should be omitted altogether.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or riotous") and after ("assembly") insert ("rout or riot")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

In reply to what my noble friend has said about the attitude of the Government, I would say that the Government is more than neutral; it is benevolently neutral. This Bill passed through another place on the Motion of a private member and it comes to your Lordships' House also as a Private Member's Bill. It is quite unnecessary for the Government to take it up, especially as the Session is so very congested. With regard to this particular Amendment the Home Office not only considers it a necessary Amendment, but if the noble Earl had not moved it I should have thought it my duty to weary your Lordships by talking about it myself. I entirely agree with my noble friend in his definition of unlawful assembly, rout and riot and as the Government are in sympathy with the Amendment I need not say more.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert at the end of the clause the following new paragraph:— (b) A reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal shall be construed as a reference to the High Court of Justiciary in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act. 1926. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which I moved previously. It simply makes the Bill apply to Scotland.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line 11 at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Desborough.)

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Short title and extent.

2.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Act, 1926.

(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)" and to insert "Penal Servitude." The noble Earl said: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the title was extremely unfortunate, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack agreed with me. This Amendment speaks for itself. It has this advantage over the original title, that instead of being a mis-description it is a description of what the Bill actually deals with.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)") and insert ("Penal Servitude")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

In the view of the Home Office this is a very great improvement, and the words much more accurately describe the Bill. The Bill confers on Courts the power of passing a sentence of penal servitude in cases where they have now the power to impose consecutive sentences of imprisonment but not penal servitude. It does not increase the length of sentence.

Forward to