ATTEMPTED RAPE BILL. (Hansard, 17 February 1948)

§ The Lord CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is an anomaly in our Criminal Law, to which His Majesty's Judges have for many years past called attention, that whereas for rape the punishment on conviction can be imprisonment for life, in attempted rape the maximum punishment is only two years. Of course, it is obvious that the offence of attempted rape is just as bad—or may be just as bad from the point of view of the offender—as rape itself, because frequently it is only owing to the gallantry or the strength of the woman that the full offence is prevented. It is an odd thought that for an attempt to commit robbery, the punishment may be five years' penal servitude, and for an attempt to commit robbery with violence it can be penal servitude for life, whereas for an attempt to commit rape the maximum punishment which can be awarded is two years.
In this respect the law of Scotland is different from our own. Under the law of Scotland an attempt to ravage, as they call it, is subject to no such limitations, and I am told that in half the cases which have been tried in Scotland in the 1079 last ten years where a man has been found guilty of this offence the punishment awarded has been in excess of the punishment which is allowed by the law of England. I have just given some figures to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which, it may be thought, are an index of the assaults which are made on our women and girls. We all know, however, that not infrequently a jury will find an accused not guilty of either rape or attempted rape, but guilty of indecent assault. The noble Lord will realize that the figures I have given him do not and cannot include that aspect of the matter.
I should have thought that it was beyond argument that everybody would support this measure, had it not been for the fact that some half-dozen people in another place took the contrary view, apparently on the odd principle that nobody sets out to attempt to commit rape but that he sets out, if he is so minded, to commit rape and that circumstances prevent him carrying through the offence—it may be that the girl is able to resist, or that help comes to her, or her cries attract somebody or whatever it may be, and therefore the offence is not completed. It seems to me quite illogical to say that because a man does not set out to commit the attempt therefore there should not be a punishment, or a right to inflict a punishment, because he does not complete the offence. I suppose that no one ever sets out to attempt to commit murder, but if he has murder in his heart his design may possibly miscarry. Notwithstanding that, the punishment for attempted murder may be penal servitude for life.
We must remember that this is not a case where we are saying this is the punishment which must be inflicted. We are merely saying that there may be cases—and in the experience of His Majesty's Judges there have been such cases—in which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, a punishment of more than two years is the appropriate punishment. It is that simple matter with which this Bill sets out to deal. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ Lord LLEWELLIN
My Lords, I was frankly a little surprised when the noble and learned Viscount could not give me 1080 the different figures for convictions for rape and convictions for attempted rape, because one knows quite well that when a man comes before a court the various previous crimes he may have committed are exactly set out, and in those cases one would be told that the man had been convicted of attempted rape or of rape, as the case may be. I make this comment on the figures that the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to give me, as I believe that if there had been more extensive research in the Home Office it would have been possible to get the comparison in numbers between convictions for rape and for attempted rape, not perhaps by just looking up the published criminal statistics, but by looking up the cases—and there are not many of them.
Having said that, I am not going to add that we, on these Benches, welcome this Bill, because I do not think anyone welcomes a Bill that puts up the maximum penalty for any crime. I think that most noble Lords are sorry that there has to be such a measure and that over recent years the numbers of convictions for rape, or for attempted rape, or, at any rate, for the two together, have shown an unfortunately marked increase. It is true, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has said, that it does not lie in the hands of the offender as to whether the crime amounts to rape or to attempted rape. It is usually the fact that he is disturbed, that one particular woman struggles for longer than another, or that one woman is stronger than another, that differentiates normally between the offences of rape and of attempted rape. In essence, the man ought to be punished, and in most cases severely punished, either for the attempt or for actual rape. He set out to violate a woman without her consent, and that is one of the most horrible crimes, I think, that can be committed. Often the effect on the woman to whom it happens is a lasting one.
This is obviously the kind of offence that every right-minded man should try, if possible, to get stamped out. Therefore, if the Judges have recommended that they should be permitted, in appropriate cases, to pass sentence of more than two years, I think we should support them. We should endeavour to do anything that lies in our power to ensure that cases of this 1081 sort, whether of rape or of attempted rape, decrease considerably, if only because of the deterrent effect on those men who may be minded to commit such crimes of the knowledge of what will happen to them if they start. For that reason this Bill will certainly not meet with opposition from us. Indeed, coming as it does with a strong recommendation from the Judges, I think it should have the support of your Lordships' House as a whole.

LORD FARINGDON
My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Bill, and most certainly not on the grounds which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has stated were grounds on which it was opposed in another place. I think it would be fair to say that the opposition in another place arose over certain remarks which were not unlike those passed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to the effect that there should be a greater deterrent than a punishment of two years in prison. I think it was felt that in this particular crime probably the punishment of imprisonment could not, in any case, be regarded as a deterrent. On the other hand, I do, I confess, view the Bill with a complete lack of enthusiasm. That is not because I do not consider it is entirely unreasonable that there should be this comparatively small punishment for attempted rape and a very severe punishment for rape. Indeed, as the Lord Chancellor says, in essence, there is no difference between the crime of rape and that of attempted rape, and I was glad that the noble and learned Viscount drew attention to the rule in Scotland which seems to me very much more reasonable.
Why I regard this Bill with a lack of enthusiasm, is because it seems to me to show no appreciation of the modern views on crime and punishment. This particular crime is one for which, I believe, punishment cannot be a deterrent. Whatever the punishment inflicted may be, I do not think that it has any effect on the frequency with which this particular crime is committed. It is probably true that at least 90 per cent. of, and possibly all, these cases arise really from a psychological maladjustment. I could wish that this Bill had shown the Government's awareness of the need for special treatment of offenders in cases of this sort. I would not have been dismayed if the Bill had provided that the criminal could be 1082 detained during His Majesty's pleasure for the whole of his life.
I am not complaining that the punishment which is now provided is excessive—far from it. It seems to me, however, that in order to protect society—and that I presume is the aim of all punishment—it must be recognized that it may well be that a criminal of this kind is a danger to society owing to something in his psychological make-up, and therefore he requires treatment if he is ever to be released into society again. I believe that unless those responsible for this particular crime are treated in this way, it is no better to confine a man for seven years than to confine him for two years. I would wish rather that he should be confined indefinitely, and subjected to treatment until competent medical authorities were prepared to take the responsibility for his release, or that otherwise he should still be secluded from society. As I say, I regret that this Bill does not seem to show that His Majesty's Government and their advisers are really alive to the most modern thought on this kind of subject.