HL Deb 12 May 1959 vol 216 cc320-2

5.20 p.m.

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported without amendment?

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Before this Bill is reported, there is one point which I should like to raise which I mentioned on Second Reading and about which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, will be able to give me an assurance—namely, that adequate, but not too severe, penalties can be inflicted upon those who bring into this country weapons known as flick knives and so on. While the penalties in Clause 1 (2) would appear to be entirely adequate for those who manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, lend or give, in the terms of subsection (2) the importation of any such knife is described as prohibited. It does not say that the penalties in the first subsection will apply in this particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, was good enough to show me an extract from the Customs and Excise Act which includes the penalties that would apply to this clause. It seemed to me that there was rather a gap between an over-lenient penalty—

LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD

May I just correct the noble Earl? What I showed him was, in fact, a copy of Hansard dealing with the Committee stage in another place—not a copy of the Customs and Excise Act.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It would appear that the alternatives to anybody who imported a prohibited article into this country were either that the article should he confiscated and a fine of not more than three times its value imposed, or that a sentence of up to three months imprisonment could he imposed. If any one brought in a number of such flick knives or similar weapons, obviously for the purpose of sale or distribution, then I think that he or she should suffer imprisonment, without more ado. But should someone be found to have just one or two in his possession, it would appear that either he must be imprisoned, which would seem to be an inordinately severe penalty, or else he must pay only three times the value of a weapon which, mass produced on the Continent, might not be more than a few shillings, and the penalty therefore might be only a pound or two. I should like to have the reassurance of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that there is, in fact, some penalty more adequate to the offence of bringing in one or two knives. At the moment, it does not seem to me that it is covered. It has been suggested that it would he, because the person could be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. If it were found in his suit case, if I know the legal profession, they would, when presenting their defence, soon get round that being called the carrying of a weapon. It is a small point but one which I think is sufficiently important to be raised in order to ensure that there is a penalty which is at once adequate, with not too low a fine, and at the same time, not as severe as imprisonment

LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD

I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for having given prior notice of this point. As I informed the noble Earl, the offender is liable under the Customs and Excise Act if be imports a weapon. I should like, if I may, to correct what I believe is a mistake in Hansard on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and Ito quote the present law as set out in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, on this point. Section 45 (1) says: If any person unships or lands in any port …. (b) any goods imported, landed or unloaded contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of any enactment with respect to those goods,"— he shall be liable to a penalty.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I regret to have to interrupt the noble Lord in his reply, but I am afraid that Standing Orders do not allow quotation from Hansard of another place in this Session. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain the situation without quoting.

LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD

The answer to the question is that under this Act an offender is liable to a fine of three times the value of the article, or a fine of £100, whichever is the greater, and not whichever is the less. At the same time, he is liable to imprisonment, or to both imprisonment and a fine. As the noble Earl has pointed out, he is liable under the terms of this Bill to prosecution under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1953, if he is found in possession of such an article. He is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50, or both. I think that that is the answer to the noble Earl's point.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reassurance, which I find entirely satisfactory.

Bill reported without amendment.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 7), Bill read 3a, and passed.