§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—in each of the last five years for which statistics are available:
- (1) How many persons have been prosecuted for the offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when unfit to drive through drink or drugs;
- (2) What percentage of those so prosecuted have elected to be tried by a jury;
- (3) How many persons, convicted summarily or after electing trial of one of these offences for the first time, have been imprisoned for the maximum period of four months.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST)My Lords, the numbers of persons prosecuted in England and Wales in 1958, 1959 and 1960 for the offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle when unfit to drive through drink or drugs were 4.818, 5,471 and 6,514 respectively. Complete figures relating to the numbers of persons prosecuted are not available in respect of earlier years, but 4,456 offences were dealt with by prosecution in 1956 and 4,654 in 1957.
The statistics do not distinguish between persons electing for trial by jury and other persons committed for trial, but on average over the five years in 173 question about 13 per cent. of the persons charged were committed for trial. The statistics do not discriminate between first offenders and others, and I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give the further information for which the noble Lord asks in the third part of his Question.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the trouble to which he has obviously gone to try to provide the information required? Quite obviously, the records do not show it all. But could I ask him this? He said that 13 per cent. of people so prosecuted have been sent for trial. I asked in the Question about those who elected to go for trial. Is there a difference? May I ask the noble Earl whether I am to take it that 87 per cent. of those who were prosecuted for these two offences were dealt with before magistrates and did not go before quarter sessions? The other point is this. Although I quite appreciate the reason why he cannot give me the answer to the third part of the Question, if I put down the Question in another way would the noble Earl be kind enough to answer it at a later date?
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, I fully appreciate, as I said in my Answer, that I have not answered in full the Question of the noble Lord. Off-hand I cannot tell the noble Lord the differences in numbers between those who elected to go to the higher court and those who were actually sent to the higher court, which is overall 13 per cent. But I will certainly look into that matter to see whether those figures can be ascertained, and will let the noble Lord know in writing. I will certainly try my best to find out any further information for which the noble Lord may ask in another Question.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I understand it, what he is saying to me now is that I cannot take it that 87 per cent. of those prosecuted for the offence of being drunk when in charge of, or driving, a motor car are dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction.
EARL BATHURSTI should like the noble Lord just to let me reserve my position there. We have statistics by the ton in the basement of the Home Office, and I will look into that. I assure the 174 noble Lord that I will find out, if possible.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.
LORD REAMy Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that very often the words "sent for trial" and "elected to go for trial" in fact mean the same thing? Where a defendant is given the choice and elects to go for trial to the higher court, and so chooses, he is surely sent by the court of first instance.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, with great respect, I should have thought that that was not the same thing. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack would like to comment on that, but I should have thought it was a very different thing.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that, in so far as concerns the vast majority of cases in which accused persons go for legal advice, the lawyer advises them to go for trial by jury because on the jury they are most likely to find someone who, but for the grace of God, might well also be in the dock?
EARL BATHURSTI think that is a very different story. I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord says, there are many different reasons for the advice given to these people that they should go for trial by jury.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of the answer to the question to which he has just replied, would it be possible for the noble Earl to give any indication whether guidance is given by an appropriate central authority to courts and other legal places in the country that there should be a greater severity of sentence in all cases where drivers of automobiles are convicted of being under the influence of liquor?
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, we have had long debates in your Lordships' House on this subject, and legislation contained in the Road Traffic Acts makes it quite clear, as do the pronouncements from my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack, what the legal punishments may be. We can in no way direct magistrates or juries as 175 to what should be done. Nevertheless, my Lords, those penalties are there, and I think those who have to inflict the penalties are well aware of their powers.
§ LORD BARNBYIn thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him this: would it be wrong to assume that there is disappointment in the appropriate quarters that many of these sentences are inadequate?
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, I think it would be wrong to assume that, over all the country, that is so. No doubt some people seem to get off very lightly while others appear to be dealt with heavily, but I do not think it would be fair to say that, in the appropriate quarters, there was sorrow.