MALICIOUS DAMAGE BILL (Hansard, 20 July 1964)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)
With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to the three Amendments on the Marshalled List together. They all deal with the same point. I told the House on Second Reading that I was going to introduce these Amendments and I explained the point at some length. Perhaps, therefore, the House will think it right for me to be rather short to-day.
These Amendments are concerned with this word "further". There have been two legal views as to what the word "further" means. The meaning which is intended, and which strong legal opinion says is accurate, is that the word "further" simply makes it clear that, if a fine has been imposed, the court may order the payment of an amount of compensation in addition, and that it 488 does not in any way prevent the court from ordering payment of compensation in addition to imprisonment. The other view is that the reference to a "further" amount means that compensation may be ordered only if it is in addition to an "amount" in the form of a fine, and that it cannot accompany a sentence of imprisonment. It may be difficult of course to recover compensation where an offender is in prison, but it seems right that the court should be able, in an appropriate case, to award compensation in addition to imprisonment. The purpose of the Amendment to Clause 1 is to remove any doubt as to their power to do so, and the following two Amendments to the Schedule and Title are consequential. I beg to move.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I should like to take this opportunity, very briefly, to raise again a point which I raised during our Second Reading debate last week, but which was not dealt with on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We had a very short Second Reading debate. Apart from the Minister himself, only three noble Lords spoke. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke for five minutes; the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke for four minutes; and I spoke for two minutes—and we all supported the Bill. In the course of my two minutes, I joined with the Minister in saying that the power of magistrates' courts to order compensation to victims of hooliganism was a salutary power. I further ventured to suggest that this was a small field in is entirely different. It may be that in throughout the country ought to be able to achieve some uniformity in practice in the matter of awarding compensation to these victims; and, finally, I suggested that at the moment there is not enough uniformity of practice as between different benches of magistrates. I suggested that perhaps a Home Office circular might be helpful in achieving this, but apparently this was not a useful suggestion.
489 I am very sorry to say that I do not believe the Minister was listening to what I said. He totally ignored the argument that I put forward, and, instead, attributed to me the asinine argument (if I may borrow an adjective which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, used a moment ago) that all crimes deserved the same punishment. Then, of course, having set up that argument, the Minister very quickly demolished it. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260 (No. 98), col. 62]: We cannot expect uniformity in sentences until we get uniformity in crimes. Hear, hear! If a Minister cares to stick up an Aunt Sally and knock her down again, I have no doubt that it is all part of the fun, but it does not advance the debate any further. That is why I am taking these few further minutes of the Committee's time to ask Her Majesty's Government these questions.
Do they agree that uniformity as between different benches of magistrates ought to be capable of achievement in this fairly simple matter of awarding compensation to the victims of hooliganism? Do they further agree that, so far, the necessary uniformity among different benches has not been forthcoming? Will they consider this matter, and will different Ministers confer with one another, if necessary, in order to see whether the Government can bring about this desirable situation? I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to answer these questions at this moment. I merely ask: will the Government go into this and see whether something can be achieved?

§ LORD DERWENT
I can answer now, and I repeat what I said before, when I did not perhaps make myself as clear as undoubtedly the noble Lord did on the last occasion. One cannot obtain a universal system of awarding compensation, or even get magistrates to do very much the same thing, because each case is entirely different. It may be that in one case the magistrates will feel that a heavy fine is appropriate and that a lesser amount of compensation should be awarded; and in another case they may impose a small fine but order a larger amount of compensation to be paid. Very much depends on the man's circumstances and on the case. They may think that imprisonment is neces- 490 sary. If they do, they may think that, although compensation should be paid, it is unlikely that the defendant will be able to pay heavy compensation.
I still cannot see what a circular from the Home Office can do in bringing about uniformity in the matter of compensation awards when individual cases are bound to differ. The situation is exactly the same, whether the sentence is a fine or imprisonment. It is not appropriate for the Home Office, in its executive capacity, to circularise magistrates and tell them that, on the whole, they ought all to do the same thing. I cannot go further than that; but the noble Lord's request does not seem to me a reasonable one.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I am sorry about this. I have accepted that no doubt a Home Office circular is not the appropriate remedy in this matter. I have tried to explain the matter all over again to the Minister. He still does not understand the argument I have put forward. I now give up.

§ LORD DERWENT
I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ LORD DERWENT
I beg to move the Amendment to the Title.