Sexual Offences Against Minors: Penalties (Hansard, 14 July 1983)

Viscount Buckmaster
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, the maximum sentences available vary with the particular offence from life imprisonment downwards. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is giving attention to the question whether the existing law and penalties give sufficient protection to children against those in a position of trust. The actual level of penalties imposed within the maxima is for the judiciary and not Her Majesty's Government. In addition to criminal sanctions there are administrative sanctions available to the Secretary of State for Education against those who are employed to work with children who commit these offences.

Viscount Buckmaster
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful reply. Nevertheless, in view of the traumatic effects of such offences on young children, which frequently last throughout their lives, is he aware of a case heard in a magistrates' court in Birmingham on 23rd March when the headmaster of a Roman Catholic school, who has now resigned, was fined £400 with £250 costs for sexual offences against young girls in his charge aged nine to 10 extending over a period of three years?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I must tell the noble Viscount that members of the Executive cannot comment constitutionally upon matters which are in the purview of the judiciary.

§ Lord Wilson of Langside
My Lords, as it is open to a convicted person to appeal against an unduly harsh sentence, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be certainly more logical, probably sensible, and certainly promote confidence in the administration of criminal justice if the Crown had a corresponding right to appeal against what might be regarded as a derisory sentence for any offence, quite apart from the ones in this Question?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, such a proposal is canvassed from time to time. It would require primary 890 legislation. I think that the noble and learned Lord might discover that there was an element of double jeopardy in such a suggestion, which might give rise to constitutional problems. I think that it would also strike a member of the profession as altering the function of the prosecutor. In this country the prosecutor is not like Mr. Vyshinsky; he is not supposed to suggest particular sentences to a court; he is supposed to place the facts before the court and leave the sentence to the court.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, could the Criminal Law Revision Committee be invited to consider a recommendation that people convicted of these offences should no longer be allowed to continue in employment which gives them the charge of children and young people?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as regards teachers, I do not think that that is necessary because the Education Acts provide the Secretary of State for Education with adequate powers to deal with teachers who are convicted of offences of this type. When we come to deal with private employment, I think it would be rather more difficult to do. I believe that it would be wise to leave the Criminal Law Revision Committee to conclude its present investigations and then consider its report when it comes.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I was suggesting that the courts should also have the power which the Secretary of State already possesses.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, at one time I held the position which is now held by my right honourable friend. On the whole, I think that the Secretary of State is the appropriate authority. Some of these offences—as was the case to which the noble Viscount who asked the Question referred—are tried on summary jurisdiction by lay magistrates; others are tried by the Crown Court. I personally think that the employment of teachers is very much a question which ought to be considered administratively rather than judicially; but, of course, it is for Parliament to decide.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there have been many public complaints recently by members of the judiciary that the maximum penalties prescribed are proving inadequate?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not think there have been any by the judiciary in relation to this particular type of offence. It is fair to say, however, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, at the judges' dinner at the Mansion House, said in general terms, but not referring to any particular class of offence, that there had recently come to his notice a number of cases—I think he said one or two—in which sentences had been markedly too lenient.

§ Lord Wilson of Langside
My Lords, may I revert to the noble and learned Lord's answer to the question I put with regard to appealing the question of sentence? Would he acknowledge that it is not only the country 891 in which Mr. Vyshinsky was a distinguished, or notorious, prosecutor that the prosecution has a right to be heard on the question of sentence? Would he not consider that at least many other civilised countries regard the question of sentence as falling within the province of the prosecution? Would he also not acknowledge that, having regard to the great developments that there have been in the administration of criminal justice in favour of accused persons during the last 100 years, and particularly during the last 30 years, perhaps this question of the Crown's interest in sentence should be looked at afresh?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, this is exactly the sort of question which would be canvassed if primary legislation in that sense were introduced. I am of course aware that in a great number of countries the duties of a prosecutor are differently defined from the way in which we behave in this country, but on the whole I think that this country is a model to the world, and not vice versa.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that in many debates in this House there has been general agreement that sentences passed by the judiciary in this country, as compared with those in other similar countries, are much too severe?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I can only say that for every complaint which comes before me of alleged excessive severity I probably get between 10 and 20 alleging excessive leniency.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to rise and ask a question, but after that the House might perhaps think it appropriate to move on.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, is not the real problem the disparity between the various courts in sentencing, and not the question of the maximum sentence? Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that considerable disquiet would be relieved if it were known that there were regular meetings with the judges at which the question of sentencing was considered by way of discussion and some amount of common agreement reached as to the types of offence which society regards as so serious that there should be severer penalties?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of disparity which exists. I think a good deal of the disquiet is due to the particular treatment of individual cases in the way in which some of them are reported, giving a slant one way or the other, and not to the actual facts of the case. I would wish to add a warning against not merely the undesirability but the impossibility of sentencing people from press cuttings.
I would also say to the noble Lord that, as regards his useful suggestion about judges' meetings, we hold a seminar at Roehampton year by year; and, of course, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting in the Court of Appeal 892 (Criminal Division), in fact keeps an eye on the level of sentences in different parts of the country. If a sentence is of excessive severity he incorporates something to that effect in his judgment; but if he considers that, as a whole, the level of sentences is unduly lenient, he will certainly either issue a practice direction or include in one of his judgments some guidelines as to how courts ought to behave.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lord, is the noble and learned Lord aware that—