HL Deb 02 November 1983 vol 444 cc555-7

2.43 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration may not be given to the introduction of a Police Protection Bill to make certain offences committed against police officers in the execution of their duty which carry mandatory sentences which shall be served; for murder or attempted murder 15 to 20 years; for occasioning or attempting to occasion serious bodily injury 5 to 10 years; for occasioning bodily injury when making lawful arrest 6 to 18 months.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that those convicted of the murder of police officers acting in the course of their duty must expect to serve at least 20 years in prison. He has also indicated that those sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for violence are unlikely to have their sentences substantially reduced by parole. These measures are intended to strengthen public confidence that serious violent offenders will serve long terms in custody, while maintaining the independent discretion of the courts to choose the appropriate penalty for a particular offence.

Lord Cambell of Alloway

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that the Motion tabled by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury calling attention to the need to examine new ways to reduce crimes of violence bears upon this Question? If so, and in particular as regards the protection of the police in the execution of their duty, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that minimum sentences not only could afford a new way of sentencing for murder but also for attempted murder and the other categories of violence referred to in the Question?

Lord Elton

My Lords, as to the relevance of my noble friend's Question to a forthcoming debate, I am sure that there is a relevance and that the noble Lord himself will make that more apparent when the debate takes place. Regarding questions of the efficiency of existing penalties, I remind my noble friend that the penalties for the sort of offence to which his Question relates are set out in the Offences against the Person Act 1861. For assault with intent to resist or prevent arrest the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years; for assault occasioning actual bodily harm it is five years; for wounding or causing grievous bodily harm the maximum is life imprisonment. It would be difficult to be tougher than that.

Lord Elystan-Morgan

My Lords, may I express the sincerest sympathy with police officers who daily are at risk from the most savage attacks. Does the noble Minister agree that the cases referred to differ widely in their character? Does he agree also that there is an infinite variety of different factors that can be involved, and that in the circumstances to place a minimum penalty would indeed be to put the sentencer in an intolerable position? Or, put another way, that in the context of such crimes—and indeed of gravely serious crimes in general—our community can properly place its trust in judges to act with fairness, wisdom and balance?

Lord Elton

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are opposed to minimum sentences because we can never foresee all the circumstances of every case. My right honourable and learned friend therefore feels that if an occasional sentence gives cause for concern, the proper body to take a view of it is the Court of Appeal. That is why he proposes legislation to enable the Court of Appeal to reaffirm correct sentencing principles in cases where the sentences appear to be unjustifiably lenient.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, does the noble Minister agree that what is implied in this Question is that the independence and discretion of the judiciary should be interfered with, and that the implication in this Question that that should be done is wholly repugnant to our tradition in this country? Furthermore, does he agree that the implication of the Question that crimes of violence, which we all deplore, can be reduced by this method is completely wrong?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the Government are indeed seized of the importance of the principle of the independence of the judiciary, and that is why I gave the answer to the previous question that I did.