Rape Offenders and Parole (Hansard, 16 December 1985)

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
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, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Parole Board continue to treat each case on its merits. Prisoners serving sentences of over five years for rape are, however, granted parole only in exceptional circumstances. Action is being taken in the light of the Pollard case to ensure that the decision on whether or not to grant parole in such cases is taken on the basis of the best possible information.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, bearing in mind the Answer that I received on a previous occasion that one case, however bad, was not viewed seriously enough to activate a review of the whole system, whether he is aware that since that case there have been at least three others where the person convicted for violent rape has been paroled and has committed the same act on a girl of 17 and on a girl of 13, luckily with no death in the physical sense? There is ample evidence that the crime of rape is increasing. I understand that in the debate in another place figures showed that it had increased by 30 per cent. over the last six months. Is it not time we decided that the women of this nation require and receive some increased protection against a bestial crime?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the noble Lord really has asked a bundle of quite separate questions. His original Question was confined to the matter of 533 parole and I am not sure that I would not be wise to confine myself to that. In the case to which his original Question earlier this year related, the Parole Board had not been informed of a vital fact and my answer was designed to bring out the fact that that had now been considered in the light of the past. Although I would be very happy to answer questions about the general question of rape, its incidence, its motivation and the protection of women, I think that the Question itself related to a particular case where the Parole Board was clearly to be exonerated of any blame at all, because it had not been given the vital piece of information which would have put it on notice that there was a danger of a renewed attack on the same victim. I must also remind the noble Lord that in that case the renewed offence was one of murder and what happened was that the prisoner got out on parole and murdered his former victim of rape.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, however gravely and distastefully all Members of your Lordships' House may regard the offence of rape, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his answer that each case is to be treated on its merits is consistent with our normal acceptance of justice? Is he also aware that many of us accept with very great pleasure his assurance that, in future, the Parole Board will be given all material information with the greatest care?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his helpful supplementary question. Cases of rape cover a very wide spectrum, as we were reminded, I think, a week or two ago, when my noble friend Lady Masham asked a Question which was answered by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. Of course, they must be treated on their merits, but I think the public is increasingly concerned at the increase of the incidence of rape, and especially of the incidence of rape of two particularly unpleasant kinds. I think that gives rise not to the question of parole, to which the noble Lord's Question was limited, but to much more general questions which are certainly worthy of discussion in Parliament.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many women were very appreciative of the speech that he made in connection with this particular and horrible crime, and hope that in future further discussion can be taken forward on several points in connection with this offence?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for what she said. If the House will bear with me for a moment—being perhaps a little irrelevant to the actual Question—our system of sentencing is, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary basing itself on each case. But as the House will be aware, matters can go before the Court of Appeal only if a sentence is alleged to be excessive, and there is no mechanism whatever whereby the Court of Appeal can consider a sentence which is alleged to be too lenient. Moreover, it is not enough in my judgment—I may be wrong—to say, "Well, they can give general guidelines." Each case needs to be examined in the context of its own matrix of fact and 534 it is not enough to say, "Well, you can do it on the appeals which come before it." The Lord Chief Justice has given very good guidelines, so far as guidelines can be given, in the case of Roberts, with which the noble Baroness is probably familiar, but in my opinion there is a defect in our law.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is rather disturbing that after many years of existence the Parole Board is not given vital information?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in this particular case I think it is disturbing, but, on the other hand, I must be a little more specific than that. What happened was that there was an explicit threat at the time of the original rape that the assailant would commit another. Curiously enough, this is not an uncommon circumstance. My subjective opinion—that is to say, a purely personal opinion—is that always where such a threat is made the facts should be put before the Parole Board. But, in fact, it is made quite often and in the great majority of cases it is meant in order to ensure that the original rape is committed without resistance or without calling for help and does not really involve a serious threat for the future. I think myself—if I am asked for a personal opinion—that the Parole Board should always be given this information, but this is not the view which is universally held and I think the view which I ought to put before the House is the one which is the wisdom of the many, which is that the police in providing information should use their professional judgment in the light of the threat which has been originally made.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very detailed replies he has given, but is he aware that in the first case, which prompted the original Question some months ago, not only was the woman murdered but before she was murdered a vicious rape took place? I put the point in my first supplementary question today that there have been at least two subsequent cases in which the parole board, knowing all the facts, have in fact paroled people who were convicted of violent rape and then those people have again committed that crime. Is it not time that the situation was looked at and people were given better protection than they are getting at present?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I was fully aware of the original supplementary question of the noble Lord. I am sorry that my answers have perhaps been a little too detailed, but this is a difficult and important area.
There are two factors that have to be borne in mind here. The first is that if you are going to have a system of parole there will be a certain number of cases in which the parole is broken in different kinds of way. I was of course aware that the murder of the particular victim had been preceded by rape, although I still regard murder as more important than rape itself, bad though rape undoubtedly is.
I do not think that you can altogether dissociate the question of parole from the question of the original sentence and its adequacy. I have already referred in my original Answer to the rule which has since been adopted that, if the sentence is more than five years, 535 parole is to be given only in exceptional circumstances. I think you must also remember in relation to the parole system that one of its objects is to put the paroled criminal under a period of supervision in the outside world. That in itself is thought to reduce the possibility of recidivism, and not to increase it. These are factors which have to be considered. Rape is itself a particularly vicious and abominable crime, but I think the question of sentencing cannot be altogether dissociated from parole; nor can rape be altogether dissociated from other crimes of disgusting violence.