Mr. John Hope Taylor: Prison Release (Hansard, 28 February 1989)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, John Hope Taylor (who was previously known as Dudgeon) was released from prison on 18th July 1987. He had been sentenced in February 1983 to seven years' imprisonment for wounding with intent and indecent assault. He was considered for parole three times during that sentence but was not found suitable for release on licence. He was released on his earliest date of release when there was no lawful authority to detain him in custody any longer.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that this gentleman was released before the termination of his sentence? Is he also aware of the fact that within a matter of months he had committed the murder of a married woman for which he has again been sentenced? Is my noble friend really telling the House that when a man is sentenced to seven years' imprisonment it is not possible to retain him there for the protection of the public?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, under prison rules a prisoner must be granted remission. All or some of the entitlement may be forfeited for offences against prison discipline. In this man's case he had done nothing to forfeit his remission. Therefore his remission was granted to him. There is nothing in the rules to prevent that from happening. The offence that he subsequently committed was when he was, quite properly, a free man.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, if the prison rules demand the release of a man known to be dangerous, is it not time that they were reconsidered and further thought given to the protection of the public, which the learned judge who tried the case thought he had given?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, what the learned judge thought he had given is a matter for the learned judge. What he actually gave was seven years' imprisonment. While I fully understand my noble friend's concern about this matter, he will know that remission is granted under certain circumstances. Though he shakes his head those are the prison rules which come under the Prison Act 1952 and which are passed by Parliament. Those are the rules, and as they now stand there was no authority for that prisoner to have been retained further in prison.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, these matters are indeed regrettable. However, is it not a fact that when the learned judge gave a sentence of seven years he knew perfectly well that there were remission laws and rules and that if a prisoner earned remission he had to get it? I ask the Minister whether he would see fit to inform the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he is here criticising the judge and not the prison rules.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, what the noble Lord chooses to tell my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is a matter between him and my noble friend. I would not wish to be a postbox in that matter. I have no doubt that my noble friend heard what the noble Lord said. However, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right. I think my noble friend was saying that the rules themselves are wrong. If that is so, it is a matter of changing the rules. But it is not a matter on which the governor was in error in letting Taylor out. I quite understand my noble friend's anxiety. It is an anxiety which I and everyone else shares when a person goes out and commits a horrifying murder. He did that, and he is now in prison with a life sentence and a recommended minimum of 25 years.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, is it true that when a prisoner is given a sentence of between six months and two years—whether it is nine months, one year or two years—he can be out after six months? If so, does it not make rather a nonsense of sentencing?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, remission of half the sentence is obtained if the sentence is 12 months or less. Longer sentences have a one-third remission. There is always the difficulty of how long to keep a person in prison and deciding when he should be allowed the right to become a free man again. My noble friend asks whether this makes a mockery of sentencing. To change it would involve a fundamental change in the system of sentencing that we have now.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, if my noble friend is right—and he is more likely to be right than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is there not a very strong case, when one is dealing with dangerous characters who have already inflicted serious injury and from whom the public have a right to be protected, for the prison rules which apparently produce this situation to be urgently reviewed?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am overwhelmed that my noble friend should think that I am more usually right than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is not 937 a fact of life which I have found to be the case. The real problem is sentencing the criminal for the deed that he has done. That is a matter for the courts. It is a separate question, and a totally separate question, to ask how we should deal with people when they are in prison and whether it is right that they should go the whole hog and never under any circumstances come out. The system at the moment involves the use of remission. If a person has obtained remission he should have it. The fact that that may appear to be wrong in my noble friend's eyes is an understandable point of view.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, if I heard the noble Earl correctly, modification of the rules entails repealing and re-enacting the statute in which they are embodied, which is a complex matter.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Earl is not entirely correct. The prison rules are made under the Prison Act. They are made by statutory instruments which are laid before the House and are subject to parliamentary approval.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prisoner would have been released as a result of his case being considered at least twice by the parole board and then being adjudicated upon by the Home Secretary himself?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my noble friend is not entirely correct. Perhaps I may put the House into the full picture. Taylor was imprisoned in 1979 for manslaughter and was given four years. He was released on parole in April 1981, which was his first review point. He did not breach his licence and he was released in July 1982. Four months later he was convicted for wounding and two indecent assaults. He was given seven years' imprisonment. He was considered for parole three times during that imprisonment and on each occasion he was found to be unsuitable for release on licence. But he lost no remission and therefore he was released on his earliest date of release. He was imprisoned for the third time in March 1988 for murdering a woman. It is that crime for which he has life with a recommendation that he serves at least 25 years.