Murder: Mandatory Life Sentence (Hansard, 12 January 1994)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, there are no plans to do so.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear that. Is the Minister aware that the powerfully argued report of the committee on the penalty for homicide chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane., demonstrates conclusively that the abolition of the mandatory life sentence does not mean going soft on crime but quite the opposite, because it would restore real meaning to the term "life sentence" and would highlight the heinous nature of the crimes which disturb the public? Does he agree that in addition mercy killers would not be forced to receive the same sentence as mass murderers because judges have no discretion?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, quite rightly refers to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. That report has only recently been received and my right honourable friend is considering it. He is not at present persuaded that it would be right to abolish the mandatory life sentence, but certainly that report encapsulates many of the arguments for change.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us regard it as of great importance to preserve a unique penalty for the offence of murder and we were therefore very glad to hear my noble friend's original succinct answer?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am aware of the concern of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He expresses the view of a great many people that murder is unique. At present there is only one penalty for murder but it is very flexible.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, is there not a contradiction between the unequivocal answer which the noble Earl gave to the first Question of my noble friend Lord Ashley and his subsequent statement that the Government are still considering the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane? Have the. Government not in fact already made up their mind on the issue? If there is any chance that there is any element on which the Government have not made up their mind, will the Minister and his colleagues give careful consideration to the most serious of all problems with the mandatory life sentence, namely, cases where there is provocation, particularly by violent husbands?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should not try to find divergences where there are none. I said that the Government have no plans to make such changes. That is a fact. I also said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, had produced an important report and that my right honourable friend is considering it. If as a result of that report my right honourable friend considers that there is a reason to change his mind, then he will do so.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present system has the advantage that while the judge is obliged to impose a mandatory sentence he is entitled, if he feels it right, to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary as to how much of that sentence should be served and the Home Secretary then decides what the total sentence in prison should be and is answerable to Parliament for the decision that he makes?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton is quite right. In fixing the minimum period which is necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence my right honourable friend considers the circumstances of each individual case. In particular circumstances the Home Secretary can fix an early release date. In the past 10 years 14 mandatory life sentence prisoners were released having served six years or less. The important point, to which my noble friend referred, is the Home Secretary's discretion and decision. He has to take account of public safety.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, would the Minister riot agree that two of the fundamental and basic principles of a just sentencing policy are, first, that the sentence should fit the crime, referred to in a government White Paper recently as the just desserts principle, and, secondly, that the length of any prison sentence should be determined by a judge in public and not by the Executive in private? If he so agrees, would he not further agree that those principles are currently being flouted despite the firm views expressed in your Lordships' House? Finally, is not the Government's policy inconsistent with their own doctrine as interpreted by "back-to-basics"?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I would not go down that line with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because if we went back to basics his suggestions would result in some cases being more harshly dealt with. I do not agree with his conclusions, although I agree that a number of people take the view that he takes. Murder is a unique offence. The mandatory life sentence is the only way of ensuring that those who kill deliberately always forfeit their liberty to the state for life. Once they have been given a life sentence that is a sentence for life. How long they spend in prison is a matter for decision.