Life Prisoners: Sentencing (Hansard, 14 December 1998)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, the Government always consider carefully the views of the Lord Chief Justice on all sentencing matters, including the responsibility for the sentencing of life prisoners.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, it is my duty to thank the Minister for that cryptic Answer. It would be an impertinence for me to tell such a highly qualified Minister that it is iniquitous that a crime once committed should be treated as worse and worse as time passes. Is my noble friend aware that under present arrangements every now and then a tariff for a crime is increased by the Government in response to imagined public outcry, self-motivated by the tabloid press?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I do not think that my Answer was cryptic, although it may have been Delphic. There is no question of a crime becoming worse as time passes, but the public have a legitimate interest in how the state deals with those who have committed very serious crimes; and murder is regarded in any civilised society as being a crime of the utmost gravity. I believe that the Home Office has a legitimate part to play here, but it is not exclusive. It depends on co-operation with the higher judiciary and the Parole Board.

§ Lord Windlesham
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many others share the reported views of the Lord Chief Justice? Does the noble Lord recall, for instance, that in the previous Parliament the Home Affairs Committee in another place, including all the Labour Members, recommended that, while the mandatory sentence for murder should be retained, 1103 the responsibility for setting the tariff and release decisions should be removed from the Home Secretary? Now that the Government have the power to implement that recommendation, why do they not do so?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, because they do not believe that to be the proper policy to be adopted. The tariff in these mandatory life cases is set by the Home Secretary but only after paying careful attention to the views of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of the day. I can say from my own personal knowledge that they are very carefully and scrupulously taken into account.
When the death penalty was abolished in this country, these were the constitutional arrangements arrived at. They depend upon maintenance of public confidence and the ultimate accountability of the Home Secretary.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, is not the maintenance of public confidence ensured by the arrangements whereby the Parole Board can only recommend the release on licence of a life sentence prisoner if it is satisfied that the risk of reoffending is minimal? Why do we need the tariff on top of that?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the tariff is not on top of that; it is quite the opposite. The tariff is set as a minimum period of time which is to be served before a mandatory life sentence prisoner is capable of being considered for release. Thereafter the Parole Board has its part to play in giving informed, detailed advice to the Home Office about risk to the public of reoffending. Nevertheless, I believe, and it is the Government's policy, that the Home Secretary should contribute to the ultimate decision. I believe that that enjoys public confidence.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is an issue on which the Home Secretary is at odds with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor? Was the noble Lord present in this House on 24th June 1997 during Question Time when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed in substance with the statement that he had previously made that how long a person should spend in prison is a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing argument, subject to a right of appeal, and that it should not be made by a politician in secret without any right of appeal?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord alluded to there was the generality of judicial power. In fact the High Court judges who try murder cases have the opportunity at present to state in open court what they think the tariff should be. In 221 of the cases between 1st April and 31st October this year the trial judge at that stage exercised his power in only five. It is not a secretive process. The trial judge is consulted. The Lord Chief Justice is consulted. Their recommendations are put to the prisoner. The Parole 1104 Board recommendations are disclosed to the prisoner. The procedure therefore is transparent so far as concerns the prisoner.

§ Lord Tebbit
My Lords, the issue seems to have arisen in the context of a belief that Home Secretaries are likely to leave such prisoners in gaol for longer than judges. Is it not prudent to recollect that since the abolition of capital punishment an average of between four and five persons a year have been killed by persons previously convicted for killing and then released from prison?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord is about right. If I may, I shall give the precise figures; I had half anticipated that the question might arise.
Between 1988 and 1997, 41 suspects were convicted of homicide who had previously been convicted of homicide, but that includes murder. The vast bulk of those 41 were not second time murderers. Their first offence had been manslaughter. It does not limit the gravity of the noble Lord's point. That is why I took the trouble to research the matter for your Lordships.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, as regards the crime of murder, in areas of the country where severe violence has been inflicted we are talking of a group of people who may never be released and who have probably committed the worst murders in living memory. Is the Minister aware that the Government have the support of the population, who would like to see a stricter code than that being applied by some of the judges in those cases?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, there must be a decent regard by the Executive in the person of the Home Secretary for the informed views of the higher judiciary, but our system is not such that the higher judiciary may dictate. This was the parliamentary compromise arrived at after a good deal of struggle, heartache and thought. There are 23 prisoners in England and Wales who have whole life tariffs. However disagreeable it may be to some of your Lordships, a whole life tariff is justified for some prisoners.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that at the time of the abolition of capital punishment it was said time and time again by the proponents of change that a unique penalty for murder would remain on the statute book and that no one convicted of murder would be released except on the say so of the Home Secretary, who would be responsible to Parliament if anything went wrong? How would respect for the criminal justice system be enhanced if the Government now went back on all of those undertakings?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I do not believe that it would, as I sought to say earlier. I do not want to sound too overblown, but this was a 1105 constitutional settlement in a discrete area arrived at following a good deal of thought. The Government believe that they should stick to it.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why he has failed to answer my Question? Why has he failed to defend the present arrangements under which, as time passes, a sentence is increased? The crime has not become any worse, but public opinion becomes stirred up by the tabloids. The noble Lord has ducked it.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I have not ducked any question at all. Sometimes it is very fashionable to believe that tabloid newspapers live in a reservoir of ignorance. Sometimes they get it right and are in tune with public opinion. I have not ducked any question. I put it as brutally as I may: there are some people who have been convicted of murder or murders for whom a whole life tariff is legitimately justifiable. I do not resile from that for a moment.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, has it not become clear in the past few minutes that a very large number of people believe that what the Minister describes as the constitutional settlement is the correct way and that this particular piece of the interface between politicians and the judiciary is not one that should be reconsidered, even if other aspects of that interface are under discussion?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I am always willing to consider views that are put forward. But the Government are adamant in the view that the noble Lord describes. It may not be popular with all of your Lordships, but sometimes it is necessary to do things that are unpopular in the wider public interest. Where it is necessary the Government intend to do it.