Youth justice: pre-consolidation amendments

HL Deb 08 March 1999 vol 598 cc84-92

Children and Young Persons Act 1969(c. 54)

1. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has effect subject to the following amendments.

2. In section 12A (requirements that may be included in supervision orders), at the end add—

"(14) In this section "make reparation" means make reparation for the offence otherwise than by the payment of compensation."

3.—(1) Section 15 (variation and discharge of supervision orders) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)(b) (magistrates' powers of re-sentence on breach of supervision order), for "relevant court" substitute "magistrates' court".

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

"(8A) Where a supervision order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of subsection (3) above it shall be deemed—

1. (a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;
2. (b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

and, in relation to a supervision order made on appeal, subsection (3)(b) above shall have effect as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted and subsection (5) above shall have effect as if the words "if it had not made the order" were omitted. "

4. —(1) Section 16 (provisions supplementary to section 15) is amended as follows.

1. (2) In subsection (3A), for "(3C)" substitute "(4A)".
2. (3) Omit subsections (3B) and (3C).
3. (4) In subsection (4), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (4A) of this section,".
4. (5) After subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) Where a supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, or has attained that age at a time when (apart from this subsection) a youth court could exercise its powers under subsection (4) of this section in respect of him, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

1. (a) to a remand centre, if the justice or youth court has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or
2. (b) to a prison, if the justice or youth court has not been so notified.

(4B) A court or justice remanding a person to local authority accommodation under this section shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order."

Crime and Disorder Act 1998(c. 37)

5. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.

6. —(1) Section 74 (duties and powers of court in relation to detention and training orders) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, a court making a detention and training order may order that its term shall commence on the expiration of the term of any other detention and training order made by that or any other court."

(3) After subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) A court making a detention and training order shall not order that its term shall commence on the expiration of the term of a detention and training order under which the period of supervision has already begun (under section 76(1) below).

(4B) Where a detention and training order ("the new order") is made in respect of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order under which the period of supervision has begun ("the old order"), the old order shall be disregarded in determining—

1. (a) for the purposes of subsection (3) above whether the effect of the new order would be that the offender 86 would be subject to detention and training orders for a term which exceeds 24 months; and
2. (b) for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether the term of the detention and training orders to which the offender would (apart from that subsection) be subject exceeds 24 months. "

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

"(5A) Where a court proposes to make detention and training orders in respect of an offender for two or more offences—

1. (a) subsection (5) above shall not apply, but
2. (b) in determining the total term of the detention and training orders it proposes to make in respect of the offender, the court shall take account of the total period for which he has been remanded in custody in connection with any of those offences, or any other offence the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence.

(5B) Once a period of remand has, under subsection (5) or (5A) above, been taken account of in relation to a detention and training order made in respect of an offender for any offence or offences, it shall not subsequently be taken account of (under either of those subsections) in relation to such an order made in respect of the offender for any other offence or offences. "

(5) In subsection (6), for "The reference in subsection (5) above" substitute "Any reference in subsection (5) or (5A) above".

(6) In subsection (8), omit "this section or".

7 In section 75(5) (alteration of release of offender subject to detention and training order) for "the youth court" substitute "a youth court".

8. In section 77 (detention and training orders: breach of supervision requirements) after subsection (4) insert—

"(5) An offender may appeal to the Crown Court against any order made under subsection (3)(a) or (b) above. "

9. In section 79 (interaction of detention and training order with sentences of detention), after subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) Subsection (l)(a) above has effect subject lo section 78(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 40(4)(b) of the 1991 Act. "

10.—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 (failure to comply with reparation and action plan orders) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "youth court" substitute "magistrates' court".

(3) Omit sub-paragraph (3).

(4) After sub-paragraph (8) insert—

"(9) Where a reparation order or action plan order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of this paragraph it shall be deemed—

1. (a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;
2. (b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

and, in relation to a reparation order or action plan order made on appeal, sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted and sub-paragraph (5) above shall have effect as if the words "if it had not made the order" were omitted. "

11. —(1) Paragraph 4 of that Schedule (presence of offender in court, remands, etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (5)(b), for "(6)" substitute "7A)"

(3) Omit sub-paragraph (6).

(4) In sub-paragraph (7), at the beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (7A) below,".

(5) After sub-paragraph (7) insert—

"(7A) Where the offender is aged 18 or over at the time when he is brought before a youth court other than the appropriate court under sub-paragraph (4) above, or is aged 18 or over at a time when (apart from this sub-paragraph) the appropriate court could exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (7) above in respect of him, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

1. (a) to a remand centre, if the court has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this sub-paragraph; or
2. (b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified. "

12. Omit paragraph 5(6) of that Schedule.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 113 and 114:

Page 60, line 11, at end insert—

("1969 c. 54.

Children and Young Section 16(3B) and Persons Act 1969.

(3C).")

Page 61, line 38, at end insert—

("1998 c. 37.	Crime and Disorder Act 1998.	In section 74(8), the words "this section or".
		In Schedule 5, paragraphs 3(3), 4(6) and 5(6).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 115: Page 62, line 9, after first ("proceedings"") insert ("(except in paragraph 3)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 115 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 to 119, 121 and 123.

We laid these amendments relating to transitional provisions for the special measures provided in the Bill. We are aware that not every measure is likely to be made available on the same date to every eligible witness in every court area in the magistrates' court as well as the Crown Court. Implementation plans are being considered by the project groups established under the supervision of the interdepartmental steering group, which is devising an integrated implementation programme for all 78 recommendations of the Speaking Up for Justice report. Advice on this programme is likely to be with the Minister by the end of April.

We do not want to lead witnesses to believe that they will benefit from the new measures in Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, especially before a training strategy has been implemented, guidance produced and the necessary equipment is in place. It may be necessary to commence this chapter early to allow for pilot arrangements. I emphasise that no detailed decisions about timetables and approaches have yet been taken; we simply want to provide all the flexibility we may need.

Until full implementation we will have to continue to rely on existing statutory provisions such as Sections 32 and 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—that is, video and live link evidence from children. We will also continue to rely on the courts' common law powers to arrange for such measures as the taking off of wigs and gowns, screens, sign language, interpreters and signboards. The amendments ensure that initially the new arrangements and the old will need to run side by side.

The amendments also provide for the situation when a notification that a measure is available to a court is withdrawn by the Secretary of State. The amendments provide that witnesses who had been awarded the measure through a special measures direction before the measure was withdrawn would still be able to benefit from them. We also provide for making rule and order-making powers in both parts of the Bill before commencement of the substantive provisions to which they relate. That is an administrative device but is needed for measured implementation of the Bill's substantive provisions when the time comes. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 119:

Page 62, line 30, leave out ("commencement date for Chapter I of Part II") and insert ("specified date").

Page 62, line 39, leave out ("commencement date for Chapter I of Part II") and insert ("specified date").

Page 62, line 44, leave out ("that commencement") and insert ("the specified").

Page 62, line 45, at end insert— ("(4) In this paragraph—

1. (a) "continuing proceedings" means proceedings instituted before the specified date;
2. (b) "the specified date", in relation to a witness in any proceedings, means such date as may be specified by the Secretary of State in a notice given to the court in question under section 18(2), where the date is expressed to apply—
   1. (i) for the purposes of this paragraph, and
   2. (ii) in relation to any description of witnesses and proceedings within which the witness and the proceedings fall. ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

Clause 63 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 42, line 30, leave out ("Apart from section 61 and this section, ") and insert ("Subject to subsection (2A), ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 42, line 32, leave out ("or") and insert ("and with respect to").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, need not be alarmed about his timetable, but I want to return to the question of cross-examination and re-examination on video recordings.

The Minister just said that various items in Chapter I of Part II will be introduced gradually. There is a particular difficulty about Clause 27(2), where there is an elaborate requirement for the presence of people during the course of any cross-examination and re-examination that will be pre-recorded and used in court. At an earlier stage in the Bill, the Minister said that that would not cause any great difficulty because there were lots of police stations where that was done. I made inquiries because the court in north-west London where I sit was a pilot for the admissibility of evidence-in-chief by children in the form of video recordings under Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I do not know whether this is typical but in north-west London, the police have two or three suites available where they can record the evidence of a vulnerable witness. I extend that term beyond children because that is what the Bill is about. The facility consists of a room equipped with a video recorder into which goes the witness and the skilled interviewers—who by this time have been well trained, at least as regards children. There is another room into which the video signal goes and where sits a policeman or somebody else in charge of matters as a safeguard—to see that nothing obviously goes amiss during the examination-in-chief or, technically, the taking of the interview.

There is no contact between the room where the interview is taking place and the overseer in the further room. In some cases an earpiece is available but frequently is not used because it makes the witness suspicious or nervous. That is the existing system and, in my experience, it produces high-quality videotapes. They may have to be edited but the raw material is there. That system is not susceptible to adaptation, to allow all the people to take part in an exercise under Clause 27(2). For that, one needs the facilities of a videolink court. Such a court has a room in which the witness sits, connected to the court by a videolink. In that room there can be a companion, an accompanier, somebody to look after the witness and so on.

In the court itself there are at least four videos— one each for the judge, defence counsel, prosecution counsel and jury. One for the jury will not be required under Clause 27(2). If the judge or magistrate is to control matters, he must be able to switch on and off the various videos. If, for instance, it becomes apparent that the vulnerable witness is becoming tired or there is some other reason for an interruption, a button can be pressed and the videolink to the witness is turned off. Then the judge or magistrate can talk to the other people in the court and sort the matter out. Similarly, when it comes to cross-examination and re-examination, the necessary buttons are pressed. There is a video recorder as well as a receiver at the place of each counsel so that the witness can see who is asking the questions. In fact, the witness can be told by the judge or magistrate in advance who the questioner will be.

That system involves complicated and elaborate equipment and, as I well know, is not that easy to use. One has to get it right and become accustomed to it. Is the Minister saying that police stations will be equipped in that way into which the entire court, presumably as a result of one of its own directions, may move to undertake the cross-examination and re-examination—so that a video recording can be produced under the control of the judge or magistrate for use in court? If so, when will that arrangement be in place and how much will it cost? In my part of north-west London at least, such a system does not exist. This part of the Bill should not be brought into effect, even on a pilot basis, until the facilities have been made available. I tabled the amendment simply to ask the Minister to explain the situation and the Government's proposals for putting the provision in place. I beg to move.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on raising the practicalities of the proposals for video cross-examination. I had always assumed that, although the interview might take place in the police station, which would form the evidence-in-chief, there would undoubtedly have to be a move to the court for the purposes of recording the cross-examination. I cannot see that being done any other way.

In earlier discussions, it was put to me that the problem revolved around a witness knowing that he or she had to go to court on a particular day and be available for cross-examination as if it were by live videolink before a jury. My response was, "I don't see the difference". If the court building has to be used for a recording, the witness giving evidence will know that there is a judge, counsel for the prosecution and defence, and presumably the defendant at the other end. The circumstances are exactly the same for that witness in another room as though the jury or a magistrate were present. Why have pre-recording? It cannot make any difference to the stress and strain placed upon the witness. The same buildings, for practical reasons, will have to be used.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, not for the first time I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for the practical questions that he has raised. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for observing that the thrust of his points relates to an earlier discussion. Therefore, perhaps I may concentrate on the noble Viscount's amendment.

As this is a special measure, it would only be capable of being introduced in accordance with Clause 18; in other words, it cannot come into force: so that it is available to the court until the court has; been notified by the Secretary of State that it is in fact available. We can implement by area, by measure or even by type of witness. Indeed, it may be a combination of those factors. As I said, the Secretary of State has to notify the court that it can make relevant arrangement measures available by virtue of Clause 18.

I shall deal now with one or two of the details raised by the noble Viscount. We have the steering group which is advising on how most of Part II should be implemented. It is looking at various options for staged implementation, bearing in mind many of the points—probably all of them—made by the noble Viscount. For example, how can you bring the measures into force? The noble Viscount rightly said that one needs training in the use of the equipment and one needs guidance about that use. That may mean rules of court. Moreover—and here I revert to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas and by the noble Viscount—accommodation and equipment will need to be found.

The noble Viscount is quite right to say that some of the measures will need more equipment, which will need to be purchased. Video recorded evidence is already produced and shown in court in respect of child witnesses. I agree with the noble Viscount's theme: we will need to have an audit of existing equipment before we can determine what additional facilities are needed to implement this legislation in a phased and staged way. The group is examining these problems. I am not attempting to minimise them because I well recognise the force of what the noble Viscount said. If, as he indicated, the purpose of his amendment was to flag up such concerns, I can only repeat my gratitude to him. If I have any further particulars as the weeks develop, I shall write to the noble Viscount, sending copies to interested noble Lords in the usual way. I shall also place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, I am very glad to have received that rather full reply. Plainly the Minister and his advisors have absorbed the necessity to have the equipment and the training. The only comment that I would add is this. If it turns out, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated, that this will be able to be done only in the court itself—because it will not be worth while installing facilities for the comparatively limited number of occasions that it will be used anywhere else—that will have to be fitted into the timetable of the court centre.

The video room or the video court in a court centre is a very valued commodity. It is used on a strict basis for the cases that need it. It is very much used and very much desired. The listing office in any court which has one will find that it is bombarded with cases that will have to be fixed in order to use that particular equipment. If, in addition to the existing use that is made of it, we are to have the extra demands envisaged by Clause 18, I believe that the Court Services Agency, as well as everyone else, should be fully engaged in the consultations; otherwise, we shall only find that the whole matter comes to grief because of the lack of ability to use the court facilities. I shall leave the matter with the Minister. Indeed, he has entirely taken my point. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of work to be done before this particular special measure can be implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 42, line 32, at end insert—

("(2A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—

1. (a) section 6(4);
2. (b) the provisions of Chapters I to IV of Part II for the purpose only of the exercise of any power to make rules of court;
3. (c) section 39(1);
4. (d) sections 55(5) and 56(2) for the purpose only of the exercise of any power to make an order;
5. (e) section 56(1) and (3), sections 57 to 61 and this section. ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 124:

Line 4, after ("proceedings;") insert ("to make pre-consolidation amendments relating to youth justice;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.