HC Deb 02 March 2000 vol 345 cc374-7W
Mr. Marshall-Andrews

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that magistrates should take into account possible loss of reputation in deciding whether to allow an election for jury trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [112361]

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the confidence of(a) the general public and (b) members of the ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system of his proposals under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [112519]

Mr. Straw

The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system, to make it more responsive to the needs of victims of crime and the public at large. It is designed to prevent defendants from manipulating the system by demanding Crown Court trial in trivial cases just to delay proceedings. It does not prevent cases from being tried by jury where Crown Court trial is appropriate, and there is no reason why there should be any diminution in public confidence. Rather, it is likely to enhance public confidence.

The Government have given careful consideration to the concerns that the changes could adversely affect minority ethnic defendants. They are satisfied that this is not the case. Home Office data published on 9 December 1999 show a higher conviction rate for white defendants (67 per cent) than for black defendants (57 per cent) in the magistrates courts. A similar pattern emerges from a separate study (to be published on 3 March), which shows that both in magistrates courts and in the Crown Court white defendants are more likely (by about six percentage points) to be convicted than black defendants.

Under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, magistrates courts would consider the circumstances of the offence but not the circumstances of the defendant. They would therefore be precluded from taking account of the effect of conviction on an accused's reputation (or livelihood), which under the original Mode of Trial Bill they would have been required to consider. The change was made in response to the widely-expressed concern that such considerations might discriminate in favour of certain categories of defendant and against others. The criteria in the new Bill will ensure that the courts make an objective decision on where a case should be tried.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of(a) lay magistrates, (b) stipendiary magistrates, (c) recorders and assistant recorders and (d) circuit judges if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112518]

Mr. Straw

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to increase the number of lay magistrates, stipendiary magistrates, recorders and assistant recorders and circuit judges as a consequence of enacting the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average(a) cost of, (b) length of and (c) waiting time for (1) a trial in the magistrates court following the dismissal of an appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; [112539]

(2) a hearing of (i) an oral and (ii) a written appeal to the Crown Court from the decision of magistrates on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. [112537]

Mr. Straw

I refer the right hon. Member to my reply given on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 250W. There will be no change under the Number 2 Bill.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) cost of additional appeals to the Crown Court against the (i) verdicts and (ii) sentences of magistrates, if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112531]

Mr. Straw

I refer the right hon. Member to my reply given on 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 544W. There would be no significant change under the (No. 2) Bill.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue national guidelines to magistrates in England and Wales on the nature of the circumstances for each type of either-way offence which would normally lead to that offence being tried(a) summarily and (b) on indictment if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112534]

Mr. Straw

National Mode of Trial Guidelines were issued in 1995 by the then Lord Chief Justice, setting out the circumstances in which magistrates should consider committing an either-way offence for trial in the Crown Court. Although the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is not intended significantly to change the basis on which magistrates make their decisions on mode of trial, some amendments to the guidelines would be necessary to bring them into line with the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect of the requirement in(a) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill and (b) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill for magistrates courts to state the reasons for their decision as to mode of trial on the percentage of appeals to the Crown Court against the magistrates' decision. [112530]

Mr. Straw

The requirement (which is in the (No. 2) Bill only) for magistrates to give reasons is not expected to affect the number of defendants exercising the right of appeal to the Crown Court on mode of trial.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of defendants who will exercise the right of appeal to the Crown Court on mode of trial, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of appeals that will be successful. [112538]

Mr. Straw

It is assumed that 3,500 defendants (25 per cent. of those who would have elected and whom the magistrates have decided to try) will appeal; that 17.5 per cent. of these cases will proceed to an oral hearing; and that 12.5 per cent. of appeals considered on the papers, and 27.5 per cent. of oral appeals, will be successful.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of cases in(a) the Divisional Courts (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the House of Lords as a result of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill being enacted; what will be the additional costs to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [112535]

Mr. Straw

Our estimate is that any change in the number of cases going to these courts will be de minimis.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what factors underlay his estimate of(a) the cost savings that would be made and (b) the number of defendants who would be tried in the magistrates' courts rather than the Crown court under (i) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill and (ii) the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill; [112528]

(2) if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated savings to the criminal justice system from the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill by each principal category of expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [112533]

Mr. Straw

For the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill it was assumed that 12,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Court annually, resulting in resource savings to the criminal justice system of £105 million a year. For the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill it is assumed that 14,000 fewer defendants would be tried in the Crown Court annually, resulting in resource savings to the criminal justice system of £128 million a year.

The £128 million estimated annual resource savings are made up as follows: for the courts—£12.5 million on committals and £41.5 million on Crown Court trials which would no longer take place. This would be offset by the cost of magistrates courts trials (£8.5 million, including the cost of any subsequent committals for sentence), and the cost (estimated at £0.5 million) of interlocutory appeals to the Crown Court. for the Prison Service—savings of £83.5 million annually would result from a reduction in remand times and the shorter sentences imposed by magistrates courts.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that appeals to the Crown Court against magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill should be heard (1) by circuit judges only; and if he will make a statement; [112536]

(2) in open court; and if he will make a statement. [112529]

Mr. Straw

The intention is that the appeal should be heard by the Resident Judge or by a deputy nominated by the senior presiding Judge. The Government believe that most appeals will be determined on the basis of the papers. It would however be open to the parties to seek to make oral representations, which the judge could agree to hear if he considered it necessary in the interests of justice; the arrangements for such an oral hearing would be a matter for the judge's discretion.

Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the length of the average waiting time for a trial in a magistrates court if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [112517]

Mr. Straw

The magistrates courts deal with over 400,000 either-way cases annually and will have no difficulty in absorbing the additional cases which it is expected that they will retain as a result of the Bill.