HC Deb 23 July 1987 vol 120 cc347-9W
Mr. Key

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement about the Government's response to the Divisional Court judgment in the case of Handscomb and others.

Mr. Hurd

As I indicated in reply to a question from the the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) on 29 April, the Divisional Court judgment in the case of Handscomb and others upheld the lawfulness of the policy for the release of life sentence prisoners announced in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on 30 November 1983, at cols. 505–7. One feature of that policy was the change made in the arrangements for fixing the date on the first formal consideration of the case of a life sentence prisoner by the Parole Board machinery. Since 1973 that date had been fixed on the advice of the joint Parole Board/Home Office committee. Under the revised arrangements, however, this review normally takes place three years before the expiry of the time thought necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence and is fixed following consultation with the judiciary on what in their view that time should be. The Divisional Court was critical of two aspects of the way in which that policy has been applied in those cases where a life sentence is awarded at the discretion of the trial judge, that is for offences other than murder (for which the life sentence is mandatory). It concluded that in such cases the consultation with the judiciary on the question of the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence in an individual case should take place as soon as practicable after the imposition of the sentence and should not be delayed for around three to four years as is the case at present; and that, to accord with the stated policy, the first review date in such cases should always be set in accordance with the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence and account should not be taken of other factors in setting that date.

Under the previous arrangements the joint committee gave initial consideration to the timing of the first formal review of a case by the Parole Board machinery after the prisoner had been detained for about three years. Over the years this arrangement had become less and less effective, with the result that the Committee was recommending a date for a first formal review in only about half the cases referred to it. One of the reasons for adopting the new procedure announced in 1983 was that this element of uncertainty in the system was removed. The decision to consult the judiciary about the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the purpose of fixing the date of the first formal review of a case at the same point at the joint committee had begun its consideration of cases under the previous arrangements was taken with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. But on reflection I accept the conclusion of the Divisional Court that there are strong arguments for carrying out this consultation exercise as soon as practicable following the imposition of a discretionary life sentence.

Following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice it has been agreed that the most satisfactory way of obtaining the judicial view is to ask the trial judge to write to me, through him, in every case where a discretionary life sentence is passed giving his view on the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. This view will be related to the determinate sentence that would have been passed but for the element of mental instability and/or public risk which led the judge to pass a life sentence and will also take account of the notional period of the sentence which a prisoner might expect to have been remitted for good behaviour had a determinate sentence been passed. The date of the first formal review by the Parole Board machinery will then be fixed in accordance with the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence; and the review will, as before, normally take place three years before the expiry of that period. I have agreed with the Lord Chief Justice that this new procedure will be introduced with effect from 1 October 1987.

Arrangements have also been made to consult the judiciary about those discretionary life sentence cases where the first formal review has not yet been set, with a view to fixing the date as soon as possible. In addition, I shall arrange for a review to be undertaken of all discretionary life sentence cases with a first formal review date of January 1988 or later. Where account has been taken of factors other than the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence in fixing the date, the date will be adjusted to bring it into line with the judicial view.

Although the issues before the Divisional Court related only to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences, I have decided that the date of the first formal review of the cases of prisoners serving mandatory life sentences should also be fixed as soon as practicable after conviction and sentence. The procedure under which the views of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice about the requirements of retribution and deterrence are obtained will be the same as that proposed for discretionary life sentence cases, and will be introduced at the same time. A similar exercise will also be carried out to fix the first review date in outstanding mandatory life sentence cases where this has not already been done. In view of the large number of cases involved (around 750) this will inevitably take some time.

In cases of prisoners serving life sentences for murder, where the sentence is not at the discretion of the court, the question of the notional equivalent determinate sentence does not arise. I shall continue to take into account the view of the judiciary on the requirements of retribution and deterrence in such cases as a factor amongst others (including the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice) to be weighed in the balance in setting the first review date. I shall ensure that the timing of the first formal review in such cases is fixed in accordance with my overall policy for ensuring that the time served by prisoners serving life sentences for the worst offences of violence fully reflects public concern about violent crime.

As indicated in the November 1983 statement, the setting of the first review date under these arrangements will enable a life sentence prisoner to be released with three years of that date if the parole board so recommends, subject to the policy announced in reply to a question by the then right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) on 1 March 1985 that no life sentence prisoner will he detained for more than 17 years without a formal review of his case even where the period thought necesary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence exceeds 20 years. Ministers will continue to review every case where a life sentence prisoner has been detained for 10 years. However, as was made clear by the Divisional court, the release of a life sentence prisoner is solely at my discretion and it is for me to decide, after receiving the Parole Board's recommendation and after consulting the judiciary as required by section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, when actual release should take place.