---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am afraid that our position has not changed since we debated this in Committee. Section 282 of the 2003 Act was designed to enable magistrates’ courts, as the noble Lord implied, to give custody plus sentences in respect of these offences. There has never been any intention to increase the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts in this way as a freestanding measure. We have, as noble Lords by now will have gathered, no date for the implementation of custody plus. Let me be frank: it is a question of resources as much as anything else. As I explained, the increased custody limit would not actually result in any longer period of actual prison time under a custody plus sentence. Magistrates’ courts would be able to impose 13 weeks for one offence, which is the same as the three months’ prison time that they can currently give. We have never espoused the principle that the magistrates’ courts should be able to hand down more actual prison time. It would mean more time for supervision under the custody plus measures. If Section 282 were to be implemented without the rest of the custody plus legislation—the noble Lord has made it clear that he thinks that there is merit in it in any event—the magistrates’ courts could give 12 months’ actual prison time for one offence. That would be a very substantial increase—a radical change—and an important alteration in our criminal justice institutions and principles. We do not think this is appropriate or necessary. Even at this late hour, perhaps I may pose a question to the noble Lord. What is the maximum total sentence that he is suggesting the magistrate should be able to pass in all, given that there might be consecutive sentences? If the maximum of each one can be 12 months, where does it end without custody plus? The magistrates’ courts are lay courts, which do a wonderful job. They represent the community, but it has never been their role to deal with the most serious and dangerous offenders, who may require long custodial sentences. On a previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, argued that it is logical for magistrates’ courts to have increased powers in respect of triable either-way offences, as against summary-only offences. We do not agree. The logical position is that magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court have their own areas of expertise, relating to the seriousness of the offending. The point about offences triable either way is that they can span a range of seriousness. At the lower end they are absolutely suitable for magistrates’ courts to deal with and more serious cases are suitable for the Crown Court to deal with. Anyone who has practised in the criminal courts knows that magistrates’ courts can and do send cases to the Crown Court for sentence if they think that the case is sufficiently serious and falls outside their sentencing powers. We do not believe that it can be argued that the proposed amendment is necessary to ensure that offenders receive their just deserts. As I assured noble Lords in Committee, Clause 53 will ensure that the power to direct is available undiminished under Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act when it is implemented. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.