---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2: 2: After Clause 11, line 11, leave out ““156(3)(a)”” and insert ““156(3)”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. He will recall that, in Committee, widespread concern was expressed by many noble Lords about the absence of an obligation on a court to require a written report before a custodial sentence was passed. I would like to think that it was that strength of opinion that has led the Government to come forward with the amendment now before your Lordships. I am extremely grateful to the Government for responding in this manner. I do not think that the Government have gone quite far enough, which explains my amendment to their amendment. I would require written reports in all circumstances, whether the likely sentence was going to be custodial or some form of community sentence. It seems to me that particular care should be taken in respect of offenders aged under 18. I do not see why as much care should be taken in relation to those who are going to receive a community order of one sort or another as a custodial sentence; but I readily admit that our prime concern is with custodial sentences. I was extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bach, for listening to my more technical preoccupations with their amendment. What exactly is meant by the expression, "““a pre-sentence report which is required to be obtained and considered before the court forms an opinion””," mentioned in Section 156(3)(a)? It is quite clear that under that section a court must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion as to whether, under Section 152(2), the custodial threshold had been reached. The difficulty is that a judge will not reach a conclusion on whether the custodial threshold has been reached until he has read the pre-sentence report. This means that the judge will have to take a view immediately after a defendant is convicted about whether there is the slightest chance that, following receipt of a report, he will pass a custodial sentence. My understanding of what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said to the House is that it must be clear that if there is the slightest possibility that a custodial sentence might ensue—only the judge will know that—he must require the report to come to him in writing. In a sense, this amendment is saying that whether or not it is in writing is entirely up to the judge: at the end of the day, it is his subjective judgment to determine whether the report is required to be in writing or whether it can be an oral report. As long as that is clearly understood by the judiciary, for my part and the Opposition’s part, I am content with the amendment. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Bach, nodding, which gives me some hope that I shall get my way on this. Let me put it another way, if there is the slightest chance that a custodial sentence is to be passed, and if there is no report in writing, there must be a serious chance that the process will be in some way or other quashed by a higher court. It is very important that Parliament is clear about what it is doing before it does it.