Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 5: 5: Clause 28, page 20, line 9, at end insert ““subject to the agreement of a Crown Court judge”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 to 10. Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 refer to what is now Clause 28, which must be one of the most opaque clauses in the Bill and, when the Bill becomes law, it will become one the most opaque sections on the statute book. It deals with three distinct classes of offenders. The first group concerns offenders serving a determinate sentence for offences that are neither violent nor of a sexual nature. The second group concerns those who have received determinate sentences where they are serving sentences for crimes of a sexual or violent nature, or have been assessed as unsuitable for automatic re-release because they present a risk of serious harm. The third and final category covers those offenders who have committed sexual or violent offences and who are serving extended sentences. In the case of the first category of offenders, if they have been assessed as not presenting any risk of harm to the public and are recalled, the Bill stipulates that they will be in prison for a fixed period of 28 days, at which time they will automatically be re-released. Clause 28 gives the Government power by statutory instrument to alter the figure of 28 days. Two of our amendments seek to remove the power that is available to the Government in the Bill. In the case of the two other categories of prisoner to which I have referred, the Bill gives the Secretary of State and, in certain circumstances, the Parole Board the power to take decisions about the prisoner’s release. Other amendments in our group affecting Clause 28—Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8—seek to insert an extra decision-maker in decisions about release; a Crown Court judge. We believe that it is wrong that decisions about the fate of such prisoners should lie solely in the hands of the Executive. We believe that someone who is properly qualified, outside the Executive, should also play a part in the decision-making process. That is why we propose to add to the Bill, "““subject to the agreement of a Crown Court judge””." There is one other amendment in the group, Amendment No. 10; it refers to Clause 30. It concerns the recall of those offenders who have received a life sentence but who are now out on licence. Once again, the Bill gives the discretion to recall those former prisoners to the Secretary of State and, in certain circumstances, to the Parole Board. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal suggested that the Parole Board, at least in certain circumstances, is not independent of the Secretary of State. Once again, we believe that another party should be involved in decisions about those who have received a life sentence but who are now out on licence. In this case, our amendment inserts a reference to the Lord Chief Justice. The background to these amendments was very fully debated in Committee and I do not propose to say anything further in support of them. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c257-8 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Data protection Criminal proceedings Administration of justice Crimes against the person Deportation Court of Appeal Criminal Cases Review Commission Migrants NHS Northern Ireland Prisons Pornography Prisoners' release Sentencing Sexual offences Young offenders Wales Strikes
Legislation
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk