Proceeding contribution from Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate but it has been so important that I felt that I really had to. Some noble Lords may know that I sit as a magistrate so it is with some trepidation that I follow the noble and learned Lord. I sit as a very junior magistrate in central London and I sit on a probation liaison committee. That committee is of huge importance, both to me personally and to all my colleagues. Of course, we become aware of the sentencing options. It is a training event that happens regularly—it happens every Thursday as well as more substantial training events—and I and my colleagues regard it as extremely helpful to be brought up to date on a continuous basis with all the community sentence courses that are available. I very much support the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. It is of huge importance. It is particularly important that it is on a statutory basis because that will recognise the importance of that work in giving magistrates confidence in the community sentences so they can go ahead and issue them. That is an absolutely central point, about which I can talk from my own experience. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about programmes sometimes being too long to fit in with the length of the community sentence. I have come across this issue several times. One needs to have a real faith and trust in the probation reports that one is given in order to come up, if you like, with the minimum time realistically to achieve the elements within those sentences. Again, that comes down to a question of professional trust between the different elements in any court. Even though I agree with the general views on minimum sentences, I am rather less enthusiastic about the noble Baroness’s second amendment which concerns them. In my experience, some 90 to 95 per cent of the short-term sentences that I have given have been for people who have broken their community orders. I understand that that is not an attractive argument but that is the reality of my sentencing experience here in London. Of course we constantly look at the alternatives. No one wants to give short-term custodial sentences. I understand that they are very often ineffective, but the reality is that very often the people to whom one gives those sentences have already failed on their community orders.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 735 c164-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Abuse Curfews Alcoholic drinks Bail Alternatives to prison Debt collection Women Domestic abuse Harassment Discrimination Offenders Mothers Rehabilitation Sentencing Young people Young offenders Sexuality Testing Stalking Community orders Youth offending teams Transgender people
- Legislation
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:01:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808009
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808009
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808009