Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Committee

17:05:00

Clause 1Amendment of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert— “(e) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection; (f) a sentence of detention for public protection;(g) an extended sentence of imprisonment;(h) an extended sentence of detention;”

Lord DholakiaMy Lords, this amendment is designed to exempt sentences of imprisonment for public protection and extended sentences from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and to ensure that certain sentences will continue to be exempt.

The first type of sentence covered by the amendment is a sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection. These are indeterminate sentences passed on offenders who have committed serious violent or sexual offences where the court considers that the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public. The second type of sentence covered by the amendment is an extended sentence of imprisonment or of detention. These sentences are imposed in other cases where the court considers that the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to the public. These sentences consist of the appropriate custodial term for the offence plus an additional extended period of a length which the court considers necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender.

On 11 December, during the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:

“We made imprisonment for public protection available to the courts to deal with dangerous offenders who are considered to present a significant risk to the public through the commission of further serious offences. Frankly, it would be anomalous to go forward with any reform that took no account of indeterminate sentences whatever. I doubt that anyone would disagree that such sentences should never be regarded as spent”.—[ Official Report , 11/12/09; col. 1305.]

I am proposing this amendment to my own Bill to meet the Minister’s point in full by exempting these sentences from the provisions of the Bill.

I hope it is in order for me to speak now to my Amendment 2; I shall move it formally at the appropriate time. This amendment leaves out the clause of the Bill which would allow a sentencing court to exempt a conviction from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if it considered this necessary to protect the public from serious harm. I originally included this provision in the Bill because the Home Office review group recommended that such a provision should be considered in its report, Breaking the Circle , in 2002. The Government accepted the proposal in its response to the report in April 2003. However, the provision is now unnecessary as a result of my earlier amendment to exempt sentences of imprisonment for public protection and extended sentences from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. In cases where a court considers that the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm, it will pass one of these sentences and they will not be covered by the Act’s provisions. This makes my proposed new subsection (9A) unnecessary.

Proposed new subsection (9A) was criticised, also at Second Reading, by both my noble friend Lord Goodhart and the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The Minister said:

“One important omission is the need to consider the position of new indeterminate sentences. That was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has strong and definite views on those sentences, but they exist—they are in law. If there were to be such a change, there would have to be some way of dealing with them and we agree with him that Clause 1(9) may not be the most appropriate method”.—[ Official Report , 11/12/09; col. 1304-05.]

I am happy to be persuaded by the arguments of both noble Lords and to delete new subsection 9A. I am persuaded that my earlier amendment is a simpler and less cumbersome way of dealing with cases in which there is a significant risk of serious harm. I beg to move.

Lord RamsbothamI support the amendments, which are entirely sensible for another reason, too; if the Bill is to get through before the election, which I sincerely hope it will, the removal of possibly contentious parts of it will help. The amendments in no way weaken the rehabilitation programme for the offences, with which no one can argue. As they are sensible, they deserve the support of the whole Committee.

Lord TunnicliffeMy Lords, as we said at Second Reading, we acknowledge that the Bill reflects the Government’s thinking as set out in 2003. However, we are not convinced that it necessarily represents the best way forward for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in a very changed landscape. Since 2003, there has been comprehensive reform of the adult and youth sentencing frameworks, as well as a new scheme for vetting and barring people who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults.

In reforming the Act, there is always a delicate balance to be maintained between the resettlement of offenders and public protection. The Government take the view that they need to take a fresh look at the Act in the round, and that this should be informed by full public consultation.

We have no objections to the amendments. It clearly makes sense to exclude imprisonment for public protection, and indeterminate sentences where release is determined by the risk presented by the offender, from the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. There is also a strong case for excluding extended sentences from the scope of the Act. On a technical point, the drafting would normally include a reference to the defining legislation for each sentence, and there should be a reference to the corresponding court martial punishments in the Armed Forces legislation.

I, too, will speak to both amendments, with the leave of the House. In 2003, we were minded to consider a provision such as the one in subsection (9) whereby a court would disapply the Act in specific cases where it considered that the offender posed a serious risk to the public. However, further reflection suggests that such a mechanism would be likely to be cumbersome and expensive. In addition, the availability of public protection sentences for dangerous offenders probably negates the need for the courts to have such a power. We therefore consider it sensible to delete subsection (9).

However, the Government retain their general reservations about the Bill. We will neither support nor oppose it, as is usually the case, but we do consider that a thorough new review of the Act and its current context will be necessary before we can consider any reforming legislation.

Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the arguments that he advanced at Second Reading. That is nothing new, but I am delighted that he sees nothing wrong with my amendments.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (9)

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Clause 2 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 5.16 pm.