Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsWednesday 15th May 2024
(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2023-24 View all Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I promise not to detain the Committee for much longer, but I want to lend my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for introducing the Bill.
As my hon. Friend set out, the Bill extends the availability of remote hearings in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants in claims for breach of the terms of certain antisocial injunctions or certain family orders. The second is for a failure to pay either council tax or business rates. Those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite, whereas at present they must be heard in person. The decision to hold a remote hearing will be set at the discretion of the judge after considering the representations of all parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.
Hon. Members will be reassured that despite the new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise and charging decisions are independent of the availability of the court. The changes will establish important safeguards for the public and give magistrates, county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. That will enhance public safety.
Remote hearings mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect the victims of domestic abuse, can be quickly and efficiently dealt with. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest and the lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example at the weekend, would result in their release back into the general population. That is something we are trying to avoid.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for introducing this important Bill, and I can confirm the Government’s support for it. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock for his support and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Bridgwater and West Somerset for their questions. I thank all hon. Members for their attendance this morning. This modest Bill provides remote hearings only when necessary and adds to the flexibility of the ways the courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system.
Andy Carter
May I conclude by thanking the Minister for his comments and for the support of the Government? He is absolutely correct in what he says: this short Bill will broaden the situations in which defendants can join court proceedings via audio or video link.
The Bill will specifically mean that breaches of non-molestation orders, occupation orders, antisocial behaviour injunctions and gang-related violence or drug-dealing injunctions can be heard remotely. That is particularly helpful for situations where someone is arrested and held at a time when a court is not sitting, such as a Sunday or a public holiday, when the clock is running down and individuals can only be held for 24 hours. It will also mean that secondary legislation can require that where someone has defaulted on an order to pay either their council tax or business rates, they can join a hearing remotely regarding their non-payment.
I conclude by saying that I am extremely grateful to all colleagues for attending this sitting and for the cross-party support that I have received. As the Minister said, we can now get on and make our courts more efficient.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Justice
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown
The introduction of tribunal fees previously led to a 54% drop in the number of cases going forward, and the scheme was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, so it beggars belief that the Government are looking at reintroducing tribunal fees, and giving a green light to bad employers to exploit workers, who will be deterred from coming forward. What does the Minister say to the 50 organisations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Liberty, that are calling on the Government to reconsider the reintroduction of tribunal fees?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of these issues were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
[Official Report, 14 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 119.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon):
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of the issues regarding employment tribunal panel composition were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
The employment tribunal panel composition arrangements are now a responsibility of the Senior President of Tribunals, and I understand that he intends to publish the responses to the consultation on proposed reforms shortly. He has a statutory duty to consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor before making these arrangements, and my noble and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice will be meeting the Senior President of Tribunals—I think tomorrow—to discuss his proposals as part of that duty.
Alan Brown
The introduction of tribunal fees previously led to a 54% drop in the number of cases going forward, and the scheme was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, so it beggars belief that the Government are looking at reintroducing tribunal fees, and giving a green light to bad employers to exploit workers, who will be deterred from coming forward. What does the Minister say to the 50 organisations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Liberty, that are calling on the Government to reconsider the reintroduction of tribunal fees?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of these issues were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The wheels of justice certainly turn slowly under this Government, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are paying the price in the Crown courts, the civil courts, the family courts and tribunals. At the end of 2023, the employment tribunal backlog stood at more than 460,000 cases. Those are cases affecting workers who have been bullied, workers who have been denied pay and workers who have been unfairly dismissed. Does the Minister think that workers, like the Government, should just give up on the justice system, roll over and accept what employers do to them, or is there a new magic formula to sort this out?
Gareth Bacon
The one thing the hon. Gentleman did not of course mention was the impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, and indeed on the employment tribunal system. [Hon. Members: “Oh, come on!”] Opposition Front Benchers do not like hearing it, but they cannot deny the impact of shutting down the system, in effect, for two years. We have massively increased the resources available and we are working through the backlog, but that will take time.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a similar point, in a cost of living crisis, workers are now expected to pay to take their employer to an employment tribunal in cases of wage theft, unpaid redundancy pay and compensation for unfair dismissal. Quite frankly, it is outrageous that this is being levied at a time of intense pressure on family budgets. Do the Government not agree that access to justice must never be contingent on one’s ability to pay, and that these proposed changes ought to be scrapped to promote greater fairness in the system?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We have introduced a regional virtual court to safeguard access to justice, and we will always make that available as far as it is possible to do so. As I say, we are working through the backlog at pace.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Ministry of Justice reoffending statistics show that those serving a sentence of six months or less have a 59% reoffending rate. For offenders punished with suspended sentences or community orders, the reoffending rate is 24%. The Department’s 2019 analysis of a matched cohort of over 30,000 offenders showed lower reoffending rates for those serving sentences in the community when compared with immediate custody of less than 12 months, avoiding tens of thousands of potential crimes.
Richard Graham
I agree with the Bishop of Gloucester that community payback schemes are often far more appropriate than short-term custodial sentences, particularly for women prisoners. If my hon. Friend agrees with that, does he also agree that we could expand the range of community payback activity to include, for example, helping at good local charities such as the Nelson Trust and the Family Haven, and, especially during this summer season of litter picking across the country, keeping Britain tidy?
Gareth Bacon
I thank my hon. Friend for that sensible question. I agree that community payback offers offenders an opportunity to make visible reparations to their local communities, with millions of hours being delivered each year. As an example, this March, for the great British spring clean, offenders spent thousands of hours clearing litter across the country. We are trialling a new way to deliver community payback through the rapid deployment pilot, which was launched last year. Community payback teams are working in partnership with local authorities to see incidents cleaned up within 48 hours’ notice, and we are now expanding that to all 12 probation regions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Restorative justice in Northern Ireland has been an effective method of ensuring that victims and perpetrators can at least come together and perhaps try to find a solution. It is also a way of ensuring lesser sentences. Has the Minister been able to look at the community restorative justice that we have done in Northern Ireland to ensure that those on the mainland who offend can have a new life as well?
Gareth Bacon
I personally have not, but I gather that Minister of Justice officials are abreast of that. I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman to hear more about that from him personally.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Juries are a vital part of our criminal justice system, and jury service is an important civic duty. We want to do everything we can to help jurors feel supported as they undertake that important role, which is why the Government have announced our intention to test counselling sessions for jurors who suffer mental and emotional strain following a trial. That pilot will commence in 15 courts this summer.
Sarah Dyke
Currently, jurors dealing with extremely violent crimes, witnessing ever-increasingly sophisticated and graphic material, often feel that they do not have sufficient aftercare to deal with their experiences. They are advised to seek counselling only with their GP or the Samaritans. What discussions has the Minister had on increasing the amount of post-trial support for jurors when they have faced potentially traumatic levels of stress as a result of their experience?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is extremely relevant. As she can imagine, there have been extensive discussions between the Department and the judiciary about this. The senior presiding judge has approved the test sites for the pilot that I have just discussed. Support of the type that we are providing in the pilot has not been provided before, so the pilot itself will inform an essential part of the judgment we make on whether and how we can carry on.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that officials have reviewed and considered ICROs, which involve the use of electronic monitoring, curfew arrangements and rehabilitative requirements targeted towards offenders who would otherwise be in custody. In June last year, we began a pilot of a scheme similar to the one he proposes, involving intense supervision courts, which divert offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences and provide them with wrap-around, multi-agency support to target the root causes of their offending behaviour.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Gareth Bacon
In response to the Wade review, we have increased sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour, that involve overkill or that are connected with the end of a relationship. We have also consulted publicly on sentencing starting points for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour and for murders committed with a knife or other weapon. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the consultation and will publish their response in due course.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. For context, part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a new civil domestic abuse protection notice, or DAPN, to provide immediate protection following a domestic abuse incident, and a new civil domestic abuse protection order, or DAPO, to provide flexible longer-term protection for victims.
In summary, the difference between DAPNs and DAPOs is as follows. DAPNs are police-issued notices to provide victims with immediate protection following an incident. A DAPN can require the perpetrator not to contact or come within a specified distance of the victim. If the police issue a DAPN, they must then apply for a DAPO in the magistrates court, and this application must be heard by the court within 48 hours of the DAPN being issued. DAPOs are a new civil order available in all courts: magistrates courts, Crown court, family court and county court. They can be sought by a variety of parties and have a flexible duration to provide longer-term protection to the victim when necessary and proportionate. The DAPO can place firmer conditions on the perpetrators than other currently available protection orders such as electronic monitoring, and impose requirements such as mandating attendance on a behaviour change or substance misuse programme. Breach of a DAPO is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison.
Appeals against a DAPO would have to be made to the appropriate court. That would mean that where a DAPO was made in the magistrates court, the appeal must then be heard in the Crown court; where the DAPO was made in a Crown court, the appeal must be heard in the Court of Appeal. Appeals against decisions made by other courts, such as the family court, county court or the High Court, would be heard in accordance with section 46 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
This year, the Government will launch a pilot for an anticipated two years for DAPNs and DAPOs. To ensure that those protected by and subject to the DAPO are able to access legal aid, subject to means and merits tests, this statutory instrument will expand civil legal aid services in England and Wales by making civil legal aid for advocacy available in magistrates courts’ proceedings for DAPOs and in the Crown court on any related appeal.
The provisions in this statutory instrument complement the provisions in SI 2023/150 of 7 February 2023, which brought both DAPOs and DAPNs into the scope of legal aid. SI 2023/150 also increased the flexibility with which medical professionals can provide supporting evidence to victims of domestic abuse. Medical professionals are now able to provide supporting evidence for a legal aid application following a telephone or video conferencing consultation, rather than only after a face-to-face consultation. The intention of the legal aid scheme, as set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO, is to provide legal aid to those most in need. We believe that this SI, together with SI 2023/150, will help to meet that objective for DAPNs and DAPOs.
Before turning to the amendments in this instrument, I will briefly set out how the civil legal aid scheme works. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within part 1 of schedule 1 of LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test—a check on their financial eligibility—and a merits test, which is a check to ensure that the taxpayer is not funding entirely unmeritorious claims.
I will now turn to the changes covered by the order before us today, which is relatively short. This statutory instrument will made advocacy—for those persons who are protected by a DAPO, or for those who are subject or potentially subject to a DAPO—under civil legal aid available in the magistrates courts. This form of civil legal aid will apply in DAPO cases where the application for the DAPO is made by the police in the magistrates courts, and it will extend to appeals in the Crown court and to applications to vary or discharge the DAPO in these courts. As I indicated in my introduction, this order complements the changes made by SI 2023/150 of 7 February 2023, and ensures that we meet the policy objective of making legal aid available, subject to tests, for DAPNs and DAPOs across civil, family and criminal courts.
To conclude, the draft instrument before us expands the civil legal aid services available in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs to ensure legal aid continues to be available to those most in need, thus ensuring that the DAPO pilot is fully implemented from a legal aid perspective, and that the original policy intention of LASPO is maintained.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the measures in this SI. The means test that I mentioned earlier is to ensure that the legal aid that we provide goes to the people who need it the most. Every case will have to be subject to it, which is why not everybody will get legal aid in every circumstance.
We are keeping things under review. We have increased legal aid fees, and we are encouraging more providers to undertake the work that is required. The reason we are doing a pilot, rather than rolling out the measure nationally, is to make sure that we have set the fees at the right level so that they attract the right level of interest from firms to provide the work that is needed. We are going to keep that under review. The reason for doing a pilot is to assess that. If the pilot does not deliver the desired outcome, we will seek to review that. With that, I commend the SI to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Life Sentences: Public Understanding
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing a debate on this important subject. I commend him on his excellent work supporting victims, bringing these important issues to the attention of parliamentarians, and campaigning for sentencing changes. I completely agree that sentencing fitting the crime and improving public understanding is vital to public confidence in the justice system. As he mentioned, he is an active and engaged member of the Justice Committee, whose vital report, “Public opinion and understanding of sentencing”, I will refer to later in my speech.
A life sentence is the most severe punishment that our courts can impose. It is vital that the public have confidence in sentencing, and are able to understand the circumstances in which sentences are given and how they operate in practice. Our efforts to ensure that the justice system is open and transparent are embedded in the working cultures, procedures and practices of our courts and tribunals; consequently, such considerations will always form part of the ambitions for reforming the justice system.
The availability of judgments and the accessibility of sentencing remarks, including those given in life sentence cases, are key components of the principle of open justice, helping to build understanding and confidence in sentencing. The Sentencing Act 2020 puts a duty on the courts to explain how they have determined the sentence and what the sentence means for the offender.
My hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of the sentencing framework, but it may be helpful if I set out some information on life sentences. Life sentences, which apply to a range of offences, usually have a minimum term, which is set by the court, as my hon. Friend said. This period must be served in prison in full before the offender can be considered for release, at the discretion of the Parole Board. The minimum term is for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. It is essential that sentences for the gravest offence—murder—and other offences sufficiently serious to attract a life sentence have a minimum term that punishes the convicted offender and acts as a deterrent to others.
Mandatory life sentences must be imposed on anyone convicted of murder. Schedule 21 to the sentencing code contains the statutory framework for setting the minimum term. The schedule includes starting points depending on the circumstances surrounding the murder and non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. For adult offenders, those range from 15 years right the way through to a whole-life order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. Many offenders on life sentences remain in prison beyond their minimum term, and some may never be released. If they are released, they will, as my hon. Friend said, remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time if they breach any of the conditions of their licence.
We have delivered and continue to deliver several initiatives aimed at strengthening public understanding of sentences, some of which we set out in January in response to the insightful report produced by the Justice Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member. Our response described a wide range of actions that we have taken. I want to focus on a few specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised today, especially the terminology in sentencing and the points he raised about the murder of a child.
Sentencing terminology is at the heart of today’s debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that this terminology should always be accessible and comprehensible to the public. On terminology used for life sentences in particular, the Government recognise the concerns raised by my hon. Friend around understanding how life sentences work and the phrase “jailed for life”. We acknowledge his concern around the lack of understanding that the minimum tariff set by the judge represents the punishment part of the sentence, and the decision from the Parole Board concerns only the public protection element after the minimum tariff is served. It is not an avenue for early release, as some consider it to be; however, I accept that it can be misunderstood by the general public.
We have also noted that the Justice Committee’s report highlights the Sentencing Academy’s work to review the terminology of sentencing, which is an important piece of work that could contribute to broader initiatives or proposals in this domain. The Government, like the Justice Committee, await its findings, and will review them with great care.
Most important, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, given his speech, is the question of how we can support victims in understanding this terminology. Under the victims code, victims, including bereaved families, are entitled to be told the sentence the offender received, including a short explanation of the meaning and effect of the sentence by the witness care unit, which is a police-led function. If they have any questions about the sentence that the witness care unit is unable to answer, the victim will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will answer their questions for them.
To ensure that agencies know what is expected of them, the Victims and Prisoners Bill places a statutory duty on the relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims code, unless there is good reason not to. It introduces a compliance framework by placing a new duty on criminal justice bodies to collect and share code compliance information with police and crime commissioners. We will hold a full public consultation on the code once the Bill receives Royal Assent, which I hope shows how seriously we treat today’s topic.
It is important that we turn for a few moments to the role of the Parole Board, which determines whether to release offenders eligible for automatic release by deciding whether it is necessary for the prisoner to remain confined. The Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is currently before Parliament, introduces a range of reforms to the parole process that are designed to help to protect the public and to bolster public confidence in the system. Through the Bill, we will codify the release test, making clear that minimising risk and protecting the public are the sole considerations for release.
The Bill introduces a new power to allow Ministers to direct a second check by independent courts in cases where the board has directed the release of one of the most serious offenders, which would, of course, include those convicted of murder. We hope that this measure will reassure the public that the process is as rigorous as possible, and that there is an extra safeguard in the release process for the most serious offenders.
In recent years, the Government have introduced several policies to improve the openness, transparency and public understanding of the parole process. In 2018, we introduced decision summaries, which enable the Parole Board to provide victims and others with an explanation of the reasons for its decisions. In 2019, we introduced the reconsideration mechanism, which provided a way to challenge a parole decision if it appears legally or procedurally flawed. Finally, in 2022 we amended the Parole Board rules to enable parole hearings to be heard in public, if it is in the interests of justice to do so. There have been four such hearings to date.
I now move on to my hon. Friend’s points about child murder. I want to acknowledge that all murders are terrible acts, but those where the victim is a child are particularly so. The murder of those most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for the loved ones left behind. I understand entirely why society feels it necessary to ensure that those responsible for these terrible crimes are properly punished.
As my hon. Friend set out, under section 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 the starting point for the murder of a child involving sexual or sadistic motivation, or their abduction, is normally a whole-life order. There may then be aggravating factors that could result in an increase to the minimum term due to the victim being a child. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern that a requirement for premeditation is too high a threshold for imposing a whole-life order, but I contend that it is right that we set a high threshold in legislation for the imposition of such an order, which is the most severe punishment that our courts can impose.
In this way, the requirement for premeditation is on a par with the other circumstances that govern when the murder of a child would normally attract a whole-life- order starting point—namely, the murder of a child if the abduction of the child is involved, or sexual or sadistic motivation. All cases of child murder are rightly punished severely by the courts, and all those who are convicted and given minimum custodial terms face long prison sentences, possibly with no prospect of Parole Board release.
Dr Mullan
I recognise what the Minister says, but if he cannot express an opinion from the Government on whether the situation should change, that does leave a yawning gap. The cases that most upset the public can be when a parent kills their own child, and the circumstances are very often without premeditation. When the public have heard us wanting to deliver a promise on child murder and see these cases reported without the whole-life order being applied, does he think that will lead to further frustration, even if he thinks it is justified frustration?
Gareth Bacon
I am a father, and I read some of the cases of child murder with the same level of horror that my hon. Friend does. I have to say that if my child had been brutally murdered in that way, I would expect and hope for a whole-life order.
However, the point that has to land in the Chamber today is that judgments are made, particularly in the press and in the general public, that are not based on full knowledge of the facts presented to the court. That is why we are trying to educate the public on how and why sentences are being given in the way they are. It is not possible to do that in every case, but it must be done based on the facts presented to the court for the jury to find the defendant guilty.
The Government have also increased the powers available to the courts by raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty. As I mentioned earlier, I just want to reiterate that there is no early release for those who commit child murder and are given a life sentence. The minimum term must be served in prison in full before the offender can be considered for release at the discretion of the Parole Board.
In the time that I have remaining, I want to touch quickly on my hon. Friend’s point about concurrent sentences. Judges will generally impose concurrent sentences where there are multiple offences arising from the same incident, or where there is a series of offences committed of the same or similar kind, especially against the same person. Consecutive sentences are generally imposed where the offences arise out of unrelated-factor incidents, even if they are part of a wider pattern of behaviour.
As I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, however, sentencing is a matter for our independent courts. Parliament has provided them with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. Courts also have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Although sentencing is a matter for independent judges, the Government have committed to locking up the most dangerous criminals away for longer—to protect the public and deliver the justice the public expects. Since 2010, average sentence lengths have increased by 49% to the year ending June 2023. We have introduced tougher punishments for the worst offenders, including extending whole-life orders to premeditated child murders and ending the automatic halfway release for serious crimes, which my hon. Friend acknowledged in his speech.
We are going further still, and the Sentencing Bill will ensure that rapists and serious sexual offenders serve their full custodial term in prison. As acknowledged by my hon. Friend, in the Sentencing Bill we are also adding murder with sexual or sadistic conduct to the list of those offences that will become the subject of a new duty to impose a whole-life order, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, to my hon. Friend for securing it and to others for attending—although I think they may be here for the next debate. I found the debate very valuable in my consideration of the issues at hand, and I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend and those in attendance, at least to an extent, that I and the Government continue to take these issues into account as we strive to improve the criminal justice system.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Reducing reoffending is a core mission of this Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said in an earlier answer, we act on the basis not of emotion but of evidence, deploying a series of carefully researched interventions from the prison employment leads to the provision of 12 weeks of accommodation post release. That is why the reoffending rate has decreased from 31% to 25% since 2010. The Justice Data Lab makes an important contribution by providing HMPPS and external organisations with a robust assessment of whether their interventions work, and we will continue to consider their work carefully.
John Penrose
I welcome the adherence to an evidence-based approach to working out whether or not these various programmes work effectively, but may I urge Ministers to go even further by ensuring that every programme we currently commission is reassessed on the basis of outcomes, and then not recommissioned unless those outcomes measure up?
Gareth Bacon
I can confirm that the Government will continue to base our investment decisions to reduce reoffending on the best available evidence at the time. We are continuously improving our evidence base, for instance through the cross-governmental Better Outcomes through Linked Data programme.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
We are increasing sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by coercive or controlling behaviour, that involve overkill or that are connected with the end of a relationship. For manslaughter involving sexual conduct, we intend to target cases where death occurs in the context of abusive or degrading sexual conduct. We have consulted publicly on sentencing, with starting points for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour and for murders committed with a knife or other weapon.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Baby Loss: Coroners
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work in shining a light on the important but complex and extremely sensitive issue of stillbirth, which, despite the experience and incredible dedication of our medical professionals, continues to touch the lives of too many families.
Bereavement is never easy, but to lose a child through stillbirth is a tragedy. The Government are committed to supporting parents through such a difficult experience and ensuring that they have access to the support they need. More than that, one of our highest priorities is to reduce the number of stillbirths and other adverse maternity outcomes. To help to achieve that, we are committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, lessons are learned and care is improved to prevent avoidable stillbirths in future.
To put that aim into context, the Government set the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternity deaths, and brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth, by 2025. Also by 2025, we want to reduce the pre-term birth rate from 8% to 6%. We are making good progress, but we recognise that more still needs to be done to achieve that ambition. Since 2010, the stillbirth rate has reduced by 23% and the neonatal maternity rate of babies born after 24 weeks’ gestation has reduced by 30%.
Although we can demonstrate clear progress, it is vital that we continue to learn from the tragedy of every stillbirth. Concerns about the consistency and independence of those investigations have given rise to the calls for a more transparent and independent process, for which my hon. Friend continues to advocate so consistently.
The coroner, as an independent judge, investigates deaths for which, among other things, the cause is unknown, so it is easy to understand the proposal that their role should be extended to include the investigation of stillbirths. However, I want to take a moment here to emphasise an important point: at present, coroners do not have jurisdiction to investigate a stillbirth because, sadly, as my hon. Friend said in his speech, where there has not been an independent life, there has not legally been a death. A child born who is showing signs of life has had an independent life, so that child’s death must be investigated if the coroner’s jurisdiction is engaged. When there is doubt about whether a child was born alive, that is a matter for the coroner to determine, and it is open to anyone, including the bereaved family, to report a case to the coroner if they believe there is a need for such an investigation.
In 2016, the Government committed to consult on whether, and if so how, the coronial investigation of stillbirths should be introduced. The commitment was made as part of a fresh maternity safety strategy. Since then, a range of important safety initiatives have been rolled out, including a perinatal mortality review tool, which is now available in every maternity service in the UK. The tool enables trusts to review all stillbirths and neonatal deaths by setting out a set of questions and principles to guide trusts through a standardised review process. The tool’s secondary aim is to ensure local and national learning to improve care and ultimately prevent future baby deaths. Collation and analysis of the data from the tool and the production of annual national reports on the key themes arising from the reviews and recommendations are intended to improve safe maternity care and safe outcomes for babies.
In addition, the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme, established in 2018 and now hosted independently by the Care Quality Commission, provides independent, standardised and family-focused investigations for families, which also provide learning to the health system. Alongside those initiatives, the consultation on coronial investigation was taken forward in 2019, again as my hon. Friend said. We are extremely grateful to everyone who submitted one of the 334 responses to the consultation document, to the 63 people who attended stakeholder workshops and, in particular, to those respondents who shared their personal experience of the pain of stillbirth.
The findings of the consultation were complex, as my hon. Friend said. The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal for coroners to have a role in investigating stillbirths, but many did not agree with the proposals for how that should be implemented. Some were concerned that bereaved parents would not be able to withhold consent to the investigation or any associated post-mortem examination, that the investigation could be distressing and intrusive, that the length of the investigation could delay closure for the bereaved family, that the process might not fulfil the parents’ expectation of finding answers, or that they could feel like they were being blamed.
There were also significant policy and practical concerns, including the potential for duplication, friction and confusion between investigations by the coroner, the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme and the trust or health board, and the potential impact of that on clinicians’ behaviour. There was also a concern that the safety initiatives introduced in 2018 would achieve the same policy objectives as a coronial investigation in any event.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the Minister; I understand the points that he is making and I appreciate his points about the distress that it may cause to parents, and about blame and everything like that. Whether the child was stillborn or lived for a couple of minutes makes no difference to that potential distress. However, in the latter case, the coroner would have the power to investigate, which could cause the same distress to the parents as doing so could the child had been stillborn. Why is there that distinction?
Gareth Bacon
I thank my hon. Friend for his points; I am reflecting the points made in the consultation. His point is well landed, and officials and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) will have noted the case that he has just made.
In addition, there were concerns about the resource impact on the NHS and the locally funded coroner services. Crucially, there would be a significant increase in demand on already stretched paediatric pathology services, with a significant lead-in time to train new resource. Nevertheless, I note the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made in his speech.
In any event, some respondents felt that coroners would not be best placed to identify and disseminate clinical learning points at a regional and national level. Although many acknowledged that coroners could deliver investigations into stillbirths, there was no consensus on precisely how they would do so and some strong opposition to the specific proposals that we put forward.
Given the importance and the sensitivity of the issue, it is imperative that we get the response right. That means carefully considering the issues identified by the consultation and working through the complex questions that they raise. Work to publish a response was paused during the pandemic. Again, as my hon. Friend said, and as I have explained, the landscape of maternity investigations has changed significantly. One of the key questions that we are considering is whether the current maternity safety initiatives are already achieving, or have the potential to achieve, the overarching objective without the need for coroner investigations.
While the Government were developing and publishing their consultation proposals, Parliament passed the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which my hon. Friend introduced. As he has explained, section 4 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the preparation and publication of a report on whether, and if so how, coroners could investigate stillbirths. The Act also provides a power for the Lord Chancellor to make provision for coronial stillbirth investigations through secondary legislation if, following the publication of the report, that is considered appropriate. The fact that those provisions are on the statute book is a testament to my hon. Friend’s commitment to the issue, and I can of course understand his frustration that it has not yet been resolved, which he has eloquently expressed today and on other occasions.
As I have said, we have to get this right. To that end, in December the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care jointly published a factual summary of the responses to the 2019 consultation. I have set out the key findings this afternoon, and the two Departments continue to work through their complex implications.
As an immediate next step, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—he has now joined us—on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care, have told me that they would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to share the latest thinking and discuss possible ways forward on the outstanding issues. I can confirm that by the summer recess, we will make a further statement that sets out the Government’s position on this policy.
To conclude, let me reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to respond to this important debate, as well as my thanks to all others in attendance and to all those who have made some very valuable contributions to this issue along the way.
Question put and agreed to.
British Justice System and International Corruption Cases
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for having secured it. He has been an exemplary advocate on the challenges that corruption poses to the rule of law and freedom of speech.
My right hon. Friend has raised some serious issues. As he will know, investigations are conducted independently of His Majesty’s Government, and we are unable to speculate or comment specifically on any individual allegations. This debate engages issues of fundamental importance to our democracy and values. We must confront the reality that, while our justice system stands as a beacon of fairness and equality for many, the corrosive effects of corruption can undermine justice here and around the world. In acknowledging that challenge, we affirm our commitment to uphold the principles of justice and to ensure that the rule of law remains steadfast. Corruption can threaten our national security and prosperity through a slow erosion of trust in institutions at home and overseas. Development is slowed when poorer nations have their resources drained away, which hampers their ability to mobilise revenue and facilitate growth and investment while undermining wider efforts to reduce poverty.
At its most extreme, corruption can fuel state capture, where private interests trump the public interest as corrupt actors take over the state institutions and decision-making processes to serve their own agendas. While instances of corruption may be isolated, their impact reverberates far beyond the confines of individual cases, undermining public trust and confidence in the legal system as a whole.
The British justice system has in recent years seen the rise of strategic litigation against public participation, which has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and civic engagement, deterring individuals and organisations from exercising their right to free speech for fear of legal reprisal. We know that free speech is critical in the fight against corruption, for it enables truth telling where corrupt actors rely on precisely the opposite. The climate of fear and self-censorship that SLAPPs create leads to stifled public debate, undermining the robust exchange that we hold as essential.
Fortunately, we can point to progress in countering SLAPPs in this jurisdiction. We were the first jurisdiction to legislate at the national level to combat SLAPPs relating to economic crime in last year’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. Work is also under way to ensure that new procedural rules are designed to give the legislation effect, such that SLAPPs defendants have a fair fight when confronted with abusive threats or proceedings.
Just last week, the Government were proud to announce their support for a private Member’s Bill on SLAPPs introduced by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), whom I congratulate on his commitment to challenging abusive litigation that undermines British justice. The Bill follows the approach set out in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which as hon. Members know, introduces new defining characteristics in statute to empower judges tasked with identifying these cases, an early dismissal mechanism that cuts short cases with improper purposes at their heart, and a costs protection regime that will provide defendants with clarity around the costs risk they are exposed to when responding to SLAPP threats. The Bill passed its Second Reading, which is an essential step in legislating comprehensively against SLAPPs, no matter their subject matter or the cause of action in question.
I am pleased to note the support that we have received from stakeholders across media, law, civil society and both Houses of Parliament. It is a credit to our country that so many are prepared to come together to tackle this issue across the political spectrum. However, combating corruption and preserving access to justice requires more than just legislative solutions. It demands a cultural shift that places ethics and integrity at the forefront of our justice system.
We are fortunate in this country to have independent regulators that uphold the highest professional standards. The Solicitors Regulation Authority took swift action by launching a thematic review of SLAPP activity and published a warning notice early on when the issue came to light. That encouraged renewed engagement, with guidance on aggressive correspondence and the notorious letters often issued at the start of SLAPP claims: those marked “confidential” or “without prejudice”. Such labels are designed to intimidate people who may not have immediate access to legal advice, such that they withdraw from intended publications.
We are working together across Government to champion a co-ordinated approach to SLAPPs. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport leads the SLAPPs taskforce, which brings together actors in the media freedom space to propose non-legislative measures to stamp out SLAPPs. The taskforce is making progress across workstreams that seek to raise awareness and develop regulatory responses on the issue, benefiting from the depth of expertise among the media and law professionals taking part.
Aside from abusive lawsuits, let me address the Government efforts to combat corruption in the broadest sense. It is an undoubted benefit that the UK is an open economy with one of the world’s major financial centres in the City of London. That means that we need strong defences to prevent bribery and corruption here and abroad. The Government took decisive action on bribery by modernising UK criminal law through the Bribery Act reforms in 2010. That legislation set the international gold standard for anti-bribery and corruption laws, and was found to be an “exemplary piece of legislation” by the other place following post-legislative scrutiny.
In the past fortnight, the Serious Fraud Office has brought charges against two individuals for alleged bribery in the oil and gas sector in the middle east. The charges build on a number of critical enforcement milestones that have been met in recent years, including our largest ever financial penalties for bribery following the conviction of Glencore, which was ordered to pay £280 million in 2022.
I am proud of all that is being done to keep corruption at bay. Whether through action against illicit finance or legislation that protects public participation in the public interest, we must continue this work together to ensure that corruption finds no home in our jurisdiction.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Measures in the Sentencing Bill will ensure that those who commit the worst crimes will receive the most severe punishment. The Bill creates a duty for the court to impose a whole life order for murders currently subject to a whole life order starting point and for those that involve sexual or sadistic conduct, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Bill will also ensure that convicted rapists must serve 100% of their custodial term in prison, followed by a licence period.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome those measures. The two worst cases I have had to deal with as an MP was where women were brutally murdered by a partner or ex-partner. What are the Government going to do in response to the Clare Wade review to increase sentences for people who commit those awful, vile offences?
Gareth Bacon
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of domestic homicide. We are determined to act to protect the victims of domestic abuse and ensure that the appropriate punishments are in place for perpetrators. That is why, following Clare Wade KC’s review, we are increasing sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour, involve overkill, or are connected with the end of a relationship.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that wider society’s confidence in the judicial system is often determined by how dangerous offenders are treated? Does he agree that it is vital that we get the message out there, both to wider society and to potential offenders, that there is the ultimate price to pay, which is a long sentence in prison for criminal offences such as these?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I agree with those sentiments entirely.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
Although the Ministry of Justice collates statistics nationally on the principal criminal offence for which a perpetrator is prosecuted, convicted or sentenced, including data on their ethnicity, it does not collate data on whether the crime that they committed was part of joint enterprise, so unfortunately I am unable to provide the information that the hon. Lady requests. However, we are considering whether such data could be collected as part of the common platform programme, which aims to provide a single case management system that would enable the sharing of such evidence and case information across the criminal justice system.
Kim Johnson
I welcome that response, but the Minister will know that Manchester Metropolitan University has recently carried out some research into the cost of prosecuting under joint enterprise. Some £250 million is spent processing joint enterprises cases, and an extra £1.2 billion is spent incarcerating the just over 1,000 people who are convicted. Those are eye-watering amounts of money, so does the Minister agree that we need to review the doctrine of joint enterprise to ensure that only those who are responsible for significant contribution to a crime are punished for it?
Gareth Bacon
There is a cost to justice. People who are found guilty of crime based on the evidence presented to a court of law have been sentenced, and there is a cost to their incarceration. Simply put, the cost of incarcerating people is not a reason to review the law.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsFriday 2nd February 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill 2023-24 View all Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for introducing the Bill. I know the issue is of significant interest to her and indeed to other Members of the House. However, I must say at the outset that the Government are unable to support the Bill in its current form.
I will explain our reasons for that later in my speech, but let me begin by saying that the Government understand and recognise the importance of the law of joint enterprise and the consequences that result from convictions for such crimes. We recognise that they can be extremely difficult for defendants and their families to accept, but equally the impact of any crime is devastating for the victim and their family, particularly when the crime is murder. For any Government, there is a need to ensure that any perpetrator who commits a crime, or aids, abets, encourages or assists in one, is brought to justice. Victims and their families especially have an expectation that all those involved in that crime, particularly a crime as serious as murder, will be prosecuted.
We have heard powerful and sincere speeches from both sides of the House, and I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). For the benefit of the House, I will give further explanation of the law on joint enterprise and how it works in practice, and then I will outline why the Government are not supportive of the Bill today.
We have all read the headlines about joint enterprise cases—the individuals who are charged and convicted of crimes, despite stating that they did not commit them or were not there when the crime occurred. However, more often than not, those headlines reduce to a few sentences extremely complex cases involving a significant body of evidence that needs to be considered in detail in order to truly understand what happened. That is rightly the job of the independent courts.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, joint enterprise is a complex area of law. It is a common-law doctrine that can be applied to most offences, and generally applies where a person assists or encourages another to commit a crime. The principles that apply to joint enterprise cases remain the same whatever the offence, and apply equally to planned and spontaneous acts of joint enterprise.
Where two or more individuals are involved in committing a crime, the parties to the offence may be classed as principals or secondary parties. Each offence will have at least one principal, although it is not always possible or necessary to identify who the principals are. A principal is the perpetrator of the substantive offence, and a secondary party is one who aids, abets, counsels, procures—more commonly known as assists—or encourages a person to commit the substantive offence without being the principal offender.
It is a fundamental principle of the criminal law that an accessory to a criminal offence can be tried, convicted and punished of an offence in the same way as the principal, even if it was not their hands that personally struck the blow, ransacked the house, smuggled the drugs or forged the cheque. Where they encouraged or assisted those physical acts and had the necessary intention, the law says that it is right that they too are found guilty. Similarly, an accessory to a crime shares culpability precisely because they encouraged or assisted the offence.
No one doubts that if the principal and the accessory are engaged together in, for example, the armed robbery of a bank, which was mentioned, the accessory who keeps guard outside is as guilty of the robbery as the principal who enters with a shotgun and extracts the money from the staff by threat of violence. Nor does anyone doubt that the same principle can apply when, as sometimes happens, the accessory is nowhere near the scene of the crime when it eventually transpires. The accessory who funded the bank robbery or provided the gun is as guilty as those at the scene.
Sometimes it may be impossible for the prosecution to prove whether a defendant was a principal or an accessory, but that does not matter so long as it can prove that they participated in the crime as either one or the other. That said, the threshold for anyone to be prosecuted and found guilty under the joint enterprise principle is very high. They must intend to assist or encourage the commission of the crime, and therefore must know of the existing fact necessary to make it criminal. If the crime requires the principal to have a particular intent, the secondary must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with that intent.
Gareth Bacon
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to take interventions. There are other Bills that need to be debated, and it is important that the Government’s case is put. We have had a lengthy debate. Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 provides that a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished for the indictable offence as if they were the principal offender. That is the provision that the Bill seeks to amend.
Until the judgment given in the case of R v. Jogee, the courts had identified three ways in which liability for an offence committed with others might arise. The first is where two or more people join in committing a single crime in circumstances where they are, in effect, all joint principals—for example, where a group goes on a shoplifting spree, taking goods out of shops without payment. In such a scenario, those involved are joint principals. The second is where a person encourages another to commit a single crime; an example would be one person providing another with a weapon, so that they can use it in a robbery. The person providing the gun would be liable as an accomplice. The third is where two or more individuals participate together in a crime and, in the course of committing that crime, such as a robbery, one member of the group commits a second crime—for example, he shoots the security guard. The other members of the group may be prosecuted as accessories if they foresaw that the person with the gun was likely to use it. This type of joint enterprise is known as parasitic accessory liability.
Parasitic accessory liability was crystallised in the case of R v. Powell, which involved two defendants who went to a drug dealer’s home to buy cannabis, during which one of the defendants shot the drug dealer. Both were convicted of murder; it was held that the other defendant had foreseen that the other party might use the gun, and he was therefore convicted as an accessory. That case adopted the reasoning set out in the case of R v. Chan Wing-Siu, which involved three defendants who broke into a victim’s flat, with one defendant stabbing the victim to death and wounding his wife. All three defendants were convicted of murder, which resulted in the principle that if two or more people set out to commit an offence and, in the course of it, one of them commits another offence, the second person is guilty as an accessory to the latter crime even if he did not necessarily intend the commission of that offence; it is enough that he foresaw it as a possibility. The precedent was therefore established that a secondary party to a joint enterprise would be deemed to have intended to encourage or assist every one of the principal’s offences.
However, as we have heard, the case law moved away from that principle as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v. Jogee. Ameen Jogee was initially convicted on the principle of parasitic accessory liability for the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011. The Crown court heard at the time that Mr Jogee had “egged on” his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Mr Jogee argued that he was not inside the house when the incident took place and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do. He was convicted of murder, with a minimum custodial sentence of 20 years.
Mr Jogee appealed against his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. Following this, in October 2015, he asked the Supreme Court to review the doctrine of joint enterprise and to hold that the court took a wrong turn in Chan Wing-Siu and the cases that followed it. Mr Jogee argued that the Chan Wing-Siu decision was based on a flawed reading of earlier authorities and questionable policy arguments. The respondents disputed those propositions and argued that even if the Supreme Court were persuaded that the courts took a wrong turn, it would be for the legislature to decide whether to change the law, since the law as laid down in Chan Wing-Siu had been in place for 30 years. The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mr Jogee’s case in February 2016.
Gareth Bacon
I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to give way.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is going on? There is a feeling at the moment that junior Ministers will not take interventions, which is against the whole spirit of a Friday open debate. What is the matter? All I want to know is whether the Minister is content with the joint enterprise situation at the moment. Will he please tell the House that?
Gareth Bacon
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I gave my reasons earlier. It is not because I am trying to curtail this debate; it is because other debates are due to take place after this one. In answer to his substantive question, I am outlining the Government’s position on joint enterprise.
In considering Mr Jogee’s case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of parasitic accessory liability and concluded that a person should not be guilty merely for foreseeing that an accomplice might commit a second offence during the course of the original planned crime. It considered that the law should revert to the well-established rule that exists in relation to other types of joint enterprise offending—that is, that a person can be guilty of offences committed by other members of the group only if he or she intentionally encouraged or assisted those offences to be committed. Where somebody participated in an offence that involved a clear risk of harm, and death resulted, although with no intention that it should happen, he or she could still be convicted of manslaughter.
This led the Supreme Court to conclude that the law had taken a wrong turn 30 years earlier, by equating foresight with the intent to assist. The correct approach was to treat foresight as evidence of intent to assist in the crime. Following the decision, Mr Jogee was cleared of murder by the Court, but retried and found guilty of manslaughter. His previous sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years was replaced by a fixed term of 12 years.
As a result of the decision reached in Jogee, parasitic accessory liability no longer applies as a basis for criminal liability. However, this narrow change to the law on joint enterprise has been widely misunderstood as meaning that all convictions under joint enterprise would now be found not guilty on appeal. In circumstances in which parasitic accessory liability previously applied, the principles applicable to all cases of secondary liability now apply.
The decision in Jogee effectively resolved what the Government view as the most troubling aspect of the joint enterprise law. The Government are aware that the ruling in Jogee was initially welcomed by the academic world and families of convicted offenders, but the change in the law also appears to have been widely misinterpreted as applying to joint enterprise overall, when the change is much more limited—that is, the change relates only to cases involving parasitic accessory liability. This has obviously led to defendants’ families feeling further disappointment that the decision in Jogee has had little or no impact on those serving time in prison for such crimes.
Let me turn now to appeals, which serve as an important corrective function for individuals, whether to correct a miscarriage of justice, such as the conviction of someone who is factually innocent, or to correct a legal error, such as a harsher sentence than is legally permissible having been imposed. They also serve important public functions in ensuring that the criminal law is interpreted and applied consistently and predictably.
I know that the substantive injustice test has previously been raised in the House in connection with joint enterprise—specifically, in respect of whether legislative change affects the validity of a conviction under the previous law. The Law Commission is considering that issue as part of its full and extensive review of the law in relation to criminal appeals and procedure.
On 27 July 2023, the Law Commission published an issues paper seeking evidence on whether reform to the law on appeals in criminal cases, including the tests applied by the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, is necessary. This will help to inform the wider consultation paper on appeals law that is planned for publication later this year. The Law Commission intends to produce a final report with recommendations in 2025, and the Government will consider them.
It is worth making the point that before anyone is charged with a crime, whether as part of a joint enterprise or not, the Crown Prosecution Service will consider prosecuting only if the case satisfies the full code test set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. That test has two stages: the first is the requirement for evidential sufficiency, and the second involves the consideration of the public interest.
At the evidential stage, a prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. That means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury—or bench of magistrates, or judge sitting alone—properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict. It is an objective test based on the prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence, including any information that he or she has about the defence. A case that does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. If the evidential stage is satisfied, the prosecutors must then go on to consider the second stage and whether a full prosecution is in the public interest.
Having set out the background, let me move on to the Bill before us, the purpose of which is to amend section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. The amendment to section 8 appears to propose that for a person to be
“tried, indicted, and punished as a principal Offender”,
they must
“aid, abet, counsel, or procure”
the commission of the offence by
“making a significant contribution to”
the commission of an indictable offence.
The Government note that the declared purpose of the Bill is to better reflect a defendant’s actual contribution to a crime where this is committed as part of a joint enterprise. We also note that the proposed change to section 8 retains both its application to indictable only offences and its territorial extent, which is to say that the Bill proposes that any amendment to section 8 will continue to apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government are unable to support the Bill because it is technically flawed, and the overall impacts of such a change will need very careful consideration. As I said, joint enterprise is an extremely complex area of law—
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to drag you into the debate; I am simply requesting a procedural clarification.
The Minister has just said that the Government are unable to support the Bill in its current form. In other words, they are not supporting it today. It is procedurally correct, is it not, that the Government could allow Second Reading and then delay any Committee proceedings until after the consultation on the Law Commission’s proposals and its examination of the issue overall, and amendments could then be tabled? If the Government fail to do that, it is difficult to see—unless they are committing themselves to introducing legislation—whether there is a serious or imminent proposal to reform the law in this instance.
I just wish to clarify that, because a great many people watching the debate will be confused by the process that we are going through. The opportunity is still there for the Government to allow the Bill’s Second Reading, thus bringing forward a reform that they may well wish to support at a later stage.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The case that the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is correct procedurally, but after the Minister has finished his speech I will call Kim Johnson, with the leave of the House, to see what the Member in charge of the Bill wishes to do.
Gareth Bacon
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Section 8 of the 1861 Act is intrinsically linked with other inchoate offences such as those specified in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007: intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence, encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed, and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed. It is also linked to section 44(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which makes similar provision to that contained in section 8 of the 1861 Act, but in relation to summary only and triable either way offences.
Of key concern, however, is the fact that the proposed change to section 8 would place a requirement on the prosecution to identify the precise nature of a defendant’s role in aiding, abetting, procuring or counselling the commission of the crime committed in order to prove that the defendant had made a “significant contribution” —a threshold that does not currently need to be met. This change could lead to difficulties in securing a conviction and therefore bringing offenders to justice, even when there is significant evidence that the defendants did participate in the crime, simply owing to evidential difficulties in trying to establish the precise role that each party played—that is to say, whether they were a principal offender or an accessory—and how much weight should be given to those roles in terms of their “significant contribution”, which is not defined.
It is also unclear whether this change was actually intended, as the Government believe that the stated intention of the Bill is to clarify, and not to amend, the law on secondary liability. An additional concern is that no definition has been provided on what is to be determined by “significant contribution”. Without such a definition, that would mean that a perpetrator’s contribution to an offence could be determined differently, with the bar being either lower or higher depending on the assessment undertaken by the specific jury in question. In effect, there may be no real parity in such assessments, which in turn could lead to appeals on the basis of how a significant contribution to a crime has been assessed when compared with other such cases. That could result in an incoherent framework and would jeopardise the certainty of the law.
I am conscious of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside again for her Bill, but the Government must oppose it for the reasons that I have outlined.