The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate today. I should like to express my deepest sympathies to Jane Harrison’s family. It is impossible to imagine the pain they have experienced and continue to suffer after losing Jane in such tragic circumstances. I should also like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to Marie McCourt, who has tirelessly campaigned for a law change in memory of her daughter, Helen.
On a personal level, when considering this debate and, indeed, the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I recalled the sight of Winnie Johnson, the mother of Keith Bennett, who died never knowing where her son was buried. Indeed, her face etched with agony on every anniversary of the Moors murders stays with me. To lose a loved one in such circumstances is truly horrendous. The fact that Winnie was then denied the opportunity to give her son a proper burial is too awful even to comprehend, so I understand why the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has secured this debate and why the hon. Member for St Helens North is pursuing his campaign for Helen’s law.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has set out the background to the case. I must stress that, as a Justice Minister, I would not normally comment on individual cases. As should be clear, this case involves a conviction for manslaughter, not murder. I do not think it would be helpful to revisit now that conviction or to discuss the difference between what amounts to the offence of murder or manslaughter. It might be helpful, however, for me to explain the different options available when sentencing for manslaughter and the different consequences of these sentences.
Murder is the only offence that carries a mandatory life sentence. In every case where someone is convicted of murder, they will receive a life sentence. Apart from the most serious cases, which receive a whole-life order, the court will set a tariff for the offender. That means they will serve a minimum time before they are considered for release, and will be released only when the independent Parole Board considers it safe to do so.
Manslaughter, on the other hand, has a maximum penalty of a life sentence, but that sentence is discretionary, rather than mandatory. The judge can impose a life sentence, or any other sentence short of a life sentence, having considered all the factors in each case. The length of the custodial sentence imposed must reflect the culpability of the offender. In the case of manslaughter, that can vary widely given the wide range of behaviour that the offence covers. Defendants convicted of manslaughter can, and do, receive standard determinate sentences.
In contrast to a life sentence, and since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, prisoners serving a standard determinate sentence are automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence. The remainder of the sentence is served on licence in the community. While on licence, offenders will be subject to probation supervision and the licence will include appropriate conditions. If an offender breaches those conditions, they may be recalled to prison. I stress that offenders serving standard determinate sentences are released automatically by statute and are not considered for release at the discretion of a body such as the Parole Board. It is worth noting that an offender convicted of manslaughter who is serving a determinate sentence of whatever length will not be eligible for release earlier than the halfway point of their sentence under the home detention curfew scheme.
The judiciary are of course aware of how sentences are structured when determining the appropriate sentence in a case, and explain the effect of the sentence in open court. Therefore, any offender subject to a determinate sentence will be released at a fixed point, irrespective of whether they admit their guilt or co-operate with the authorities, and their sentence will come to an end at a fixed point. There is no discretion under the law to hold them beyond the sentence that was imposed by the court. To change that would require a significant change in the law and to sentencing generally. It also raises some practical issues that I will mention briefly.
The practical issues are similar to the issues championed by the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for St Helens North—otherwise known as Helen’s law—in response to the murder of Helen McCourt. I stress that the Government sympathise with the calls for a Helen’s law. Along with the sentencing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), I met the hon. Member for St Helens North to discuss his private Member’s Bill earlier this week. I congratulate him on his approach during that meeting. I again express my respect and admiration for Marie McCourt, who has led the campaign for Helen’s law. I pay tribute to her commitment to the issue and her tireless work over many years. As I said earlier, any murder is horrific and no family should have to go through such a traumatic experience with the added pain of not knowing the whereabouts of their loved one and being denied the chance to lay them to rest. For that reason, the Government welcome the discussion generated by the Unlawful Killing (Recovery of Remains) Bill.
I think the hon. Member for St Helens North would be the first to accept that his Bill does not present a legally sound solution to this difficult issue. In short, it proposes to deny release to those who refuse to disclose the whereabouts of their victims’ remains. The Government recognise the honourable intentions behind this approach. There are, however, some concerns regarding how the proposed changes can be delivered—concerns regarding the legality of some of the provisions, as well as the potentially adverse effect on the families of victims if they were made aware of information disclosed by offenders. As the victims Minister, I will always represent and work hard towards delivering in the best interest of victims of crime. As such, I intend to ensure that any changes made to the current process are tailored towards delivering a just and fair outcome.
I do not want to get into any technical or legal details during this debate, but let me say that we all have to be careful not to support something that would create perverse incentives for offenders to lie about where the victim’s remains are located, to try and secure release or to further torment victims’ families. There is a risk that each and every time an offender claimed to remember where the victim’s remains had been buried, they would have to be taken seriously, which could result in them being allowed to leave prison temporarily to help authorities search for the body. In that regard, I think, once again, about Winnie Johnson. We do not want offenders creating false stories to toy with victims’ families or to create false hope. The further pain and anxiety that could be inflicted upon victims’ families as a result of this is simply unthinkable.
Additionally, while the Government have been unable to examine the Bill in detail, there are several other complex practical and legal issues arising from the proposals. These could include avoiding arbitrary sentences; being clear about the level of co-operation required and whether this needs to lead to a successful outcome; and avoiding unlawful retrospective application of provisions.
I would, however, like to reassure the House that the Government are taking this issue very seriously. As already mentioned, I met the hon. Member for St Helens North earlier this week to discuss his Bill and the options going forward. The Government understand the importance of this issue and are committed to considering what more can be done.
Conor McGinn
I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister and the Ministry of Justice for meeting me this week and for the constructive approach they have taken. Notwithstanding what he has said, I do not believe that any of the practical difficulties is insurmountable. In terms of the impact on victims, the thing that is causing Marie McCourt and her family and Jane Harrison’s family most torment and anguish is the thought that the murderer of their loved ones will be released from prison. The Minister should make no mistake about that whatever.
Dr Lee
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and, of course, I get that.
The Government wrote to the independent Parole Board last year and asked it to review its guidance in respect of prisoners serving life sentences who do not accept full responsibility for their offence and who wilfully fail to disclose the whereabouts of their victim. While it is not directly relevant in this case, the Parole Board is strengthening its guidance, which will be issued in the spring, clarifying the issues that may need to be considered where the offender does not disclose the whereabouts of the victim’s body. While the guidance reaffirms that the Parole Board’s primary focus is on the risk to the public, it makes it clear that the offender’s withholding of this information may raise factors that are relevant to risk and can therefore result in the offender not being released.
I should also mention that the Parole Board continues to improve and develop the way it liaises with and involves victims in its decision making. I very much welcome its approach, which recognises how difficult it must be for victims to engage in any consideration of an offender’s release.
In addition, the Government are aware of the recent developments in some other countries, and we will be examining these approaches in more detail and seeing how they work in practice. Mercifully, these cases are rare, but we will consider whether these approaches would be appropriate for our justice system in England and Wales.
With reference to the question that was raised about the family having a chance to influence the conditions of release, it is not appropriate for me to discuss individual details of the case here. As the Department has previously said, we will be happy to meet the family to update them. I know they have been kept informed of any developments in the case by the victim liaison officer in the national probation service, on any move to open conditions and on the eligibility and conditions for any temporary release.
I would like to end by again extending my deepest sympathies to the family of Jane Harrison, and I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for drawing this issue to the attention of the House. As victims Minister, I firmly believe that victims are at the heart of our criminal justice system, and I know that this is a deeply distressing and troubling issue for victims’ families.
There is, sadly, no easy solution here. I can tell the hon. lady that we will examine all the options that might provide a lawful and effective way to discourage offenders from withholding information. We all agree that we should consider any practical solution that will allow families to lay their loved ones to rest.
Question put and agreed to.