Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I share many of the reservations expressed already and the analysis given on both the provision and the circumstances which have led to it. I ask the Minister, in his response to the debate, to deal with one of the points raised by the noble Viscount, which is the discretion that might be available to the judge in deciding what tariff accompanies the sentence, as opposed to the provisions of proposed new subsection (2), which give slightly more power—I refrain from defining it as a wider power—in exceptional circumstances to the judge to impose a different sentence altogether.

One thing the Minister did not cover in his helpful introduction was the extent to which the tariff provisions interact with this. I would be grateful if he could explain that, in case he can give us any reassurance about what seems to be the danger of making general law out of a particular case.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, if I may, I will add a point that follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said. To require a life sentence is pure deception because we all know that life sentences are not life sentences, and there is a strong feeling that the life sentence for murder is a deception. Other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the person concerned will be released, and the judge pronounces, in open court, a tariff. I entirely understand why the Government wish to give comfort to the unfortunate relatives and friends of those heroic emergency workers who suffer this appalling treatment and die in service of the country, but it is a gesture—a misleading gesture. We really should not be perpetuating more and more life sentences when the reality is that people receive a term of years.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, arguing this case is far beyond my pay grade, but I support everything that my noble friend Lord Hailsham said in opposition to these amendments. I do not support Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Then if the Minister puts the Question, I will call for a vote.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Any Member of the House can call a vote but, if the Minister is not willing to accede to any of the suggestions that have been made, it is the obligation of the Front Benches to indicate that they are so dissatisfied, in the light of all the debate and the fact that we have only had a week to consider this, that they will divide the House. If they were so to indicate, that might impose a bit more pressure on the Minister.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

In the last week, as is my wont, I have had discussions with a number of Members of this House on this matter. Any Member of the House knows that my door is always open to them, metaphorically and often literally. All the discussions that I have had on this amendment have been ones that I have reached out to others to have. Nobody has knocked on my door. In those circumstances, I cannot say that we will adjourn. If I am told differently, that will be for others to decide. At the moment, I will ask the House to vote on my amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Too many things are going backwards: life expectancy is down; obesity is up; the weather is becoming more violent; and the world has still not shaken off the coronavirus. Let us not add to our woes by bringing down the curtain on the age of reason by replacing it with the age of bigoted fabulists. Will my noble friend assure the House that he will not let ideology trump facts and ensure that women are better protected?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech ranged very broadly indeed. We are in fact debating a complex penal issue where we have a policy that addresses the matter very sensibly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained.

I will add just one point to this debate. It is not difficult to see the danger to people who were registered as male at birth but who are now registered under the Act as female if they were required to be placed in a male prison, as this amendment would require, irrespective of the particular circumstances of their case, as long as they are a sexual or violent offender. It should not need to be emphasised, but I will emphasise it because it is the fact, that many of these people have had hormone treatment, and some of them have had reconstructive surgery that has given them primary and sometimes secondary sexual characteristics of a physical nature. What do the proposers of the amendment think will happen to such people if the Home Office is obliged to place them in a male prison?

Of course we would all agree that, if there is an offender in custody for a suspected violent or sexual offence who is in possession of a gender recognition certificate and poses a risk to others in custody, then specific steps should be taken to isolate and deal with them. But that does not justify or require ignoring a gender recognition certificate in the way the amendment proposes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it has to be said that when I talk to members of the general public and tell them that it is MoJ policy to allow prisoners of a male sex to be housed according to their self-declared gender identity in a women’s prison, irrespective of whether they have taken any legal or medical steps to acquire their gender, that they do not need to have gone through any physical transformation and still retain male genitalia, which we have heard lots about already in this debate, and that they do not even need to have obtained a gender recognition certificate—they need just to declare that they are women and demand that they are moved to the women’s estate, and it is seriously considered—they are aghast. It falls under the category of, “Has the world gone mad?”

That common-sense response might not feel appropriate when discussing legislation, but in this instance it may help us to look at this issue in practical, real-life terms, not just in abstractions. That is why I welcome the amendment very strongly. Although it does not resolve all my concerns, I welcome its modest, narrow aim of removing the most egregious aspect of this situation: allowing male prisoners who identify as trans but have convictions of violence or sexual offences against women to live with women prisoners. There really is no point in the Government issuing strategies and grand words about violence against girls and women if the same Government have no qualms about letting rapists share the same confined living quarters as vulnerable women in prison who, let us be frank, cannot leave or escape because they are locked up by the state. This amendment’s focus is on convicted sex offenders and it is urgent that the Government take notice.

It is important to note that when gender-critical commentators and academics raise qualms about the general policy of housing transgender prisoners in the women’s estate, they are often dubbed transphobic and accused of holding a prejudiced view of all trans women as sexual predators, but this is a malign caricature. At this point I give a shout-out of solidarity to Professor Jo Phoenix, an esteemed and conscientious criminologist who has been harassed and traduced for raising such legitimate concerns.

Wherever one stands on the general issue, this amendment is specific and cannot be accused of implying that all natal men, however they identify, are a sexual threat to women, because that would not be true. We are talking only about convicted sex offenders and those guilty of violence. I still hope this probing amendment might encourage the Government to look more closely at a range of issues in this area. I particularly want the Government to consider whether the Ministry of Justice’s involvement over a period of time with the controversial lobbying group Stonewall, which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, as with so many public bodies, may—just may—have led to the skewing of policies in a particular direction.

For example, I know how keen this Government are on data and statistics, but as Kate Coleman, the founder of Keep Prisons Single Sex, has noted—this just seems incredible to me—the MoJ admits that it does not know how many prisoners identify as trans because, with a gender recognition certificate, they are counted by their new legal gender. I am not sure how the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can be so sure of the statistics she quotes, because the tools designed to assess any threat posed by male prisoners who identify as trans women cannot be picked up accurately. If someone with a GRC attacks a female prisoner, it will be recorded as an assault by a woman on another woman.

I also want to query who is listened to in this discussion on what is obviously a clash of rights. In the course of the recent High Court ruling we have heard about, Lord Justice Holroyde outlined the need to balance

“the subjective concerns of women prisoners”

with

“the rights of transgender women in the prison system.”

This made it sound as though the women, the biological women, were all being overly subjective, and the transgender women had rights. Describing one side as subjective and the other with rights misses a crucial point, because that transgender woman has an identity that is not an objective fact but a subjective desire and then a declaration. Why are women prisoners’ subjective but rational concerns afforded less weight here?

When the High Court acknowledged that women prisoners may well be worried and “scared” about sharing prison accommodation with male-bodied prisoners, the court said that that fear was not enough to outweigh the desire of some male prisoners to be housed with women. I wonder: when did the prison estate, or indeed the law, allow its policies to be dictated by prisoners’ desires? I have worked with prisoners over a number of years, particularly with Debating Matters Beyond Bars. Many of the prisoners I have worked with have declared that they desire decent prison education. They desire retraining and better conditions. The prison authorities certainly did not accommodate their desires, so why are these desires accommodated when it comes to the trans issue?

Finally, I am keen that the Government look carefully, and use this probing amendment to do so, at how staff in prisons understand the issue of sex and gender in the context of training. The MoJ policy entitled The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender advises staff to complete an “eLearning module” on transgender identity. One of the training courses is named intersecting identities. I have looked at these, and it all rather terrifies me. It is one-sided, jargon-ridden and ideological. I hope this amendment might point the Government to raise and review the whole issue. For now, at least, a very modest amendment should be taken seriously if they really mean they care about protecting women from violent men.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that this is one of those comparatively rare occasions when noble Lords from all parties and none and from across the House have come together in the face of overwhelming evidence that a great public policy, in this case a great criminal justice policy, has gone disastrously wrong. It is beyond argument that IPPs have resulted in periods of incarceration out of any reasonable proportion to the gravity of the original crimes for which they were imposed. That is wrong. It is beyond any reasonable argument that these sentences are beyond any proportion to the risk that continues to be represented by any of the offenders to the public. That is wrong. There is the strongest evidence before the Government that IPPs are observably responsible for persistent and continuing injustice. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke very movingly about the reality of those injustices for those who are suffering under them.

I declare an interest as president of the Howard League and in doing so repeat what a number of noble Lords have said about the contribution made by Frances Crook. She has been a monumental figure in criminal justice, which is better today for her work than it would have been without it. The Government now have an opportunity to make a startling improvement to our criminal justice arrangements by the simple expedience of doing away with IPPs in their entirety; I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in this respect. The evidence could not be clearer. I support all these amendments and urge the Government now, in the face of this overwhelming case, to act.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he can put away the departmental brief and respond to two simple questions. The first is whether he accepts that the present system is unacceptable. The second, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, posed, is: what will the Government do about it? This is not a new problem. The Government have had years to think about the options and to consider what to do. The noble Lord is already a very distinguished Minister of Justice. Can he say what the Government will now do to address a manifest injustice?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have met a few of the people who these sentences are designed to control, and quite often they are terrifying. Some of the things that they have done are awful. However, the present situation is indefensible. It is unfair because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, they do not know how long they will be detained, and because many of them have been detained since before the law was changed. It is really trying to deal with the basic problem of dangerousness, which is very hard to define. Doctors cannot define the mental illness that they suffer from, as has been mentioned already. This should be addressed far more clearly.

There are only two ways forward. First, many of these amendments are talking about research in the future, but we need more research into the medical definition of the type of illness which we define as “dangerousness”, of people seeming likely to commit an offence in the future. This is not mentioned anywhere in the amendments. I recommend that there is good investment to be made there.

Secondly, what is presently indeterminate must be made determinate. I do not suppose that anyone has yet argued that all the people who are detained under these restrictions should immediately be emptied from the prisons on to the streets, but it is entirely possible to see a transfer of that risk either into the health element of prison control—Broadmoor or similar institutions—or a far better way of dealing with them within the community. To continue carrying the risk entirely within the prison estate in the numbers that are described is entirely wrong and I cannot see that it is defensible for this Government to continue doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 213. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby was somewhat critical of it. I agree with what he is seeking to achieve in Amendment 212. Amendment 213 goes a little further and is a little more precise. If I may say so, I think it is a better amendment.

To clarify, this is not a blanket ban on short sentences; it is a presumption against short sentences. Previous Governments have supported this idea. The evidence is that short sentences do not lessen offending. They are mainly concerned with non-violent offences. They do not provide meaningful rehabilitation. They can have a disruptive effect on family life and relationships.

The statistics are quite awesome. According to data from the Ministry of Justice, between January 2020 and March 2021, 20,000 people went to prison to serve a sentence of six months or less—44% of the prison population. This was even more so for women during the same period. Prior to the pandemic, the figures were even starker.

As I have said, the majority of people serving sentences of six months or less are in prison for non-violent offences, such a theft and drug offences. These offences are often linked to underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, homelessness and poor mental health. We know that these people really should not be in prison at all. Prison does not help them. We also know that short sentences have proven to be less effective than community sentences in reducing offending. Community sentences include interventions such as drug, alcohol and mental health treatment. They do more to address the root causes of offending.

Short sentences disrupt family life and ties; they damage housing, employment and treatment programmes. They do not provide any meaningful rehabilitation. These sentences contribute to volatility shown in prison.

Short prison sentences have a harmful effect on women in particular, hampering relationships with their families and children. Over half of women in prison report being victims of domestic violence, which often contributes to the offence that led to the prison sentence. I have had some help from a great organisation called Revolving Doors, and I have a quotation from one of its members:

“Although I was in prison for a short time I felt traumatised by the whole experience. In fact, sending me to prison was just a waste of time and money. I was released with no explanation and no support. I found myself back in the violent relationship which exacerbated my addiction which led to further arrests and trauma.”


Another argument for a presumption against short sentences is the cost. Of course, that should not be the main thing; the main thing should be protecting society, penalising people who should be penalised and helping to reduce reoffending. However, cost does come into it. The annual cost per prison place in 2020 was £44,640, compared with £4,305 for a community order. It is quite a dramatic difference.

The public, according to surveys, understand why there should be a presumption against short prison sentences. Probably, there are people who say, “Send them in and keep them in longer—six months is too short”, but the public are quite sensible and understand what is going on. I can only refer to previous Ministers, David Gauke and Rory Stewart, who both said it was necessary to introduce the presumption against short sentences. I think we can manage to do that.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, as I said, goes in the right direction, but it is not quite strong enough. This is such a simple measure—so simple that it is hardly worth spending time debating it. I am sure the Minister will accept it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked: these amendments are so simple, why waste time debating them? Well, of course, the law already proceeds on the basis that these amendments propose. Section 230 of the Sentencing Code already says that the court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence was so serious that a fine or community sentence is not sufficient for the offence. Any court that passed a custodial sentence without stating the reasons for doing so would find that the sentence was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Any sentence in court that fails to consider and address the impact of a custodial sentence on a child or unborn child would not be upheld on appeal. So I entirely support these amendments, but I think we should be realistic about the current state of law.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I do not intend to fall into a bit of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with whom I worked happily in the Constitution Committee, but the present state of the law has not really solved the problem, has it? Very large numbers of very short sentences are given, and the consequence is that prison places are used, costs ensue, and the least effective way of dealing with individuals seems to be the one that is chosen. If there is some way in which we can strengthen the presumption the sentencing guidelines already carry, that would be good. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is a complicated alternative way of doing it, but it does appear that something needs to be done.

The argument often used for short sentences is that courts have a problem in dealing with persistent repeat offenders and persistent repeat breaches of conditions of community sentences. There is a popular myth that if offenders do not respond to other measures, a taste of prison will soon put them right. There is absolutely no evidence to support this principle. Indeed, all the evidence points the other way.

I used to chair the Justice Committee in the House of Commons, and that has had a continuing interest in this problem. Its report in 2018 recommended that the Government introduce a presumption against short prison sentences. The Government welcomed this and said they were exploring options. In a follow-up report, the Justice Committee noted the Government’s stated intentions to move away from short custodial sentences.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

I have no personal interest in this matter. I do not live in any of the areas affected; I have no connection to any of the groups which have been lobbying for this change. But it bothers me greatly as I go about my business in London that our black cabs—which are synonymous with London around the world and an important part of our reputation for quality and high standards—are forever facing more restrictions while vehicles and drivers which too often are a disgrace to our reputation are allowed to operate without having to comply with any law, regulation or rule. I look forward to my noble friend’s response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a powerful speech, which I find entirely compelling. My only concern is that her amendments are far too modest. If the Private Member’s Bill does not proceed satisfactorily, I suggest that she brings forward on Report an amendment which makes it a criminal offence to operate such a vehicle in London without a licence.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am probably alone on this one: some years ago I went away from my wedding service in a pedicab in London, and I rather enjoyed it.

I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I think the definition in this amendment will cause a few problems. It says that a pedicab is

“a pedal cycle, motor cycle or power-assisted cycle, or such a vehicle”—

I did not know that cycles were vehicles, but maybe that is right—

“in combination with a trailer, constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers.”

My daughter used to take her children to school sitting in a trailer on the back of a bicycle, and that would be covered by this amendment. I do not quite see why she should not continue to do that. It was not motor-assisted, but it could have been. This needs looking at.

I think what the noble Baroness is getting at is that she does not like the look of these things. I would agree—they do not look particularly nice. The biggest problem is that many are not insured. That is a serious problem. Whether they need controlling or licensing by TfL needs a bit of debate. The black cabs obviously do not like them because they take away business. Are we in the business of protecting black cabs because they look nicer than these pedicabs that go around with not just lights flashing but some pretty horrible music coming out of them sometimes? On the other hand, are we here to regulate music and pedicabs? I do not know. The key for me is that they should have third-party insurance at the very least. Whether their fares should be controlled is a debate that is probably down to TfL to decide. Secondly, who is going to enforce this?

The other type of “vehicle”, if you can call them that, are freight cycles, which are beginning to appear in the streets of cities, London included. Sometimes they have two wheels, sometimes three or four—I do not have a clue which—but they distribute freight to outlets in the city as an alternative to trucks and vehicles, which cause a lot of pollution if they are not electric. Do we want to prevent them going around? They might be plying for hire, and the customers would be moving freight, not passengers. Whether they should be insured is debatable, because cycles are not required to be insured at the moment, and I expect we will have a debate about scooters in a couple of years’ time. But it is questionable whether a freight cycle, with or without power assistance, should be covered by this. I suggest that it should not be. This goes back to the only issue on which I think I disagree with the noble Baroness, which is insurance, because they are carrying passengers for hire. If I am carrying my family or some friends as passengers in a trailer on the back of my bike, I do not see why I should have to be insured if I do not feel like it. I think that is the same as on a bicycle.

I hope the noble Baroness will consider these issues. If she comes back on Report with a changed amendment, she should confine it to things which really matter from the safety point of view, rather than widening it to freight, family trips or something else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord explained very effectively, Clause 66 inserts a new Section 2C into the 1988 Act, introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. The offence is committed by driving

“without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other”

road users. Serious injury is defined as physical harm amounting to grievous bodily harm under the terms of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. As the noble and learned Lord set out, the proposed penalties are two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment and a maximum penalty on summary conviction of 12 months and/or a fine.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I are unashamedly having two stabs at this issue. Amendment 155 takes the narrow view, introducing a test for the words “causing serious injury”. This is needed because it will be an imprisonable offence. The Government have defined “serious injury” but not “causing”. Our amendment suggests a form of words which indicates that to be found guilty of this you have to have displayed blatant disregard for the normal rules of care on the road. It is important for us to remember that driving is the one day-to-day activity by which a law-abiding citizen can kill another law-abiding citizen through simple inattention. I expect most noble Lords are drivers and, if they search their hearts and memories, I am sure they can think of an incident in their driving history when they have done something careless—when they have failed, despite perhaps taking care, to notice a cyclist or another car. Usually that is a moment that passes without anything terrible happening, but sometimes there is an accident.

If we are going to move towards imprisoning motorists for being careless, we need to be extremely careful. Criminalising motorists is a dangerous direction. Most motorists involved in accidents which result in serious injury or death are stricken by an overwhelming sense of guilt. In many cases, it wrecks the rest of their life. Rather than needing imprisonment, they need to ensure that in future they are much better drivers. Why do we send people to prison? We send them to prison to protect society. It is not likely that we need to protect society from the normal careless driver. We need to send them to prison to punish them—to be punished for simple carelessness.

The suspicion must be that the Government are seeking to create a new offence to catch those motorists who are charged with, but not found guilty of, dangerous driving. For 20 years, I was a magistrate. It is, and was, normal for alternative charges to be brought: careless driving and dangerous driving. I well recall occasions when the CPS simply failed to prove dangerous driving for one reason or another. I believe we are in a dangerous position if we start creating new offences to cater for the failure of prosecutors to make their case. Just as there is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is a clear difference between careless driving and dangerous driving. In opposing that the clause stand part, we are proposing that there is no need for this new offence. As an alternative, we offer Amendment 155, which provides much-needed clarity on the degree of carelessness that must be involved.

There is a tendency to a knee-jerk reliance on custodial sentences. Most drivers, even bad drivers, do not need prison to improve their behaviour. Prison costs the public purse massive amounts of money. It destroys marriages and families and the ability of the prisoner to get a job on release. It often destroys their mental health. Prisons are not called “universities of crime” for nothing; they create better criminals. Bad drivers need more appropriate sentences. Careless drivers need more appropriate sentences, such as driving bans, retraining, which is really important, community sentences, restorative justice or fines, but not prison, except in the most extreme and persistent cases.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the suggestion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. I agree entirely with what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the punishment of imprisonment. There is an important difference of principle between causing serious injury by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. The principle is that the offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving falls into the category of “There but for the grace of God, go I”. It is very difficult to see why the penalty of imprisonment should be appropriate when all the steps being taken in the criminal justice system are to recognise that we send far too many people to prison and that prison has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, eloquently said, very adverse consequences for the offender, their family and society generally. The Government need to present a most compelling justification for a proposal that more people should be sent to prison in circumstances such as this.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I support everything that noble Lords have said so far. Unless the clause is significantly amended along the lines suggested, I could not possibly support it if it were taken to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have not stirred the pot too much. I remember R v Caldwell and R v Cunningham from my university days. Now I know who to blame for the poor marks for the essay I wrote on it. I hope I have responded to the points made by the noble and learned Lord. I am happy to continue the discussion, but I hope that he will be able to withdraw. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moving.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With his enormous experience of various areas of the law, can the Minister think of any example of where a sentencing court has decided that it is appropriate to send someone to prison, whether in a health or safety context or in any other context, merely because of carelessness? I ask this out of genuine innocence and ignorance.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I wonder whether health and safety is not, in fact, an example. This is not my area of the law, and I am reluctant to give examples from the Dispatch Box, but I think we have to balance the degree of culpability with the consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, and as the responses to the consultation showed, it is very difficult to look in the eye the family of somebody who has been killed through careless driving, where the standard has fallen below that of a competent driver—not far below; that is dangerous—and say that the most we can do is fine the driver.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I understand the Minister’s argument. My question is whether there are any actual, practical examples of people being given a prison term because of carelessness. Maybe the Minister does not know. I entirely understand that. I would be grateful if he could write to me with an answer.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Of course, and I will write to the noble Lord with an answer. I just want to be clear what exam question he is setting me. I assume that he is excluding recklessness. He is putting that in a separate box from mere carelessness.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am considering the proposed offence of carelessness. To be clear, my question is whether there are practical examples of sentencing courts sending people to prison for acts of carelessness. Maybe the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Hope, know the answer. I do not. I suggest it may be relevant.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

I would much rather the Minister answered that question.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

So I plead with the Minister, first, to think again about the statutory inquiry with powers of compulsion and, secondly, to look at my noble friend Lord Rosser’s amendment in particular, because it is not too difficult to create a statutory as well as professional duty of candour on the police—something like he has proposed. Parliamentary draftsmen will do even better, I am sure, and my noble friend has already done the thinking about the need to think about privacy, data protection and national security.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. The statutory duty of candour is vital not just to affect the culture of the police and enhance public confidence in policing but to give confidence to those police officers who face enormous internal pressures from their colleagues not to be candid. They need support; they need a statutory regime they can point to in order to justify to their colleagues what is required.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, quoted some of what the Home Secretary said in answering questions in the House of Commons on 15 June, and I will quote one other statement she made. She was specifically asked by Yvette Cooper about the duty of candour, and her response was that

“there is absolutely more to do here.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col. 132.]

I very much hope the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but, if they do not, what more are they going to do in this area?

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I rise briefly to support both amendments. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, looks at this from the position of the victim. It is, of course, right to acknowledge the huge progress that has been made over the last 20 or so years in improving the position of the victim—but we have not got to the end of the road. The important point of his amendment is that it gives further protection to the victim at two important stages: first, where things have gone wrong and there is an inquiry, and secondly and much more importantly, in the victim exercising the right of review where there has been a failure to prosecute. It seems to me, therefore, that the duty of candour is yet another step in putting the victim—as is so often said by politicians on both sides—at the heart of the criminal justice system.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, looks at this from a broader perspective, which encompasses the position of the defendant and the greater public interest. We should think of experiences over the years. One can go back, for example, to a problem that arose in Tiger Bay in Cardiff over 30 years ago, where the inquiry into the Lynette White murder investigation went on and on. One cannot help feeling that, if there had been a duty of candour, it would have brought that very damaging case to an end.

I say nothing about the undercover policing inquiry as it is still ongoing, but it seems that there is ample evidence that we need to enshrine this duty of candour to protect the position of the defendant and the wider public interest by making it absolutely clear that the police owe that duty—and they should be grateful to have that duty imposed on them, because we need to restore, above all, confidence in our constabularies.

--- Later in debate ---

I thought: “That is so encouraging; we are really getting there.” But no. She then said that she would have to wait for the next part being put forward by the Law Commission. I know this House is full of lawyers. This House probably has many lawyers who sit on the commission—I do not know. Forgive me, but I think the commission does not always act at speed. What we really want is some speed on this, because we have a problem. We can sort this problem—or help to sort it. We have this opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, and we should take it, because we need the next generation to have the best start to life, and we know it is in our hands, to some extent. So, I strongly support this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, despite being a lawyer, it is a great pleasure to follow three such excellent speeches. I have added my name to this amendment, in part to emphasise what is obvious—that this is a matter of concern not just to women who breastfeed but to men, particularly men who are fathers, husbands and fathers-in-law, all of whom are affected by this subject.

When the Minister replies, I think he will express two concerns about these amendments, unless he is prepared to accept them, which I hope he will. He might say there is a concern that Amendment 131 is too broadly drafted. I do not understand such concern, because the drafting is very simple. It ensures there is a criminal offence only where the woman concerned does not consent and—this is vital—the defendant photographs or videos the breastfeeding for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, or to cause humiliation, distress or alarm.

That is a very limited mischief. It is properly drafted, since it adopts in its definition the ingredients of the offence of upskirting, which is already on the statute book, so it is a confined mischief. There is no question of capturing someone who innocently takes a photograph, and, in the background, there happens to be a woman who is breastfeeding. However, as we are in Committee, if the Minister thinks that the drafting can be improved, I, and the other signatories to this amendment, I am sure, would be very happy to see an improved version.

The other concern, which I know that the Minister will express, and which has already been addressed, is that the Law Commission is due to report on the law relating to intimate image abuse. It had a consultation which closed in May. The report is awaited. We certainly will not see it this year. The Committee may be interested to know that it is a consultation paper that covers 423 pages of material, a wide range of subject matter and complex issues. After the commission reports, sometime next year, there is no possibility of any legislation being brought forward for months, and that is optimistic. Who knows when the Government may reach a conclusion on any of these topics, particularly the specific narrow topic that we are discussing today? Who knows—the Minister does not—when there will next be a legislative opportunity to bring forward proposals such as those promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman?

It is time to address this because the case for a change in the law on this specific subject is simply overwhelming for all the reasons that the Committee has heard. There is no question of delay here because the conduct is every day causing great distress to the victims. We already have the model legislation in the upskirting provisions that Parliament has approved, which have been enacted and which are working very well.

In July, this Government announced their intention to take steps to protect women from violence and harassment. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, provide an opportunity for the Government, at no financial cost, to take a small but important practical step.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I support this Amendment and agree with every word that noble Lords have said. My strong advice to my noble friend the Minister, bearing in mind that this is a policing Bill, is to come quietly. The alternative is to have another 45 minutes on Report, lose a Division and get into ping-pong. It is much easier to agree in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Attlee indicated that I should come along quietly. I am not going to do that; however, I hope that I will come along realistically and clearly in setting out the Government’s position. There is no dispute in this Committee that the behaviour we are talking about is absolutely abominable and indefensible. I therefore appreciate why a proposed new clause on this distressing subject of breastfeeding voyeurism has been tabled for debate. I start by expressing my unequivocal support for the mothers who have experienced this sort of appalling behaviour.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have heard a number of really outstanding speeches, some of which were very personal in terms of people’s history and families. I respectfully endorse the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Brinton, that this is not just a matter of protecting privacy or preventing distress; it is also important because we want to promote the very real benefits of breastfeeding. I take all the points made in that regard on board; I also take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on the bonding time—the quiet time, if I can put it that way—that breastfeeding provides. On whether breastfeeding also benefits fathers because we do not have to get up at night, on that I will—if, as a Minister in a UK Government, I am allowed to dip into a foreign legal system for a moment—plead the fifth amendment.

To pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I assure the Committee that, depending on the specific circumstances, it may be possible—I underline “may” because I accept that it will not be possible in all circumstances—to capture this sort of disgusting behaviour under some existing offences, including public order offences and offences dealing with harassment and stalking, along with the common-law offence of outraging public decency. However, this is not a complete answer; I do not put it forward as such. We recognise that the law in this area is not always clear, and that consideration should be given to improving it. That is why we asked the Law Commission to review the law around the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent, to identify whether there are any gaps—or, rather, what the gaps are—in the scope of protection already offered to victims. The review looked specifically at voyeurism offences and non-consensual photography in public places, including whether the recording and sharing of images of breastfeeding should be included in the scope of “intimate” images for the purposes of any reformed criminal law.

However, a change in the law here will not be straightforward. I will explain why in a moment. With an amendment such as the one moved by the noble Baroness, there may be a variety of situations in which it is still not an offence to take a picture of a person breastfeeding. That is why the Law Commission’s review is looking into intent, the definition of “image” and other circumstances relevant to this issue. As the Committee is already aware, the Law Commission’s work has gone at some pace. It obviously has an important eye for detail; that is why it is there. It intends to publish its recommendations by the spring of next year, so we are certainly not trying to kick this ball into the long grass. We are proactively considering what more can be done to tackle this behaviour and protect mothers now, ahead of the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of the law in this area.

However, I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that this issue is clearly defined in her amendment. I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, if I may; we have had the benefit of some discussions. A number of points look like drafting points but are not, because they really go to the question of the scope of the proposed amendment and what it is seeking to encompass. Let me give a couple of examples, without turning the Committee into a legislative drafting session. Here is example A; I will try to use the initials from the amendment. A takes a photo of his wife, partner or girlfriend on a beach in her bikini, intending to use that image for his own sexual gratification. Another woman, B, is on the same beach, breastfeeding her baby, and is unintentionally caught by A in the picture. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, but I respectfully suggest that this would be caught by the proposed amendment. A would have no defence as, first, he intended the picture for sexual gratification and recorded the image for that purpose. Secondly, he would have no defence of consent by B because B did not consent. A would also not be able to have the second defence of reasonably believing that she was giving consent because he had no idea at all that she was in the picture.

That is one example, but this goes further than drafting. Let us say that A was aware that B was caught in the background of the photo but was not aware that she was breastfeeding. Again, A would not be able to say that B had consented or that he reasonably believed that she had consented. Further, would an image of someone breastfeeding that did not actually include the act of breastfeeding—for example, a photograph capturing only a breastfeeding mother’s face—be captured under this amendment? What parts of the body, if I can put it that way, would we require the image to capture? As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained, this is different from the upskirting offence because the law there condescends to particular parts of the body that must be captured in a photo. Would we wish to capture images taken of breastfeeding regardless of whether it is in a private, semi-private or public setting?

I underline to the Committee that I do not raise these matters as drafting points or to be difficult. On the contrary, it is because this issue is so important that we must get the nature, boundaries and scope of the offence absolutely correct.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that his second potential problem would easily be dealt with by a drafting amendment to make it clear that the offence relates to a photograph or video of a breast? It would not be difficult to draft that. In relation to his first concern, which, as I understood it, was that if someone takes a photo of their wife or girlfriend breastfeeding for the purpose of sexual gratification and there is some other woman in the background—oh, I am sorry, have I misunderstood?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Before the Minister answers that question, does he not also agree that we have perhaps seven or eight weeks before we get to Report, so the pettifogging points he is making could plainly be dealt with if we all sat round a table and agreed a draft?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

In drafting legislation, the first thing we need to do is make sure that we agree on the nature and scope of the amendment. I have tried to make it clear that I am not putting these points forward as pettifogging points of drafting. There are important points underlining this about what we want the amendment to cover. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was about to rise again; should I give him an opportunity to do so?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

It may be thought by the Committee that the first example that the Minister gave was somewhat esoteric and unlikely to occur in practice. The risk of such esoteric events occurring is more than outweighed by the actual mischief that this amendment seeks to address. In any event, the same objections—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, called them pettifogging; that is his word, but I understand why he said that—could well be raised in relation to upskirting, in that pictures could be taken in whose background there is some other unfortunate woman. Perhaps the Minister might wish to reconsider these matters. We would all be happy to sit round a table and agree a draft that meets these points.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for nearly 30 years. I have seen plenty of examples where, eventually, the Government have given way on an issue and parliamentary draftsmen have been able to draft far more complex provisions than these.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Sandhurst. In the light of their comprehensive description of the purpose of these amendments, I can be brief.

Much of the data with which the amendments are concerned relates to freedom of expression. Views are expressed or opinions are stated which offend or annoy other people but do not constitute criminal offences. The views or opinions may relate to religion, transgender issues, Brexit or a whole range of other sensitive and controversial questions. Sadly, many people have lost the willingness to discuss and debate; to say, “I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.” In today’s world a more typical reaction to opinions with which you disagree is to take offence, to demand a safe space, or to complain that your identity has been challenged or that your truth has been denied. Even though no crime has been committed, the police are asked to record the grievance and to retain the data.

I agree with the noble Lords that for the police to have an unregulated power—that is what it is—to retain and use data about such exercises of free speech deters the vigorous debate and discussion on which a free society thrives. It may be appropriate, in some circumstances, for such data to be retained and to be used. None of us is disputing that. But that should be according to law, authorised by Parliament and not just by the discretion of police authorities which choose to apply, or not to apply, guidance from the College of Policing.

I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments constructively and that she will be able to give them the Government’s support, whether in a revised version or otherwise, on Report.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the proposed new clause and I will give it all the support I can. The arguments put forward by my noble friends are, frankly, unarguable against.

There are three propositions that I think are affronted by this notification of non-crime hate incidents. The first is the chilling effect on free speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated that very clearly. One has to be assured of the right to express one’s views without the risk of having this notification made against one.

Secondly, one has to recognise that these are very long-standing notifications, which can have a seriously prejudicial impact on individuals. That is thoroughly undesirable, especially as the individual has no right of appeal or an effective way of challenging. Judicial review, for most people, is not an effective way of challenging.

Thirdly, there is the point made by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. There is no statutory guidance; it is local police policy which influences the way these notifications are made. That is inherently unjust, having regard to the impact that this could have.

Finally, I welcome very much that the regulations are to be made by the affirmative procedure. However, as I have said in this House and elsewhere on many occasions, while that is a good thing in the sense that the comments made by your Lordships and those in the other place can be heeded, we do not have the power to amend the statutory instrument. I have long argued that this House and Parliament in general should have the power to amend the contents of statutory instruments. This is a good example of where that would be beneficial.

Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the Government always take action to protect freedom of expression to safeguard the work of journalists. The forthcoming online safety legislation will enshrine in law protections for journalistic content and free debate. We will, however. also keep a very close eye on what is called the SLAPP jurisdiction. My noble friend mentions Australia and Canada; she may also wish to read a recent judgment from the Western Cape High Court, the case of Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd, in which Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath set out in very clear terms the advantages of a SLAPP jurisdiction. This may be the first occasion of a David praising the work of a Goliath.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, focused on the cost to public funds, which the Minister fully answered. The Oral Question contains an attack on barristers and solicitors for representing clients. Does the Minister agree that any litigant, whoever they may be and wherever they may come from, is entitled to legal advice and representation, and that it is the job of the judge to decide what the legal rights and wrongs are?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

They have vested interests.

Independent Review of Administrative Law Update

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we are not disappointed with the report from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his team. On the contrary, it is a very good piece of work. We are consulting for the reasons I have already expressed. The panel did not say that ouster clauses should never be used; it said that, when used appropriately, they should not be seen as an affront to the rule of law. We want to consult on whether and how they should be used. The independent review of the Human Rights Act is ongoing. We will consider its results in due course. While very significant reform of judicial review might require changes to the Human Rights Act, the changes we are proposing do not.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising barrister in public law cases. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his review team for the very sensible and balanced report which it has produced. The Minister will have noted the wise words of the noble Lord and his colleagues at paragraph 15 of their conclusions:

“Our view is that the government and Parliament can be confident that the courts will respect institutional boundaries in exercising their inherent powers to review the legality of government action. Politicians should, in turn, afford the judiciary the respect which it is undoubtedly due when it exercises these powers.”


Do the Government agree?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that the courts would be expected to respect institutional boundaries, and Parliament and the Government should do likewise. The purpose of our consultation is to make sure that we produce the best system we possibly can so that all those involved in the judicial review process—judges, applicants, Government and everyone else—is party to a system which promotes good government and upholds the rule of law.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct that delays in the criminal justice system can affect not only the defendant but others involved, including victims and witnesses. The listing of cases is ultimately a matter for the judiciary, not the Executive, so I am limited in what I can say. However, I can confirm, for example, that at the moment the majority of cases where a defendant is in custody have been listed for trial before July 2021.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, are the Government considering two possible steps that would help to reduce the unacceptable backlog of cases in the Crown Courts? The first is to reduce the number of jurors to, say, seven, making it easier to ensure social distancing in court rooms, and the second is to allow defendants who are legally represented to choose trial by judge alone in some categories of cases where juries are currently required?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, trial by jury is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction. With the support of Public Health England and Public Health Wales, we have made adjustments to more than 290 court rooms and jury deliberation rooms so as to facilitate trial by jury. Reducing the size of the jury is therefore unlikely to free up an additional amount of space for jury trials, and it would also require primary legislation. As to the other point that the noble Lord makes about trial by judge alone, that would, I think, require a significant change in our criminal justice system, and therefore very careful consideration would be required before embarking on that change.