|
Column Number: 203
Standing Committee B
Tuesday 16 September 2003
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Clause 17
Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 40, in
clause 17, page 7, line 21, leave out '7' and insert '14'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Vera Baird (Redcar): The amendment would increase the maximum sentence for the offence to 14 years. I propose a compromise of 10 years on the basis that we should keep the harsher sentencing for the full offence, rather than for activity that is merely preparatory to committing an offence. Given that the traditional and right approach is to give a sentencing discount for an attempt as opposed to the full offence, I suggest that something that is merely preparatory should also be subject to a discount.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): The drive behind the clause, which is the main proposal from sub-group A, was preventive and proactive. An example cited by the police to the Committee was that of Luke Sadowski. Because the Bill is not on the statute book, that man was charged with attempted indecent assault, attempting to incite another to procure a child—a girl under 21—for sex, and possession of a firearm. It was his first offence and the police were fortunate that he pleaded guilty, as it would have been hard to make the offence stick. When the police went to his accommodation, they found firearms, handcuffs, knives and other paraphernalia, the implication being that ultimately he would kill a child. It was an offence in the mind, but if we follow that mind, 10 years would not be enough. Fourteen years must be available to the court, given that he might come out of prison in much less time than that.
Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman takes such issues seriously, as do we all, and gives the worst imaginable case as an example. There is a good reason to keep the harsher sentences only for the fullest offences. It will then be clear to those who even contemplate committing such offences that they will be punished severely if they do so. We must keep the position secure and allow some discount in view of the fact that no one has been harmed. The only logic in increasing the sentence to 14 years would be if the full offences were subject to higher punishments.
At a time when the public are dissatisfied not so much with the gravity of sentencing, but the inconsistency of sentencing for the same offences, the position must be made clear to judges by setting the limits which sentences are to be more severe. As a rule, an attempt is sentenced less seriously than the full offence, and we are not discussing even an attempt. I accept that such matters are not just in the person's head, because there has been an element of
Column Number: 204
communication prior to the attempt to meet; none the less, despite the real gravamen of what is in the person's mind, it is only in his mind at the time. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) that we can equate clause 17 with clause 15 and say that the offences therein merit a similar sentence. Clause 15 contains elements of a conspiracy with other people to set up a group to behave in such a way, which is more grave.
The mischief that the amendment claims to cure could be dealt with if the Government were willing to accept a maximum sentence of 10 years. The spectre of the low sentences that were quoted by Conservative Members this morning would be lifted.
Sandra Gidley (Romsey): I approach the subject with an open mind. While listening to the debate, it struck me that we are approaching a wide range of intentions, and in such cases, there will potentially be a wide range of circumstantial evidence to back up the police. In the most severe cases, I am fairly convinced that other provisions of the Bill would be contravened and that that would lead to a greater sentence. We have to take account of the greater as well as the lesser offences. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) quoted one such example. Seven years is probably a reasonable sentence for the vast majority of offences under the clause but I am tempted to consider increasing the maximum to 14 years—or to come to a compromise of 10 years—to give judges more discretion.
The clause would be an ideal candidate for the Sentencing Guidelines Council; will the Under-Secretary consider the matter and come up with relevant guidelines?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I am very grateful for the support from both sides of the Committee in relation to the offence that we are creating; it is an important, groundbreaking offence, which recognises a modern problem.
I have listened carefully to the debate on the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, who is not with us at the moment, said that I had failed to respond to his speech on Second Reading. I humbly apologise for that; in the 15 minutes available to me, it was not possible to respond to every argument. However, he has had the opportunity to put his argument today.
We have talked today about sentencing issues that apply more widely than simply to the offence in question. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said several times that if somebody is sentenced to seven years, they actually serve three and a half years and that if they are sentenced to 10 years, they do five years. That is a wider issue that does not apply simply to the offence in question. None the less, I recognise that that is a matter of debate.
The important points as far as I was concerned were made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who emphasised the preparatory nature of the offence. That goes to the heart of what the offence is about. We are trying to prevent a serious sexual
Column Number: 205
assault on a child; the powers that we have at the moment do not allow us to intervene as we would like to prevent that most serious event from happening.
I should tell the hon. Member for Mole Valley that Liberty is not a member of the taskforce, though I understand that a senior figure in Liberty has attended meetings; so although not part of the taskforce it has made a contribution.
Some time ago, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) raised the issue of—
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) indicated dissent.
Paul Goggins: Perhaps it was the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) who raised the issue of intent and how sexual intent could be proved. It was the hon. Member for Romsey; I apologise. Clearly the prosecution and those conducting the investigation would look carefully at the circumstances in which the defendant was found. For example, if he were found going to the meeting with ropes, lubricants and paraphernalia that would indicate his intention to carry out sexual activity, that would be the kind of evidence sought.
To return to the issue, raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, about the law in relation to attempt, clearly more would need to be proved than merely preparatory activity. The evidence sought would be far more significant: it might involve the removal of a child's clothing, or something that was part of the process of assaulting the child. We are trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening by putting the offence much further up the line, in the area of preparation. As the hon. Member for Romsey said, if a serious sexual assault takes place, that can be dealt with in a number of other ways that are addressed in other clauses: heavy penalties can be paid, from 14 years to life imprisonment.
The Government have tried to find a penalty that both reflects the seriousness of the offence and is proportionate. We are trying to anticipate offences that are of a lower order than the carrying out of the most serious kinds of sexual assaults on children and to prevent them from happening. For the penalty, we arrived at a figure of seven years, but it is important to emphasise that the sex offender notification requirements will apply to anybody who is found guilty of such an offence, and as a result of that registration they will be eligible for sex offender treatment programmes—that relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley.
We think that we have got the principles right, but I am happy to reflect further on whether we have got the penalty right, so that we arrive at a final figure that reflects the principles and the need for proportionality as well as the fact that we regard this as a very serious offence.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I am pleased to have heard the Minister's comments. I tabled the amendment in order to argue that the penalty might be insufficient in certain cases. I suspect that they would
Column Number: 206
be a very limited number of cases, but they would be the sorts of cases that would excite a great deal of press and public comment.
I am glad that the Minister is undertaking to think again. A figure of 10 years has been suggested, which might merit consideration. It was never my intention to press the amendment to a Division. It would probably be sensible for all Committee members to go away and reflect on this matter. We can come back to it on Report—or the Minister might tell us his views before then.
Vera Baird: I was persuaded to suggest 10 years largely because that would introduce some consistency as clauses 62, 63 and 64, which address other preparatory offences, have that penalty.
Mr. Grieve: I had appreciated that that figure was not plucked out of thin air: that might well provide an element of comparability that could be followed.
Although in 95 per cent. of cases the penalty of seven years will probably be sufficient, there will be some cases in which the police intervene to prevent what clearly would have been a dreadful crime and the person involved already has a serious track record of committing the complete offence. In those circumstances, the public are going to say that there is an opportunity to protect them but that the sentence does not match the gravity of the threat that is posed by the individual.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
| 
