Of course, I bow to the noble Earl’s English. He is absolutely right, but it leads me to the point that I am concerned about in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Two points worry me. Perhaps the more important is that it omits punishment of the offender. I believe that sentencing has to take into account that, where appropriate, children have to be punished. We are not in a world where the child’s welfare forbids punishment where it is due. Children, like adults, have to be punished on occasions. Not all children have to be punished for all offences. As I wish to say in respect of a later amendment to the Bill, I hope, as indeed the Government choose, to have diversion of children from the offending court where offences have to be dealt with. But to ignore that punishment must be part of the duty of sentencing is to ignore a basic importance for the protection of the public.
I have not put in a further amendment, but I would like to see something to the effect of the punishment of offenders ““where appropriate””, which would provide the ability to punish or not to punish as might be appropriate for the child. The other perhaps rather more minor point that I would take issue with in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that I have the impression that he has taken Section 1(3) of the Children Act word for word into the amendment. I am not in disagreement with paragraphs (b) to (g), although I am not certain that (g) is appropriate. I am concerned about (a). I am not sure how far, "““the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child””,"
which are entirely appropriate in children proceedings, are equally appropriate in criminal proceedings. Of course the child as a defendant and the child whose welfare is to be considered have to be consulted. I am not certain that that needs to be put into primary legislation. That is something that the court would have to do in any event.
My preference is to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which probably covers all that is necessary, although I have no objection to the majority of what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, apart from the two points. However, I feel strongly that one has to keep punishment in, even if it is punishment ““where appropriate””, as I would prefer.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Butler-Sloss
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c1100-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:50:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444111
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444111
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444111