Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 71: 71: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— ““Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18 (1) This section applies where a person under the age of 18 years is convicted of an offence punishable with a custodial sentence other than one— (a) fixed by law, or (b) failing to be imposed under section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (minimum sentence for certain offences under s.5) or under sections 226 to 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44). (2) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows. (3) In the title of section 152 (general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences), after ““general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences”” insert ““on offenders aged 18 or above””. (4) In section 152(1), after ““where a person”” insert ““aged 18 or above””. (5) After section 152 insert— ““152A Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18 (1) A court shall only pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18 as a measure of last resort and where— (a) the offence committed caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause serious physical or psychological harm to another or others; and (b) a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical or psychological harm. (2) The court shall state in open session its reasons for passing any sentence of custody under this section.”””” The noble Baroness said: Despite the Government’s protestations that custody should indeed be the disposal of last resort and for the shortest possible time, as is laid down in international human rights law, the fact remains, as we have now said over and over again, that the number of children in custody has steadily risen over the Government’s lifetime. One hopes that when one says these things over and over that the content of the meaning does not get diluted. It is just a serious fact. It is accepted in theory that because they are children, those who break the law must be treated differently from adults, as we have already been saying at great length today. All those institutions and structures devised to deal with them must take that into account. However, the JCHR in scrutinising the provision in the Criminal Justice Act took the view that the restriction on the use of custody is a general one applying to all offenders rather than specifically ensuring that it is genuinely used as a last resort where children are concerned. The reason for this amendment is to introduce a more specific safeguard and to create a statutory custody threshold that will act as a barrier to the downward use of custody for lesser offences and be clearly for public protection, except of course where mandatory custodial sentences apply. For the awful truth is that while the crime rate overall is dropping, the numbers of children in custody is rising. We have rehearsed so often in this House the statistics relating to children that show that on virtually every measure they are the most deprived and damaged in our society. When we add to that the fact that the reoffending rate is the highest of any group and the subsequent life chances are the lowest, it seems clear that we are all losers in the exercise. It is neither logical nor justifiable in any of the outcomes. Further, we could just remember that six children have died in custody in the past five years. However, there is evidence that a custody threshold was successful in bringing down the custody figures when it was tried 25 years ago. It resulted in a 54 per cent decrease over a decade on the under-21s given custody for an indictable offence until it was repealed in 1991. Since it cost the YJB £280 million in the year ending March 2007, just think of the possibilities for greater investment, rehabilitation, prevention and restorative alternatives. The current threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is too vague, but Section 1(4) of the 1982 Act provided that the courts must not pass the sentence of custody on a person under 21 unless they were, "““of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified””." I recommend most urgently to the Minister that we follow that excellent precedent and reintroduce such a threshold again. I beg to move. [Amendment No. 72, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]