With the greatest respect, there is no wide area. Once the hoops have been gone through, the court has effectively foreclosed the discretion that it would otherwise have on non-imprisonment. There is an illogicality in the situation, although I say in fairness to the Minister that it is not Clause 10 that causes the illogicality. The illogicality has been there for some years; it has been there since there was a provision in one statute that stated that you had to determine whether imprisonment was inevitable in all the circumstances and a power from 1967 to suspend a sentence. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is absolutely right. The situation has already been foreclosed. There is no discretion once that finding is made. Going back on that decision is utterly illogical. Our concern is to see fewer people sent to prison for breach of suspended sentences and I do not mind how logical the ultimate situation will be if it is successful in achieving that end.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 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
699 c606 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:57:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448639
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448639
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448639