Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I am sorry that the clause does not lend itself warmly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. In answer to the question, ““Is it worth it?””, clearly the Government believe that it is worth it even given its 91 lines in this modest Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will care to put this to the vote as well. The Government feel they are on a roll at the moment. Clauses 21 to 23, as the noble Lord said, give effect to a measure that was recommended by my noble friend Lord Carter in his review of prisons to help manage demand for prison spaces. They introduce a new provision in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to provide that time spent on bail, while subject to an electronically monitored curfew, may be credited towards a subsequent custodial sentence imposed for that offence. It will apply to defendants, bailed under the Bail Act as amended by the Bill, who are subject to an electronically monitored curfew bail condition and who have been sentenced for an offence that was committed on or after 4 April 2005. To qualify for the curfew credit, defendants must have been subject, as the noble Lord said, to an electronically monitored curfew for at least nine hours a day. The court will be required to take into account the defendant’s compliance with the curfew when deciding the period to be credited. As I said, this will have an impact regarding the demand on prison places. The justification for the change in the Bill is really to reflect the position that being subject to a curfew does not equal a deprivation of liberty whereas remand to custody clearly does. That is why each curfew day will provide a potential credit against sentence of no more than half a day. This credit is not being made on the basis that defendants are being deprived of their liberty, but it is a credit for the fact that they have complied with their bail conditions while having their liberty restricted on a preventive, rather than a punitive, basis. The credit is made on the basis that, even though being under a curfew is less arduous than being in custody, both are intended as a preventive measure to secure the judicial process rather than as a measure designed to punish the offender. The noble Lord suggested that the nine hours might provide a perverse incentive. I certainly hope not. The question, ““Why nine hours, with no credit for shorter periods?”” was implicit in what he said. It would be too complicated to relate credit to the number of hours that an offender was subject to curfew with electronic monitoring. There has to be a cut-off point and we think nine hours is appropriate, bearing in mind the degree to which the curfew impinges on the defendant’s daily life. The noble Lord asked why credit could not be given for other bail conditions, such as residence requirements. We consider that the level of restriction imposed by an electronically monitored curfew is greater than those other requirements. Where there are difficulties about evidencing compliance, such restrictions are often coupled with an electronically monitored curfew where credit would be given. Ultimately, we see this as a useful measure. It will help with some of the issues we have with the prison population. It can also be seen as a sensible preventative measure with regard to encouraging people who have been remanded on bail. On that basis, I commend it to your Lordships.