Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 104: 104: After Clause 98, insert the following new Clause— ““Use of a conditional caution In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), in section 66 (effect of reprimands and warnings), omit subsection (4).”” The noble Lord said: New Section 66F in Schedule 18, where this aspect of the sentencing powers is considered, provides a restriction on sentencing powers where a youth conditional caution has been given. It says: "““Where a person who has been given a youth conditional caution is convicted of an offence committed within two years of the giving of the caution, the court … may not””," give a conditional discharge, "““in respect of the offence unless … there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or the offender””." That is the restriction that the amendment is designed to remove. It is for the Government to make the case why such a restriction should be imposed in relation to a youth conditional caution followed by a discharge. The amendment, as proposed by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, seeks to deal with a number of problems. There has been a substantial decline in the use of discharges from 23 per cent of all disposals for indictable offences in 1999 to 10 per cent in 2005. That is as a result of the restrictions under current legislation of no conditional discharge after a final warning has been received. This restriction imposed by the schedule would inevitably lead the court to impose a more intrusive penalty than would be warranted by the offending that it is considering. Conditional discharge can be a very effective sanction. For example, during 2005, reoffending within 12 months of a discharge, both absolute and conditional, was lower than that associated with any other court order or court disposal except the referral order that we discussed earlier today. It was some percentage points lower than would have been predicted on the basis of the characteristics and offending of young people given that sentence. Precluding the giving of a conditional discharge after a youth caution has been given might increase the risk of reoffending. This restriction does not apply to adults: it deals only with young people. Why should young people be treated in any different way from adults? What is the policy that lies behind this provision? I beg to move.