My Lords, I am heartened by how many noble Lords have spoken to this amendment and I hear what they have said. The Minister is right that we have a fundamental difference of approach and he is right in interpreting my motivations in this area. We believe that there are still too many children—the emphasis is on children—going into custody who should not be incarcerated by the state. The state has a particular duty in this regard, because children should be treated differently from adults. International human rights law, which we have signed up to, says that in terms. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report in January 2008, said that, "““the provision in the Criminal Justice Act restricting the use of custody is a general restriction applying to all offenders, rather than one aimed at ensuring that custody is only ever used as a genuinely last resort in relation to juveniles. In our view, a much more specific safeguard is required in order to ensure that the obligation in Article 37(b)””,"
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, "““is properly implemented””."
So we have fine words, but perhaps less fine action.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that, in addition to what my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said about courts having to use discretion and judgment on a regular basis, the custody threshold, such as it exists in Section 152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has as its factor for consideration the seriousness of the offence. We argue that that is also a discretionary judgment and that the threshold itself is meaningless without it. Here we have tried, by bringing in a person’s age and circumstances, to help to elucidate the circumstances that might affect that person appearing before the courts.
As I said, I am heartened by the general thrust of this debate. I hope that the Minister will have heard what other noble Lords said about the motivations behind the amendment. On that basis, I hope that he will reflect and perhaps come back to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 April 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c1085 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:15:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460526
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460526
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460526