Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, there was a remarkable debate in Committee on this amendment. All but one of the 18 noble Lords who spoke on that occasion supported the amendment, some in glowing terms. The exceptions were the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who had certain reservations, and the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General, who replied to the debate. At the end of the debate I undertook to bring the amendment back on Report, which I now do. As the House well knows, the circumstances in which the crime of murder can be committed are almost infinitely various. At one end of the scale, it is the most hideous of all crimes; at the other, it is among the most venial. The trouble is that the judge is obliged by law to pass the same sentence in every case—namely, imprisonment for life. However, we all know that in practice imprisonment for life does not mean exactly what it says. Very few convicted murderers do, in fact, spend the rest of their life in prison. After a minimum period in prison determined by the judge, depending on the seriousness of the case, whether that be 10, 15 or 20 years, they come before the Parole Board and in the great majority of cases are released on licence. I make it absolutely clear at the outset that it is, to my mind, right that such cases should be sentenced to life imprisonment, so that the person could, if necessary, be recalled, but my amendment does not touch cases at that end of the scale. At the other end of the scale, there are cases of a very different kind. I have in mind the genuine mercy killer—the loving husband or wife who kills out of compassion—the soldier who kills in the course of duty as a result of an erroneous, split-second decision or the battered wife who kills after suffering years of abuse. Such persons very often have no defence to a charge of murder, so the judge will have no option but to sentence them to life imprisonment. This makes the law look ridiculous when everybody knows that in practice they will be released within a year or two at most. However, it is worse than that. It is, to my mind, wrong and unjust that such persons should be subject to recall, as they would be if a life sentence were passed, when there is obviously no prospect of their committing such a crime for a second time. This amendment would provide a better solution to those cases. It would enable a the jury, when bringing in a verdict of murder, to find that there were, in its view, extenuating circumstances and it would be able to add a rider to that effect. The result would be that the judge was released from the obligation to impose a life sentence and could impose whatever determinate sentence—one year, two years or whatever—he regarded as being appropriate in the circumstances. There would then be no need for the defendant to appear before the Parole Board, which would be a complete waste of everyone’s time. It is difficult to know why such a humane—as I suggest it is—and harmless improvement in the law, suggested first not by me but by Professor Spencer QC of Cambridge University, should not be supported by the Conservatives and should be opposed by the Government. I shall hazard a guess later. I shall deal first with the three arguments advanced in Committee by the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General. First, it was said that it would create a, ""halfway house between murder and manslaughter".—[Official Report, 30/6/09; col. 169.]" It was said that that would not be helpful. But why would it be unhelpful? It would provide an answer in the very cases where, at present, we have to squeeze the facts of deserving cases within the partial defence of diminished responsibility in order to do justice. That point was made strongly in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and, on other occasions, by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. Instead of having what has become known as the benign conspiracy that now operates between prosecution and defence counsel, and experts on both sides, so as to secure a just result, we could deal with these deserving cases openly and honestly on the basis of a finding by the jury. Such a solution will become all the more urgent if the partial defence of diminished responsibility is to be narrowed in the way proposed by the Government and will depend on a recognised medical condition.