Clause 9 - Power of arrest for possession of Class C drugs
Criminal Justice Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
Yes, but the product will be different. The Minister is quite right that there is no proposed change in the penalty; unfortunately, it means that something that is now a class B drug that will become a class C drug, because everyone agrees that it is less harmful and should be treated as such, is none the less given the maximum penalty—the old penalty—that went with its being classified as a more serious drug.
The Police Foundation inquiry recommended that the penalty should go up from five to seven years for trafficking, but no one recommended that it should be increased to 14 years for trafficking in cannabis. The reality is that if people are dealing in cannabis they should be clobbered, but surely not to the same extent as those dealing in crack cocaine, heroin and ecstasy, which are included in the gradated tariff down to class C. The whole thing will undermine the idea of the three-category system—very serious, not so serious and least serious. My understanding, therefore—the Minister appears to agree—is that from now on, as part of this package of changes, the penalties for trafficking in classes B or C, rather than, as in the past, only class B, will be 14 years.
One other linked issue has been extremely controversial. Hon. Members will remember the Cambridge Two case, in which the people who ran a hostel were charged with offences for permitting the use of drugs there. The maximum sentence imposed on occupiers or managers permitting certain activities to take place on premises contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is 14 years for class A and B drugs, and five years for class C drugs. If cannabis becomes a class C drug, the manager of premises where cannabis is used would be liable to up to 14 years' imprisonment. That, too, is illogical if we are trying to keep the same differentiation and gradation.
In one respect, this is all cloud cuckoo land. We should consider the sentences passed by the stipendiaries, district judges, lay magistrates and Crown court judges for possession offences. Although the maximum penalty for possession of a class C drug will continue to be two years' imprisonment, and five years for a class B drug, in the real world people are not sent to prison for possession of a class C drug and almost never for possession of a class B drug. We are giving a hugely increased tariff, but there has been not only no demand for but no experience of people being sentenced at the top of the tariff. That must bring the law into disrepute. I ask hon. Members to think seriously before signing up to the change.
Some may think that cannabis possession should remain illegal. I accept that in international law—we are signatories to the Geneva narcotics conventions—we cannot unilaterally decriminalise possession of cannabis. I understand what the Dutch are trying to do, but the theory that says, ''Go through the front door of a cannabis café in Amsterdam, share cannabis
with mates, and it is not an offence, but bring it from a lorry through the back door and it is an offence, but it will be ignored,'' is a fudge. The Dutch and Portuguese have considered making it subject to administrative penalty, like some parking offences, but that introduces unnecessary complications.
The way to handle the issue is to say that, although possession of cannabis must remain on the statute book as an offence, it should be a public policy decision not to prosecute, as is done in the case of the blasphemy law. The Crown Prosecution Service has always used two criteria in deciding whether to prosecute: whether it is in the public interest and whether it is 50 per cent. or more likely that a conviction will be achieved. If the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General were to decide that there would not be prosecutions for possession of cannabis, there would be no prosecutions. It could be left technically on the statute book but everyone would know, whether they were in Essex or South Wales, the Police Service for Northern Ireland or in West Mercia, that possession alone would not be prosecuted. My view is that it should not be.
When the police are desperately trying to get on top of problems such as the gun crime of which we hear every day, it is so low a priority for them to go after people for possession of cannabis that it should not be a police activity. It is a complete waste of time, space and effort and should disappear. I do not ask colleagues to share my conclusion. However, even if it is the Committee's view that there should be prosecution for possession of cannabis, it is absolutely illogical to downgrade cannabis to the least harmful category and then make it an arrestable offence, carrying a significant prison sentence, and to make trafficking of cannabis as serious an offence, in terms of punishment, as dealing in heroin and crack cocaine. I hope that the Committee will throw out the clause. It is a nonsense and a fudge and, whatever views we may have about drugs use, it is a ridiculous proposition. I hope that it receives very short shrift and is out of the Bill before it leaves Parliament.