Clause 62 - Cases that may be retried
Criminal Justice Bill
10:15 am
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I am asking a specific question. Does treason carry a life sentence? If so, why is it not there? That comes back to the point of my amendment. We are not dealing with stand part, but with the qualifying offences. What is the basis for the inclusion of each of the offences? Who decided on those 30? What consultations were held between Government and outside bodies to arrive at that list? What offences nearly made the 30 but did not quite? If they did not make it, why not? This is how a debate in Committee should develop. The Minister will say that the offences are all dreadfully serious, but there is a subjective point of view about such matters. Ever since I was burgled, and my father was burgled just before Christmas, I
have taken a harsh view about burglary—I issue that as a public warning.
Arson with intent to endanger life is very serious. However, there are cases of arson with intent to endanger life that are not as bad as other such cases. Ditto, section 18 wounding can be pretty grievous, but it can be run of the mill. I do not say that lightly; I mean in terms of frequency, and of its being put on the indictment in order to get a conviction on a section 20, which is a lesser offence. I do not minimise those two offences, but would anyone compare them with a really aggravated burglary, involving men with masks breaking into a house at two in the morning, threatening and tying up elderly people and then ransacking their house, terrifying them so much that they simply cannot live in it again?
I would ask you which you consider the more serious, Mr. Cran, but it is unlikely that you would respond. I have a view, and other hon. Members will have one, too. Why do I ask these questions? I ask them in order to draw from the Minister in detail, backed up by empirical research, the background to the 30 offences. That is what we need. This is not a debate on the Floor of the House; this is about nuts and bolts, and every aspect of those nuts and bolts requires detailed attention.
The amendment would limit the list to murder or rape. That is my view. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) made a good point about genocide. However, I tabled the amendment on the basis that if we are to depart from double jeopardy—I have to accept the argument for that—we should focus our minds specifically on how far we should go. If we are to take a long walk, why not take one step to begin with? If our first step proves to cure the so-called mischief of which we complain—I think it just might, if we go for a more limited position—it might at the same time not so damage the principle of double jeopardy that we run the risk outlined by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, of giving too much to the state, too soon, and taking too much from the individual?