Clause 5 - The offence
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am reassured that the Solicitor-General takes the same view as I did without any reliance on authority. Perhaps the Minister should think about the implications that flow from that. We will have the bizarre situation of a rule that a 14 or 15-year-old may be left in charge of children and, one would assume, have a degree of responsibility, yet they have not reached the age of criminal responsibility under clause 5(4). That may an anomaly that we can live with, but, if it is correct, it is an interesting curiosity. I think that the Solicitor-General is right, because it was also my recollection that the relevant age is 14.
I return to the question about the mother or father having a different age of responsibility. Indeed, the age of responsibility is, in that case, undefined. I appreciate
the Minister's point that one would expect the mother or father of a child to take a particular care for them irrespective of their age, but I think that we must be realistic about what goes on in households where there are very young parents. I find it a slightly artificial distinction. We must bear in mind the facts. We are not talking about a 14-year-old murdering their child. If there were evidence of that, the 14-year-old would be prosecuted for murder. We are talking about Parliament creating a specific offence that relies on negligence as its foundation, although it is, admittedly, intended to get round certain problems with convicting people. I find that distinction unrealistic, particularly given that we may be talking about the ability of a 14-year-old to take effective steps when someone else in the household may be causing harm to their child. I hope that the Minister will go away and consider the issue.
The final point on which we touched was that a person could commit an offence even if they were under the age of 10 or entitled to rely on the defence of insanity. I appreciate the Minister's position, which is probably correct, but we must be realistic—certainly in the case of a defence of insanity. There are psychotic adults living in many households, and I have several in my constituency. They often receive pretty paltry care from the national health service and regularly go in
and out of hospital. Such people are potentially a threat to members of their families. I realise that defences are available under subsection (1)(d), but the Committee should bear in mind the possible consequences of saying that other members of the household could be criminalised for the acts of someone who is insane. I suspect that that we shall end up with some prosecutions and some interesting defences, and I hope that the Act will work.
As I said to the Minister at the outset, the clause was originally intended to meet a very precise set of facts. It is fascinating, although perhaps inevitable, that we have ended up with a negligence offence of potentially very wide import. Indeed, I wonder whether that was the original intention in drafting the legislation, which is much wider than I would have expected. I can see, however, that an inexorable logic may have lead to the offence being drafted in its present form. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 24 June at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.