Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge:

Moved by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge

3: In the title of inserted section 66E, after “Creating” insert “or soliciting the creation of”

My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 2, 8 and 9 and to my Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, which are tabled in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Clement- Jones. In doing so, I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its Future Forum, an AI policy conference.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has taken so much time in the past few weeks to meet me and discuss my concerns. I am very grateful for his patience and work in getting the new government amendment to a much stronger position than the original one. I am grateful for the undertaking to amend the time limit for prosecuting cases so that prosecution can take place even after six months have elapsed from the commission of an offence.

Amendments 3, 7 and 10 relate to my substantive amendment, Amendment 4, on soliciting sexually explicit content. I thank the Minister for his commitment to ensuring that solicitation will be included in the Bill when it reaches the Commons after scrutiny by parliamentary counsel. However, noble Lords will know that I have been urging the Government to tackle solicitation and that I am entirely inspired by the experience of Jodie, whom many noble Lords have met, and many women like her.

I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that my concern about solicitation is not new. In fact, I first flagged the issue to your Lordships’ House in July last year, so I cannot help but feel disappointed that, after all this time, the Government are still asking for longer. Solicitation is an integral part of the amendment, and I believe we cannot risk the amendment going to the Commons without its inclusion. I know so many of us, and the survivors watching, will feel far more reassured to send this Bill to the Commons with the wording clearly stating that the offence is committed irrespective of the location of the person or persons solicited, whether or not they are identified and whether or not the creation occurs.

I turn now to Amendment 5, which would remove reasonable excuse. This was an issue first highlighted to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on Report. The amendment speaks to our concern that reasonable excuse may be interpreted in a way that Parliament has not intended and may allow abusers to escape justice, leaving victims traumatised.

Finally, Amendment 6 gives judges the option of imprisonment as well as a fine. It is vital that the Government take a strong position in standing up to those who abuse women in this appalling way. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there is no expectation that every perpetrator will end up in prison, but it is vital that the option is open to judges so that, in the most extreme of cases, there is a deterrent to show how seriously, as a society, we take this form of digital violence against women. Campaigners agree, saying that if you do not have prison, abusers will think they are untouchable. There is an attitude of being emboldened. Jodie and Sophie, both survivors, have independently described the Government's proposal of a fine as simply insulting. Jodie said:

“for the most serious cases of deepfake abuse, prison sentences must be an option for judges. The effect of this abuse is devastating, and the sentencing must reflect that”.

Sophie agreed that a fine would not have deterred her perpetrator and described the proposal as an insult to those whose lives are turned upside down.

My understanding is that the Government’s proposed non-consensual taking offence will rightly have the option of a prison sentence. I would be interested to know the Government’s reason for deeming that non-consensual taking can result in prison but non-consensual creation cannot. Internet Matters found that teenagers saw sexually explicit deepfakes as worse than real image-based abuse, for reasons such as lack of autonomy and awareness of the image, anonymity of the perpetrator and the ways in which the images may be manipulated to make the victim appear. I am sure that, like many young women, I am struggling to comprehend a legal system that offers a heavier punishment for fly-tipping than for the violation of my consent. How many more women must suffer before we finally treat VAWG offences on a par with other crimes?

I asked campaigners to share with me some of the language used to solicit this content when men posted clothed images with requests to put women in sexually explicit content. It gives an insight into the mind of the people who inflict this abuse on women. A milder one stated, “I want her done for two reasons. One, she is hot. Two, she has a huge ego and this will humble her”. Another said, “Do whatever you want to this woman. Degrade her”.

The vast majority of the language was far more extreme and left me feeling physically sick. I implore the Government to listen to the voices of survivors and to not close off the option of prison when prosecuting the people who inflict this appalling abuse, ripping away a woman’s consent to degrade her. I urge noble Lords across this House: think of the women in your lives—your daughters, granddaughters, nieces, wives. If someone had abused them in this appalling manner, would we still be saying that prison should not be an option?

For too long, women have had their pain minimised and their experiences belittled. We are at the precipice of a new age of extreme misogyny and I urge noble Lords to please strengthen the hands of the judges to tackle this abuse. I beg to move.

The skill and determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have persuaded the Government to address this important topic in the Bill. She has performed a great service to this House. I thank the Minister, most sincerely, and the Bill team for bringing forward their Amendment 2, and for the amount of time and trouble they have taken on this subject and their patience in discussions on this matter.

The Government have come a long way in their Amendment 2, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that there are three improvements that this House can and should make to the Bill before it travels to the House of Commons. The first is to add an offence of soliciting a purported intimate image. That is the subject of Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The people who create the purported intimate image are often outside the jurisdiction, so the law needs to penalise and deter those in this country who solicit such images from people abroad. There is no dispute from the Government. The Minister made it very clear on Report and again today that such solicitation should be an offence. The Government accept that it should be an offence whether the person solicited to create the image is here or abroad. The Government also accept that solicitation should be an offence whether or not the image is, in fact, created. All of that is agreed and Amendments 3 and 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, do the job.

The Government’s position, as the Minister has said, is that the solicitation offence will be added—he gave this commitment—in the House of Commons. I simply do not understand why a solicitation offence cannot be added in this House, to make it clear to the House of Commons that noble Lords believe that this is of fundamental importance.

I greatly respect the integrity of the Minister. I have had many dealings with him over the years and I greatly respect him, but all noble Lords will know that, once this Bill leaves this House, matters are out of our hands —and out of his hands. There are all sorts of reasons why the Government might change their mind on including a solicitation offence in the Bill, and then this House would have no opportunity to come back to the matter.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, that this House should take this opportunity to include a solicitation offence, when there is no substantive dispute from the Government that it should be included in the Bill. As the Minister said in his very sensitive opening remarks, a solicitation offence is “an important part of the package” and is needed—that is what he said, and I respectfully agree—to make the legislation effective. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, does the job and I hope that we will support her.

The second improvement to which I hope the House will agree is to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence that is included in the Government’s Amendment 2, under new Section 66E(5). Amendment 5 from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, would remove the reasonable excuse defence. The reason I support her on this is that I can see no circumstances in which there could be a reasonable excuse for the defendant’s conduct if the prosecution proves, as it must, the elements of this offence. Those elements, as defined perfectly properly by the Government, are that the defendant has intentionally created “a purported intimate image” of the victim; that they have done so when the victim has not consented; and that the defendant “does not reasonably believe” that she has consented. The prosecution has to prove all of that.

I asked the Minister on Report to give an example of when a reasonable excuse defence might apply if all those factors were proved. With respect, he did not do so. He has suggested in discussions that a defendant might lack mental capacity or be very youthful, but in such a case the CPS would need to prove an intention to create the image and mental capacity or youth would, of course, be important factors that the sentencing magistrate or judge would be bound to take into account.

I would add that for the legislation to include a reasonable excuse defence would be wrong in principle, because Parliament would be saying that such conduct—the conduct we are discussing—could be excusable, and it is not. To include such a defence would also be unfortunate in practice, because the inevitable consequence will be that defendants take up the court’s time presenting spurious excuses such as—this is what happens— “I was only having a laugh” or “The victim lacks a sense of humour”. That type of defence, and others, will add to the distress of the victims. A reasonable excuse provision has no place in this offence.

With great respect, I do not understand the Minister’s suggestion that the absence of a reasonable excuse defence would conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. There can be no breach of the defendant’s human rights unless that person can bring forward an excuse which is reasonable. As I have suggested, it is impossible to envisage in what circumstances the excuse would be reasonable. You need to be a victim to have a human rights argument, and the defendant in this case is not a victim; the victim is the unfortunate woman whose privacy has been violated.

The third improvement that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, address is to include in the Bill a power for the court not merely to impose a fine, which is the Government’s position, but, where appropriate, a sentence of imprisonment. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is proposing that the sentencing magistrate or judge should have the option—I repeat, the option—in severe cases to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

It is not difficult to envisage cases where a sentencing magistrate or judge should have the option of imposing a sentence of imprisonment for creating a purported intimate image of the victim. Suppose that the defendant has committed this crime on an industrial scale, with hundreds of victims. Suppose that the defendant had a previous relationship with the victim, which she has ended. Perhaps she declined to enter into a relationship with the defendant, and he has decided to punish and humiliate her as an act of revenge by using an innocent photograph that he has of her to create the purported intimate image, knowing that she has a particular mental vulnerability and that his conduct will lead to her having a mental breakdown when she learns that the purported intimate image of her is being seen by people in her community. Can the Government seriously maintain that, in a case such as that, the magistrate or the judge should be denied the option of imposing a sentence of imprisonment?

If the Minister will not think again and will not accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on these three important issues, I hope that the noble Baroness will divide the House. If she does, she will certainly have my support.

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. Any of us who have ever acted as lawyers for women who have been exposed to this kind of conduct will know the suffering that ensues from it. The arguments placed before the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, are absolutely right. The court has to have wider discretion on sentencing, because sometimes it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, that multiples of this will have been done and to many different women. It will be there on the internet for all to see, causing incredible mental anguish and pain.

I have just come from a Select Committee where we have been hearing evidence about transnational repression. We have just heard from a woman working for BBC Persian, who had the experience of photographs being turned into deepfake pornography and sent to her daughter’s school. I ask you to imagine the implications of that being circulated, to your own child’s detriment. That is the way in which these things work. I emphasise that there is no example of reasonable cause that could be imagined that could justify it—there really is not. It is very important that we all recognise that.

There will be people—let us imagine Mr Andrew Tate appearing in court for an offence of this kind, were he to do it—who will say that the world should see the beauty of women’s genitalia and admire the great beauty of women as they submit themselves to men. Do we really want the time of the courts to be taken up with that kind of nonsense—because it will be? It will be said to be about trying to inform and educate people about sexual intimacy and sexual matters. All manner of nonsense, presented as reasonable excuse, will be put before the courts—that is what will happen. I urge the court—sorry, I am going into lawyer mode. I urge the House, rather, to see the seriousness of this and that this is a moment where we should be taking a stand and saying no.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised three issues: sentencing and the options available to judges; the issue of reasonable excuse; and recognising that the prosecution authorities will not pursue a case against a child who has somehow stumbled upon a way of doing this. Very careful decisions will be made about people who have not got mental capacity. If we do not take a firm stance on this now, it will be used and abused in terrible ways, to the detriment particularly of women.

I simply want to endorse, but not repeat, the propositions of law advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

I will do exactly the same. It is extremely important that magistrates should have the power to imprison as well as to fine.

I have spoken to these amendments at every stage of the Bill. One of the unfortunate outcomes of being a campaigner for online safety is the abuse that we get directly from people who do not want the online world to be safe. That abuse comes in all forms, including that which the noble Baroness is trying to criminalise. I say to the House that we must support the noble Baroness. I am so disappointed that the Government are not here with us. Support the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I have a couple of quick things to say. First, there is no reason not to put this into the Bill here; it can be amended in the Commons quite happily. Secondly, without solicitation in the Bill, there is a massive loophole. One can work out exactly how to get round the whole thing by just inserting someone soliciting in the middle. The other thing is that this can happen to men and could be used for blackmail, so this could be used against that, which is very dangerous. We need imprisonment in the Bill, because if someone makes enough money out of whatever it is that they put out there, a fine is nugatory and they will not worry about it. We need to have imprisonment as well.

My Lords, I endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, have said.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, from the Government, on bringing forward his amendment, which also incorporates the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The noble Baroness stood up and could not be deterred— I am glad that this has been a good result.

Noble Lords might want to know why the Government have put forward this amendment. A notification from the BBC came to my mobile at 1 pm. It had to do with Naga Munchetty, who says:

“Scammers spread fake nude pictures of me on social media”.

The scammers have written an article—which is absolutely false—saying, for example, that the Government have ordered Naga Munchetty to be detained, and it includes a lot of nude pictures. Given what the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, have done, that lady will feel that we are moving forward.

Finally, I say that soliciting must be in the Bill; reasonable doubt, or whatever other view, must be out; and imprisonment must be in the Bill.

In speaking to this group of amendments, I am mindful of the admonition from my noble friend the Chief Whip to respect the rules of the House, and I look at the advice that we are given on today’s agenda about how to conduct oneself in these circumstances, so I have no intention of repeating what the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have said, because I agree with every single word of it—and I agree with all the endorsements of the arguments that they have put forward. However, I want to make a contribution to this debate about the purpose of all this and what the issue is.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he and the Bill team have conducted themselves and for their ability to listen and on occasion to act, which is a limited commodity sometimes in debates in your Lordships’ House, but it just has not gone far enough. For all the reasons that have been given, we should continue to deal with the issue of solicitation here, if we possibly can, because it is relatively simple. I do not know what the complication is: if people do things in this jurisdiction to avoid being prosecuted for doing other things, which is what solicitation is about, we should criminalise it—and we do in every other area of the law, as I have said before. I am trying not to make the same speech that I have made about three or four times on this.

On Monday, I was witness to a conversation about the challenges and priorities that the UK faces in the current geopolitical context in terms of its national security. One party to that conversation asked the other for an assessment of the highest-priority challenges faced in this current geopolitical environment and the other, who is an expert in national security, said in their opening remarks that we live in an age of impunity. We certainly do in that context, but it is clear from the data in relation to the creation and dissemination of these abhorrent AI-generated images that that is exactly where we are and where almost every woman or girl in the United Kingdom is in relation to this form of sexual abuse.

The victims, and those who feel that they may be victims but do not know about it yet, or who have been threatened to be victims, feel that they are living in a world of impunity. They feel that the perpetrators are committing these acts with no fear of sanction—or, indeed, the social consequences that should result from that. I am advised repeatedly that 98% of deepfake videos online today are pornographic and that, of those, 99% are of women or girls and have been created for misogynistic or revenge porn reasons. Despite the fact that we have criminalised the sharing of these images and that such an act attracts summary penalties under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the amendments to it in the Online Safety Act, there has been an almost negligible number of prosecutions and even fewer convictions. I do not know how many there have been and, if I asked my noble friend the Minister how many, I do not know whether he would be able to tell me, but it is a negligible number.

If and when these amendments pass into law, including the three amendments on what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, identified as the main unresolved issues, they will help to end the feeling of impunity that scars the victims and ensure that everyone who creates or solicits the creation of such an image or video without the consent of the person involved will be committing a crime. Nothing can be less ambiguous than the operation of cause and effect. Perpetrators must know that this country has determined that it is criminal to create these images in these circumstances with no defence—and the defences are limited—and that they will be punished and unable to avoid the consequence by just getting someone else to do it on their behalf.

This legislation with the amendments proposed performs three principal tasks. With respect to those who serve us in various departments in this Government, it has been far too difficult to establish those three principal tasks. First, they establish consent as the determinant of criminality in these sexual abuse cases, as it already is in all other sexual abuse cases, thereby removing the burden on victims of engaging with the challenge of proving motive, which they should never have been asked to engage in. Secondly, they criminalise the solicitation or commission of sexually explicit deepfakes—I prefer the word “commission”, because there is a financial element for some of the people who create them solicited by others. Thirdly, in the guise of Amendment 6, they open the possibility of jail time for the perpetrator if the court regards that as appropriate in the specific case.

The measure of success of these provisions, if enacted, will lie not in the number of convictions brought, let alone jail time served, but in the number of women who do not become victims of deepfake sexual abuse in the first place, and in the more women and girls there are who are relieved of the fear that it may be happening to them and they do not yet know it, or that they can be threatened with it. As with the discussion of the strategic security issues to which I alluded in my earlier remarks, the key is not prosecution but deterrence. We know that, in any context, deterrence works only when it is rests on the possibility of an appropriately severe response where infractions are committed or where society is resilient to such behaviour—so deterrence by resilience.

I do not envisage a welter of convictions and short sentences resulting from these amendments—an issue that is particularly acute given the disastrous inheritance that this Government were bequeathed by their predecessor in terms of the prison estate and overcrowding —but the possibility must be written into law to deter those who may otherwise choose to commit such crimes. Noble Lords will recall a phrase from Coriolanus: “Action is eloquence”; however, when making legislation, it is not the act of prosecution that is desired—in fact, one can argue that that is an admission of a societal failing—but establishing a causal nexus of sufficient severity to ensure that bad actors choose not to incur severe risks to themselves and instead keep within the law.

In closing, I return to something that I said on Report—which is probably a breach of one of our pieces of guidance. We know that the march of technology and the feeling of anonymity and impunity afforded by the internet have conspired to make this problem epidemic. The amendments to which I have put my name and which have been championed with such energy and forensic advocacy by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, engage these challenges in a manner that I think is proportionate and just. It is for those reasons that they should stand part of this Bill as it becomes law.

My Lords, I back 100% my noble friend Lady Owen’s amendments and pay tribute to the powerful contributions to this debate. I have spent the past year working on a pornography review, which I hope the Government will publish as soon as possible. I back these amendments 100%. This is an industry that is out of control and growing. There are so many victims—there are victims in the past and there will be many victims in the future. If these amendments are not backed, the Government will be falling short and failing those victims. I do not believe that this Government want to fall short; I have huge faith that they want to meet their targets on halving VAWG over the next few years. They will not meet that target, however, if they do not act bravely and take thorough, proper decisions on these kinds of crimes. We must back these amendments.

My Lords, I can be very short; there are three points. First, it must be right to include solicitation; it is integral to the success of this Bill, and it is necessary to do so. Secondly, to omit “reasonable excuse” is obviously right. It would be incompatible with the Bill to include it. Thirdly, it must be right to have imprisonment as a sentencing option in appropriate cases. What about someone who has done it before, particularly in respect of the same victim?

My Lords, I want to say just one thing. In light of what has been said, I urge the Government to accept these amendments. They will do themselves no credit by resisting them, and I am certain the amendments will be passed.

My Lords, I think we have an open-and-shut case. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who has recruited a formidable group of Members of this House in support of her amendments. I cannot understand why the Government are allowing what could have been a very civilised agreement to founder on these three rocks. That seems to me to be quite extraordinary, particularly when we have heard that forensic tearing apart of the Government’s case by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. One of the great campaigning skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has been to recruit him to deliver an absolutely brilliant destruction of the Government’s case. The “reasonable excuse” and solicitation aspects are both coach and horses. We do not want the Bill to leave this House without the noble Baroness’s amendments; otherwise, a coach and horses will be driven through those provisions.

As for the imprisonment aspect, that is probably the most important of the three for many of us. All the other comparable offences—false communications; threatening communications; encouraging or assisting serious self-harm; cyber flashing; revenge porn; epilepsy trolling; harassment and stalking—are imprisonable to a greater or lesser degree, so we really ask the Government to rethink their position before going to a vote. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, if she pushes this to a vote, which I very much hope she will if the Government do not concede. She used the phrases “digital violence” and “extreme misogyny”. Digital violence leads to and constitutes extreme misogyny, and that is why we are so passionate about this offence and getting it right.

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Owen in her amendments. Thanks to her tireless and frankly inspiring work, we have an opportunity to make a real difference now—today. She made a powerful and disturbing case for her amendments, and we have heard in Committee, on Report and now today how important these changes are to the many women who have already been victims of deepfakes. This is clearly something we need to address urgently to protect others from being victims in future and to bring perpetrators to justice. Deepfakes can ruin lives, and now is the time to act. In this, my noble friend has our full support.

I congratulate the Government on having travelled some way in tabling their amendment today. We are disappointed that they have still not been able to deliver including solicitation in the proposed offence. My noble friend’s amendments would ensure that it is an offence to solicit—I, too, rather prefer that term—or commission the creation of these kinds of images, and we support her inclusion of solicitation in the new offence.

Of course, I understand that the Government plan further amendments, but for now we are also disappointed that they have decided not to give the courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence on those who commit this new offence, and have chosen not to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created an image of this type. Given the seriousness of the new offence and its significant impact on the lives of victims, this new law must have more teeth. We support my noble friend in bringing Amendment 6 to the House, and we will vote with her on this and her other amendments if she chooses to test the opinion of the House. Like others, I rather hope she will.

I conclude by once again paying tribute to my noble friend, who has assembled such a distinguished and respected group of signatories to and supporters of her amendments. Her approach to the Bill is in the highest traditions of your Lordships’ House, and I am proud to support her today.

My Lords, this has been both a wide-ranging debate and a specific debate on the noble Baroness’s three amendments. I will deal first with the solicitation point. We have heard the strength of feeling, and the Government will not oppose the noble Baroness’s Amendments 3, 4, 7 and 10. As I said, we had wanted to do it another way, but we recognise the strength of feeling expressed in this debate.

I turn to Amendment 5, the “reasonable excuse” amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we had a discussion on Report in which I did not actually put forward what a reasonable excuse might be, but in a subsequent private discussion, I postulated that it might be a young person or somebody who lacked mental capability. I still think those are cases where one might advance that argument, but a more general point is that it is very common in courts up and down the land to have “reasonable excuse” arguments. One hears those arguments all the time, and it is for judges and magistrates to decide whether they think they are indeed a reasonable excuse. There is nothing unusual about that at all. Since the offence itself is, first, so widely drawn, and, secondly, novel, it is prudent to include the “reasonable excuse” wording within the definition of this offence. So, we will be opposing the noble Baroness’s Amendment 5.

All the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy were sharing offences, which are already imprisonable offences. The offence we are talking about is the creation of an image, not sharing or threatening to share. We agree that that should be an offence, but the maximum sentence will be an unlimited fine—potentially, an unlimited fine for each image. We think that that is appropriate, rather than having an imprisonable offence, so we disagree with the noble Baroness on Amendments 5 and 6.

We support the creation of this new criminal offence. In many other aspects of law, we are looking at how to combat this evil developing in the online world, but the approach we have outlined is the best one, and I urge noble Lords not to support the noble Baroness in Amendments 5 and 6.

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him about the aspect of deterrent? You may have someone—or a company—who is inordinately rich, or someone who is extremely poor, for whom, as he knows, a fine will not work because they do not have any money. There will be instances where a fine would not do but the deterrent would be the possibility of prison.

The noble and learned Baroness makes a fair point. In practice, this offence is very likely to be charged with the threat to share and other offences, which are of course imprisonable in their own right. As I said, there is no limitation to the number of offences that can be charged. We think it more appropriate that this be a fine-only offence, given the plethora of other offences which can be charged in this field.

It is important to clarify that someone can be in a relationship with a partner who creates a sexually explicit deepfake, which presents a very real threat to that person even if their partner has not actually threatened to share it. That is what campaigners and victims believe: if you are in this kind of relationship and you know that someone has developed these sexually explicit deepfakes without your consent, that presents a very real threat. We believe that should be imprisonable.

My Lords, in a sense, this will be tested in the courts. If the woman knows that the images have been created, the threat is there; that is what she is worried about. Of course, that is a separate offence, as I have already said. On the offence where there is no threat and it is just the creation of the image, we believe that a fine-only sentence is appropriate.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) agreed.

Amendment 4 (to Amendment 2) agreed.