E D O C U M E N T IS T H E P R O P E R T Y OF H E R B R I T A N N I C M A J E S T Y ^
GOVERNMENT) C(66) 124
2nd A u g u s t . 1966
CABINET
C R I M I N A L JUSTICE B I L L
M e m o r a n d u m by the S e c r e t a r y of State f o r the
H o m e , Department
Introduction
In this m e m o r a n d u m I set out the p r o v i s i o n s which, with the
a g r e e m e n t of the H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e , I p r o p o s e to include in
the C r i m i n a l Justice B i l l .
T h i s B i l l w i l l be a m a j o r m e a s u r e which
w i l l m a k e a number of significant r e f o r m s in the penal s y s t e m and
in the c r i m i n a l l a w and the p r o c e d u r e of the c r i m i n a l courts.
I hope
that it w i l l be possible to take Second R e a d i n g b e f o r e C h r i s t m a s .
R e l e a s e on l i c e n c e
2.
On 2nd D e c e m b e r , 1965 ( C C ( 6 5 ) 67th C o n c l u s i o n s , Minute 3)
the Cabinet approved the publication of a White P a p e r on the Adult
Offender.
The central p r o p o s a l in the White P a p e r (Cmnd. 285 2 ) ,
which the B i l l w i l l i m p l e m e n t , is that a p r i s o n e r who has s e r v e d o n e ­
third of his sentence or one y e a r , w h i c h e v e r is the l o n g e r , may be
r e l e a s e d on l i c e n c e subject to suitable conditions.
Prisoners will be
c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d f o r this p r i v i l e g e in the light of their r e s p o n s e to
training and g e n e r a l p r o g r e s s in p r i s o n , and the o v e r - r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a ­
tion w i l l always be whether e a r l y r e l e a s e is l i k e l y to i n v o l v e any
a p p r e c i a b l e r i s k to the public.
Any p r i s o n e r r e l e a s e d on l i c e n c e w i l l
be subject to r e c a l l t o p r i s o n until the date on which he would have
left it under the existing law.
P e r s i s t e n t offenders
3.
T h e B i l l w i l l a l s o i m p l e m e n t the White P a p e r s p r o p o s a l that
the sentences of p r e v e n t i v e detention and c o r r e c t i v e training should
be a b o l i s h e d , and that the courts should be e m p o w e r e d instead t o
i m p o s e a p e r s i s t e n t offender a l o n g e r s e n t e n c e , subject t o a
statutory m a x i m u m , than that appropriate for the offence of which he
was convicted.
T o offset t h i s , p r i s o n e r s in this c a t e g o r y w i l l be
e l i g i b l e to benefit by the a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r r e l e a s e on l i c e n c e .
!
4.
T h e r e has been w i d e s p r e a d support in p r i n c i p l e f o r these
p r o p o s a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the concept of r e l e a s e on l i c e n c e - though
we m a y expect some debate on questions such as the m i n i m u m
qualifying p e r i o d for r e l e a s e .
-1­
Short t e r m s of i m p r i s o n m e n t
5.
Many people a r e sent to p r i s o n unnecessarily f o r short t e r m s .
In m y v i e w this blunts r a t h e r than sharpens the d e t e r r e n t effect of
imprisonment.
It a l s o o v e r c r o w d s our gaols with p r i s o n e r s f o r whom
no worth while r e m e d i a l treatment can be provided,
I propose, to
tackle this p r o b l e m in four w a y s .
(a)
Suspended sentences
6.
The B i l l w i l l introduce the suspended sentence into our penal
s y s t e m , by e m p o w e r i n g courts t o suspend any sentence of i m p r i s o n ­
ment of two y e a r s or l e s s .
A substantial body of informed opinion
supports the p r i n c i p l e of the suspended sentence, and w i l l w e l c o m e its
introduction.
7.
I a l s o p r o p o s e that, where an offender is dealt with f o r an
offence which is not one involving v i o l e n c e against the p e r s o n or a
sexual assault, and the court i m p o s e s a sentence of i m p r i s o n m e n t of
six months or l e s s , it shall be r e q u i r e d to suspend the sentence if the
offender has not p r e v i o u s l y been sentenced to i m p r i s o n m e n t or b o r s t a l
training.
T h e r e s t r i c t i o n on the p o w e r s of the courts w i l l not be
w e l c o m e d by all sentencing a u t h o r i t i e s , but in m y v i e w it is e s s e n t i a l
if we a r e to make a substantial i m p a c t on the p r o b l e m of short
s e n t e n c e s ; and the exception f o r offences of v i o l e n c e should m e e t
m o s t objections of substance.
(b)
Offenders sentenced f o r drunkennes
8.
When the d e v e l o p m e n t of hostels and other institutions has
advanced far enough to secure sufficient accommodation of the right
t y p e , i m p r i s o n m e n t w i l l not in m y v i e w be n e c e s s a r y as a d i r e c t
penalty f o r the offence of being drunk and d i s o r d e r l y .
I therefore
p r o p o s e that the B i l l should p r o v i d e that, when the S e c r e t a r y of State
i s satisfied that sufficient suitable a c c o m m o d a t i o n is a v a i l a b l e f o r the
t r e a t m e n t and c a r e of those convicted of drunkenness o f f e n c e s , he may
make an o r d e r p r o v i d i n g that the offence of being drunk and d i s o r d e r l y
is no l o n g e r punishable with i m p r i s o n m e n t .
( )
c
E n f o r c e m e n t of F i n e s
9.
The B i l l w i l l e m p o w e r courts t o attach the earnings or other
income of fine defaulters and w i l l r e s t r i c t the present p o w e r s of the
courts to c o m m i t the defaulter to p r i s o n .
In my paper to the H o m e
A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e I p r o p o s e d that courts should have power to c o m m i t
a defaulter to p r i s o n without giving h i m t i m e to pay only if it appeared
that either ­
(a)
he was able t o pay straight away,
(b)
he was l i k e l y to disappear without paying;
or
and that once a court had given t i m e t o pay it should not c o m m i t a
defaulter unless it had t r i e d and f a i l e d to e x t r a c t the fine by attach ­
ment of ea.rn.ings or i n c o m e .
T h e H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e asked
-2­
m e to consider further whether the courts needed the p o w e r at ( a ) a b o v e , b e a r i n g in m i n d , among other things, that it might r e s u l t in s ome offenders under the P r i c e s and I n c o m e s B i l l being c o m m i t t e d
to p r i s o n forthwith.
My proposals already represent a considerable
r e s t r i c t i o n on the p r e s e n t p o w e r s of the courts (indeed the S e c r e t a r y
of State for Scotland is disposed to think that they go too far in this
d i r e c t i o n ) and we do not want the law to b e c o m e too difficult to enforce
against a defaulting offender.
On the other hand, I fully r e c o g n i s e
the need to take full account of the position under the P r i c e s and
I n c o m e s B i l l and I am considering the m a t t e r urgently in consultation
with m y colleagues p r i m a r i l y concerned.
(d)
Remands in custody
10.
With the object of eliminating unnecessary detention b e f o r e
t r i a l I p r o p o s e to r e s t r i c t the p r e s e n t unlimited p o w e r s of m a g i s t r a t e s '
courts to remand or c o m m i t accused p e r s o n s in custody r a t h e r than on
b a i l by r e q u i r i n g b a i l to be o f f e r e d , save in special defined
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , in specified c a t e g o r i e s of m i n o r offences.
Iam
p a r t i c u l a r l y anxious that those who a r e m o s t unlikely to be sent to
p r i s o n , even if c o n v i c t e d , should not be kept in p r i s o n b e f o r e t r i a l .
T h e Jury System
11.
T h e r e has l a t e l y been strong c r i t i c i s m of abuses which a r e p o s s i b l e under the present jury s y s t e m .
T h e r e has been a g r o w i n g number of c a s e s , involving s e r i o u s c r i m e s , in which t h e r e have been attempts to b r i b e or intimidate j u r o r s .
T h e r e have been other c a s e s w h e r e a v e r d i c t of guilty has not been r e a c h e d because one m e m b e r of the j u r y , f r o m a general d i s l i k e of the p o l i c e or some s i m i l a r p r e j u d i c e , was not p r e p a r e d in any c i r c u m s t a n c e s to see a p e r s o n convicted. 12.
I p r o p o s e , as an i m m e d i a t e m e a s u r e to m e e t these c r i t i c i s m s ,
that the B i l l should p r o v i d e f o r j u r i e s t o be able to convict by m a j o r i t i e
of 10 t o 2 instead, as at p r e s e n t , of reqtxiring unanimity.
The Lord
Chief Justice has told m e that the judges a r e unanimously in favour of
majority verdicts.
In addition, because of public anxiety about the
p r e s e n t volume of c r i m e and the need f o r e f f e c t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t of the
l a w , I have r e a c h e d the v i e w that this p r o p o s a l would be g e n e r a l l y
acceptable to lay public opinion.
But a concession could b e m a d e
d u r i n g the p a s s a g e of the B i l l if it b e c a m e c l e a r that m a j o r i t y v e r d i c t s
would be acceptable only if r e a c h e d by e l e v e n to one.
As a safe­
guard against the t o o hastily reached m a j o r i t y v e r d i c t I p r o p o s e to
p r o v i d e that a v e r d i c t which is not unanimous may be r e a c h e d after not
l e s s than two h o u r s discussion.
In a c c o r d a n c e with the conclusion
of the H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e , I am giving some further thought to
the suggestion that a jury should be instructed to seek to r e a c h a
m a j o r i t y v e r d i c t only after it has r e p o r t e d to the judge its f a i l u r e to
r e a c h a unanimous v e r d i c t after not l e s s than two h o u r s ' d e l i b e r a t i o n ;
and a l s o to the question of how the judge should ensure that the
v e r d i c t has been reached by an adequate m a j o r i t y .
1
-3­
13,
W e have y e t to introduce the l e g i s l a t i o n to which we a r e
c o m m i t t e d to i m p l e m e n t the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the Departmental
C o m m i t t e e on Jury S e r v i c e .
T h i s a l s o concerns c i v i l j u r i e s and
would not be suitable for implementation in a C r i m i n a l Justice B i l l .
I am p r e p a r i n g a separate B i l l - which can b e taken in a Second
Reading C o m m i t t e e - to deal with the C o m m i t t e e ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
but I p r o p o s e to act in the C r i m i n a l Justice B i l l on the C o m m i t t e e ^
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n that persons convicted of s e r i o u s c r i m e should be
disqualified, f r o m s e r v i n g on c r i m i n a l j u r i e s , since this is a m e a s u r e
s p e c i f i c a l l y a i m e d at the m i s c h i e f s d e s c r i b e d in paragraph 11 a b o v e .
The Cornmittee's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was that conviction f o r s e r i o u s
c r i m e should disqualify f o r f i v e y e a r s ,
I p r o p o s e to extend this to
disqualify f o r life those sentenced to f i v e or m o r e y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t .
L e g a l aid
14.
I p r o p o s e to include in the B i l l the p r o v i s i o n s n e c e s s a r y to give
effect to the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s - which have b e e n g e n e r a l l y w e l c o m e d ­
of the W i d g e r y C o m m i t t e e on L e g a l A i d in C r i m i n a l P r o c e e d i n g s .
The t h r e e m a i n proposals r e q u i r i n g l e g i s l a t i o n a r e (a) the introduction
of a contributions s c h e m e ; (b) the introduction of a r r a n g e m e n t s to
enable p e r s o n s c o n v i c t e d on indictment to obtain l e g a l a d v i c e on
grounds of appeal and ( c ) the adaptation of the statutory L e g a l A d v i c e
Scheme t o make it m o r e a c c e s s i b l e to p e r s o n s charged with a
c r i m i n a l offence.
15.
W h e r e a s the proposed contribution scheme i n v o l v e s l e g i s l a t i o n ,
the C o m m i t t e e ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s as to the c i r c u m s t a n c e s in which
courts should grant l e g a l aid, which a r e l i k e l y to entail additional
public expenditure, could be i m p l e m e n t e d by the courts under their
present p o w e r s .
I t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e , when announcing the
G o v e r n m e n t s acceptance of the C o m m i t t e e ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , to
e m p h a s i s e the d e s i r a b i l i t y of v i e w i n g them as parts of a single scheme
to be put into effect at the same t i m e .
P r e l i m i n a r y p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e examining j u s t i c e s
16.
E a r l y in 1965 the Government announced t h e i r intention t o give
effect to the B y r n e r e p o r t (which r e c o m m e n d e d a l i m i t e d use of
w r i t t e n evidence in c o m m i t t a l p r o c e e d i n g s ) and the T u c k e r r e p o r t
(which r e c o m m e n d e d r e s t r i c t i o n s in the r e p o r t i n g of these p r o c e e d i n g s ) .
It is now c l e a r , h o w e v e r , that there is c o n s i d e r a b l e support for going
much further than the l i m i t e d changes r e c o m m e n d e d by the B y r n e
report.
I p r o p o s e that c o m m i t t a l - p r o c e e d i n g s shall be held only if
the prosecution or the defence want therm (the defence w i l l have had an
opportunity to study the written statements of prosecution w i t n e s s e s in
advance) and that, w h e r e they a r e held, o r a l e v i d e n c e should be given
only by those w i t n e s s e s f r o m whom e i t h e r side want i t ; the r e m a i n d e r
of the e v i d e n c e w i l l be in writing,
17.
A s r e g a r d s the T u c k e r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , the case f o r
r e s t r i c t i n g p r e s s r e p o r t s r e s t s at p r e s e n t on no m o r e than a balance
of opinion, but if c o m m i t t a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n their p r e s e n t f o r m a r e to
be the exception rather than the rule it would be wrong f o r p r e - t r i a l
publicity to be given only to the exceptional c a s e .
I therefore propose
-4­
to r e s t r i c t p r e s s r e p o r t s of such proceedings as shall be h e l d ,
r e s e r v i n g to the accused the right to r e q u i r e that the r e s t r i c t i o n
should not apply if he thinks publicity v/ould help him ( e . g. by
d i s p e l l i n g rumour or b r i n g i n g in witnesses who would not o t h e r w i s e
have known of the c a s e ) ,
I a l s o p r o p o s e to accept a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n
of the C r i m i n a l L a w R e v i s i o n C o m m i t t e e that accused p e r s o n s should
be r e q u i r e d t o give notice b e f o r e the t r i a l of any defence of a l i b i they
p r o p o s e to r a i s e .
Other amendments to court p r o c e d u r e
18.
I consider that the t i m e has c o m e to modify the p r o c e d u r e f o r
bringing those c h a r g e d with t r i v i a l offences ( e . g. parking offences)
b e f o r e the court by ( i ) allowing t r i a l s to p r o c e e d in the absence of the
accused even if the summons has not been a c k n o w l e d g e d , and giving a
new t r i a l to those who c l a i m ignorance of the summons; and ( i i )
prohibiting the use of w a r r a n t s of a r r e s t to b r i n g t r i v i a l offenders
b e f o r e the court in the f i r s t instance.
Following recommendations
of the C r i m i n a l L a w R e v i s i o n C o m m i t t e e I propose to a l l o w g r e a t e r
scope f o r written e v i d e n c e in a l l c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s and the use of
f o r m a l a d m i s s i o n s of facts that v/ould otherwise have to be s t r i c t l y
proved.
M o s t of these p r o p o s a l s (and certain other m i n o r ones) a r e
d i r e c t e d t o i m p r o v i n g e f f i c i e n c y and saving t i m e .
A m e n d m e n t s to the F r i s o n A c t 195 2
19.
T h e B i l l w i l l m a k e v a r i o u s amendments to the P r i s o n A c t 1952.
The m o s t important is the abolition of c o r p o r a l punishment f o r
d i s c i p l i n a r y offences in p r i s o n .
T h i s may be opposed by the p r i s o n
o f f i c e r s , but it is a d e g r a d i n g f o r m of punishment out of keeping with
the aims and methods of m o d e r n penology.
I n c r e a s e of m a x i m u m fines
20.
The B i l l w i l l i n c r e a s e the m a x i m u m fines which m a y be i m p o s e d
f o r a number of offences.
Many of these fines w e r e f i x e d y e a r s a g o ,
and have b e c o m e inadequate with the f a l l in the value of m o n e y .
Consequential changes w i l l be made in the tariff of t e r m s of i m p r i s o n ­
ment to be s e r v e d in default of f i n e s .
F i n g e r p r i n t s and palmprints
21.
A t p r e s e n t , when a p e r s o n not l e s s than 14 who has b e e n taken
into custody is charged with an offence b e f o r e a m a g i s t r a t e s c o u r t ,
the court m a y o r d e r him to be f i n g e r p r i n t e d .
I p r o p o s e that this
p o w e r should be extended to include p a l m p r i n t s , and to c o v e r c a s e s
w h e r e an offender appears in answer to a summons f o r any offence
punishable with i m p r i s o n m e n t .
I think that public opinion g e n e r a l l y
w i l l a p p r o v e this c o m p a r a t i v e l y m i n o r extension, which w i l l b e of
c o n s i d e r a b l e assistance to the police - and would indeed b e p r e p a r e d
to go further if it could b e shown that this would be useful.
1
-5­
Probation and a f t e r - c a r e
22.
The B i l l w i l l make a number of changes on points of d e t a i l
r e l a t e d t o probation and a f t e r - c a r e .
M o s t of these changes i m p l e m e n t
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s made by the D e p a r t m e n t a l C o m m i t t e e on the
P r o b a t i o n S e r v i c e (the M o r i s o n C o m m i t t e e ) in 1962 and by the A d v i s o r y
Council on the T r e a t m e n t of Offenders.
M i n o r and m i s c e l l a n e o u s p r o v i s i o n s
23.
I shall a l s o take the opportunity t o make v a r i o u s m i n o r and
technical i m p r o v e m e n t s in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the c r i m i n a l law.
Conclusion
24.
I seek the a p p r o v a l of the Cabinet to the p r o p o s a l s f o r the
C r i m i n a l Justice B i l l set out in this p a p e r , subject to m y reaching
a g r e e m e n t with the F i r s t S e c r e t a r y of State and the A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l
on the extent of the c o u r t s p o w e r s to c o m m i t fine defaulters to
p r i s o n (paragraph 9 a b o v e ) .
1
t
R. H . J.
H o m e O f f i c e , S. W. 1.
1st August, 1966
-6­