rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 28 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of these rules is to support the new remand provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which were brought into effect on 4 April 2005. The rules will maintain the principle that remand time served at the time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served. They also maintain the principle that a day of shared remand time should only count once towards time served. These principles have served us well over the years, and it is in the interests of justice that they should continue.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is concerned about these issues, so it may be convenient if I give a little more detail at this stage than I would otherwise have done.
Sections 240 to 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 created new arrangements for crediting remand time towards sentence. The main change is that the court, not the Prison Service, will be responsible for determining the period of remand time that will count towards the sentence. The court will have discretion if it considers it just in all the circumstances not to count some or all days spent on remand towards sentence. Section 240 4(a) gives the Secretary of State power to make rules that will prevent the court from making a direction in respect of certain days in certain circumstances.
The arrangement set out in Sections 240 to 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will apply to offences committed on or after 4 April 2005. In these cases the court will be required to make a direction in relation to remand time, unless prevented from doing so by these rules, or because it does not consider it just to do so. Offences that were committed before 4 April 2005 will be dealt with under the old procedures governed by Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, regardless of when they are sentenced.
The first rule prevents the court from making a direction in relation to days spent on remand where the offender was also serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offence. This preserves the position that existed prior to implementation of provisions of the 2003 Act. Its purpose is to stop a prisoner benefiting from a discount of remand time when he would have been in prison anyway.
The second rule prevents the court from making a direction that would have the effect of counting the same remand day twice. This could happen if consecutive sentences were given for an old and a new offence and there was shared remand time. The rules as drafted would prevent the court from counting remand time in relation to days that would already fall to be counted under Section 67 of the 1967 Act. Again, the purpose is to stop a prisoner from benefiting from a technicality.
The rules maintain the principle that remand time served at the same time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served; and also that a day of shared remand time should count only once towards time served. While the court is able to deliver the same effect simply through using its discretion, it is desirable to put these matters beyond doubt, as any decisions by the court to allow time in these circumstances would, perhaps inadvertently, undermine public confidence in the provisions.
As I said at the beginning, the rules maintain the principle that remand time served at the same time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served. We are just preserving the position in a way I think we all recognise. I hope that with that full explanation I have pre-empted some of the questions that might otherwise have been asked. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 28 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Remand in Custody (Effect of Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment) Rules 2005
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 13 June 2005.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Remand in Custody (Effect of Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment) Rules 2005.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
672 c1090-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:37:19 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_250941
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_250941
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_250941