Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I share the noble Baroness’s concern in tabling this new clause with the aim of ensuring that those using a knife in violent crime or carrying a knife without good reason receive appropriate sentences. The fatal stabbing of Kiyan Prince last week shows the devastating effect that knives can have if they fall into the wrong hands. Like the noble Baroness, I express my sympathy to his family and to his friends at the London Academy. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot speak about the case as a young man has now been charged with Kiyan Prince’s murder. The amendment refers to having an article with a blade or point, for which the maximum penalty currently stands at two years. I should set the context by pointing out that there is a different, although related, offence—possession of an offensive weapon—under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which carries a maximum penalty of four years. In 2004, some 5,800 people were convicted of this offence. That is a similar figure to the number charged with possession of an article with a blade or point, so it is not some little-used offence. ““Offensive weapon”” means,"““any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or some other person””." There are key factors which put the offender into one category rather than another. The first is the weapon itself. If it has no innocent use—for example, butterfly-knives, disguised knives and sword-sticks are offensive weapons per se—then the charge will be possession of an offensive weapon. An offender can be charged with the more serious offence if he is in possession of, say, a kitchen knife but threats are made to others with it or it is shown that he planned to use it. That means that the offence to which the amendment relates is the simple act of being in possession of a knife, which is capable of some non-violent use, in a public place. Maximum penalties generally should be proportionate, indicate the relative seriousness of the crime and allow for proper punishment of the most serious instances of the offence; for example, the offence of actual bodily harm has a maximum penalty of five years. Although injury caused under that offence may be relatively minor, it is none the less real injury. The offender who simply possesses the knife has not caused any injury or used the knife to threaten. Of course, those using a knife in violent crime must receive appropriate sentences. For example, causing grievous bodily harm with intent has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and current sentencing practice sets the usual starting-point for stabbings at between three and eight years. The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance on ““seriousness”” treats use of a weapon as an aggravating factor. We expect the forthcoming Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline on assaults to reiterate that use of a weapon increases the seriousness of violent crime. The Government’s view is that the best way to deal with sentencing in this area is through the guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I am sure that the noble Baroness will willingly accept that. As I explained, there is a hierarchy of offences and penalties to deal with the carrying of offensive weapons and knives and with the crimes committed using them. I simply argue that we need to be mindful of this existing hierarchy. However, the Government properly and fully understand the noble Baroness’s concerns and we certainly understand the spirit in which the amendment has been moved. I cannot promise today to bring back a specific amendment that addresses the issue in precisely the terms in which she moved her amendment but, between now and Report, I undertake to ensure that we have a further review of it. I am also prepared to have further discussions with the noble Baroness on that point. It is important to review the penalty. It is important too that we have the opportunity to engage with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, because of its expertise and understanding. It has a better understanding than I have of the hierarchy of penalties that are appropriate and applicable. The noble Baroness made some interesting points about the knives amnesty which has been launched this week. It is more than just a good marketing move to promote the importance of getting as many dangerous weapons and knives off the streets as we can. The Government have been busy and robust in this area. It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that since spring 2002, as part of the Safer School Partnership scheme, more than 400 police officers have been based in schools to reduce victimisation, criminality and anti-social behaviour. That has had a beneficial effect and we think that it helps young people’s understanding, particularly about the dangers of carrying weapons. Most pupils never carry a knife. Thankfully, given that we have a school population of 7.5 million in 24,000 schools, very few of those pupils in percentage terms will ever have a knife on their person either in or out of school. But we must take account of the fact that a small number do, and that they can cause great harm and damage. It is worth noting too that out of some 820 homicides in 2004–05, 236 involved sharp implements. It is also true that only 6 per cent of all violent crime is knife-related. That figure thankfully has remained stable for many years. There are some depressing sides to this issue, but some encouraging signs too that our campaigns over the years and the impact of stressing the dangers of carrying a knife have had an important effect on younger people. We want to work with the police and schools to ensure that we carry on the important educational work that this area of policy recommends itself to. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I certainly understand where it is coming from. In the current atmosphere it helps raise awareness of the issue, for which we should be grateful. The commitment that I give today is that we shall review where we are at with the penalty for this offence. I am sure that we can have further discussions outside your Lordships’ Chamber on that issue.