I tend to agree with the right reverend Prelate that justice should be objective and not moved in a subjective direction by over-consideration of victims’ points of view. I understand that the Question on whether to leave out this clause is intended to be probing. The clause has considerable merits because it enables a considerable extension of restorative justice, which I happen to believe in.
I understand that conditional cautions have been in use for some time; for example, by Thames Valley Police and possibly other police services around the country. In the case of Thames Valley, has the Crown Prosecution Service always been involved? It is important that, in using conditional cautions, delay is avoided and offenders who are thought to have committed relatively minor offences are dealt with as swiftly as possible.
The three points at the bottom of page 8 are of considerable importance. Punishing offenders is usually by means of a fine, but one should think of the offender making reparation to society in general as well as to victims of the offence. I think it goes without saying that all your Lordships would approve very strongly of using conditional cautions to promote the rehabilitation of the offender.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c372-3 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:24:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335456
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335456
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335456