I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s point, but I think that there is a difference in principle, because the fixed penalty is statutorily prescribed, whereas this procedure requires an offender to admit their guilt and then accept a caution, which will be decided by the prosecutor according to a variable measure. That potential variation turns the prosecutor into a sentencer, whereas a fixed penalty is fixed by this House and known in advance. The procedure will confuse the roles of sentencer and prosecutor, which lies at the heart of the concern expressed by the Magistrates Association and others.
The Government have said that offenders can choose to refuse a caution, but the concern is that people will feel pressured to accept a caution and the administrative punishment that follows rather than going through a prosecution, even if they are innocent, either because they fear what the prosecution might involve or because they do not feel well advised.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Herbert of South Downs
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1470 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:17:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354481
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354481
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354481