Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved AmendmentNo. 68: 68: Clause 52, page 29, line 37, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ““(1) If in proceedings on indictment for an offence under section 39 or 40 a person is not found guilty of that offence by reference to the specified offence, he may be found guilty of that offence by reference to an alternative offence.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68 to 72 make changes to Clause 52, which sets out the offences in relation to which a person may be found guilty as an alternative where he or she has been prosecuted for an offence under Clauses 39, 40 or 41. The Law Commission’s draft Bill did not make provision for alternative verdicts, but the Government believe that it is important that the same principles should apply where someone is on trial for assisting or encouraging an offence as if he were on trial for the substantive offence. The policy intent under the current Clause 52, and under Amendments Nos. 68 to 72, is to parallel the general rules in relation to alternative verdicts, most of which are set out in Section 6 of the CriminalLaw Act 1967, in relation to a trial for the offences encouraged or assisted. The amendments are designed to clarify Clause 52 and to ensure that it replicates as closely as possible the rules on alternative verdicts in trials for the substantive offence. So, for example, on a charge of assisting and encouraging murder, the jury could instead return a verdict of assisting and encouraging manslaughter, grievous bodily harm with intent or infanticide. Or, for example, D gives P a baseball bat. The prosecution charges D with an offence under Clause 40, alleging that D believed that P would use the bat to commit grievous bodily harm against V. The jury decides that it does not accept that D believed that grievous bodily harm would be committed. However, it is satisfied that he believed that actual bodily harm would be committed. Just as it would be possible on a charge of GBH to find an accused guilty of ABH instead, it would be possible for a jury to convict, as an alternative to the offence of encouraging or assisting GBH, on the offence of encouraging or assisting ABH. Amendment No. 70 also sets out what should happen in relation to guilty pleas. This replicates the position taken in Section 6(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The position is that a person may plead guilty to assisting or encouraging a lesser offence, which would lead to an alternative verdict on a trial for the offence with which he was charged. For example, D is charged with encouraging or assistingP to rob X. D denies this, but says that he believed that P was planning to steal something from X and, therefore, is prepared to plead guilty to assisting theft. It would be a matter for the prosecution as to whether or not it accepted that plea or insisted on a trial for assisting robbery. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 make consequential additions to Clause 52(5), which preserves the operation of the general rules in relation to alternative verdicts under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments of clarification. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.