UK Borders Bill

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. In deciding whether to apply exception 2, the date of the offence and not the date of the conviction should be relevant. If the person was a child at the time of the offence he should have the benefit of the exception, notwithstanding the fact that he became an adult some time between the date of the offence and the date of the conviction. The objection to this provision—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—by the Minister, Mr Liam Byrne, when it was discussed on Report in another place, was that it is often very difficult to pin down the exact date of an offence, particularly in cases of drug dealing and sexual abuse, where the offences may be spread out over a considerable period of time. If that is the sole argument against allowing somebody who committed an offence as a child to benefit from the exception, why not provide that where the exact date of the offence is not known, it should be taken be taken as the latest date on which the offence could have been committed? If the charge was that on a date between X and Y the defendant committed the offence, then Y would be taken as the actual date for the purpose of this clause. If the spirit of this amendment is acceptable to Ministers, it should not be impossible for the parliamentary draftsmen to produce a form of words that would deal with the matter in that way. Otherwise, Parliament would deprive children of the right that is supposedly conferred by the exception solely because of the length of time that the offence takes to be dealt with by the police, the CPS and the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned other statutory provisions that refer to the date of the offence, particularly Section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, where the court is required to assess the dangerousness of an offender according to whether he was over or under the age of 18 at the time when he committed the offence. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how the courts have dealt with that problem, on which there is no guidance in the National Probation Service’s circular 18/2006 on the pre-sentence report framework that is to be adopted on the 2003 Act. No doubt the Minister will enlighten us when he comes to reply.