Orders of the Day — Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 5 May 1998.

Geoff Hoon (Labour, Ashfield)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Bill proposes modest changes in the law relating to procedures in magistrates courts. Modest though it may be, it has considerable potential for reducing burdens on the courts and the police, and securing reductions in delay in magistrates courts. It may be helpful if I describe the present procedures and how the Bill may improve them. Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 allows defendants, for certain offences, to submit a guilty plea to the court by post. The majority of such "guilty by post" pleadings are for summary road traffic offences. The magistrates courts deal with about half a million such cases each year. Offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and accept the penalty of the law for their offence may do so quickly and save their own time and that of the court. In 1994, an efficiency scrutiny examined ways in which to reduce administrative burdens on operational police officers. It reported the results of one survey showing that 38 per cent. of those summoned under the procedure returned guilty pleas to the court; but the survey also found that almost as many defendants—35 per cent.—made no reply to the summons at all. Some people will not respond for innocent reasons, and, for them, the law provides full remedies; but for many defendants ignoring a summons is simply a way of avoiding responsibility and staving off the day of reckoning. At present, when a summons gets no response the only option is to adjourn the case. Further steps are then necessary to bring the defendant to court or to proceed in the defendant's absence if there is still no response. The summons includes a statement of facts: a very short summary of the case as recorded by the police. That is sufficient for the defendant to acknowledge guilt by post, but it is not evidence, so when there is no response to the summons the court must presume the innocence of the absent defendant, and the Crown Prosecution Service must take over responsibility for prosecution and will adduce evidence to substantiate the case. Evidence may be in written statements meeting the requirements of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, or given orally by witnesses at court. All those who want to plead not guilty will have their cases heard in the usual way. Each summons ignored puts an extra burden on the police, the prosecution and the courts. The efficiency scrutiny proposed that the police should prepare a witness statement, conforming to section 9, and serve it with each summons. That would ensure that admissible evidence was available at the first listed hearing, whether the defendant responded or not. Clause 1, as originally drafted, provided for that by allowing a defendant to submit a plea of guilty when either statements of fact or section 9 witness statements have been served with the summons. When a statement of facts is served with the summons, the procedure for a guilty plea will be as it is now. When a section 9 statement is served with the summons, it may be used as an account of the facts for a plea of guilty by post; if there is no response to the summons, it can be used by the prosecutor to prove the case on the first listed day. In its original form, clause 1 required a witness statement used as an account of the facts to be read in full by the court clerk even though the defendant had clearly stated that he wished to plead guilty. Reading a full witness statement takes longer than reading a statement of facts, because it is a full account of what a witness saw, heard and did. Such statements are prepared to prove the case in the event of a not guilty plea, or when the defendant fails to respond. In speeding cases, the statement will often include such detailed information as what a police officer did to check the accuracy of the speedometer in a patrol car. That is included to rebut any suggestion that the equipment is faulty, but the court does not need to hear such detail when the defendant has admitted the offence. In a busy court, the cumulative effect of reading each statement in full could reduce the savings in time and costs created by the new procedures. Several practitioners drew the Government's attention to that drawback. The Government accepted that in a guilty plea case a full reading of the statement was not necessary and could lead to court time being wasted. Accordingly, the Government made two amendments to clause 1 in Committee. The Bill, as reported, includes those amendments. They stipulate what is read to the court by the clerk in guilty plea cases. When the summons is served with a statement of facts, the court clerk will read that statement, as happens now. When the summons is served with a witness statement, the clerk will either read that witness statement aloud or, if the court so directs, give an oral account of the part of the statement that has not been read aloud.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Does the Minister agree that the sensible place to try speeding offences would be in magistrates courts that lie close to motorways? In that case, is not Ripon ideally suited to deal with driving offences on the A l(M)?

Geoff Hoon (Labour, Ashfield)

I have commented to the House before on the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising matters affecting his constituency. I am sure that, if he adds to the considerable volume of correspondence that arrives on my desk at regular intervals from his constituency, I will be able to answer him in detail at an appropriate stage. The court will always control the proceedings, and the clerk may not summarise or give an oral account of what is in the statement without express authority from the court. The Bill makes two further modifications to the procedure for dealing with motoring offences, and these were set out in detail in Committee. I hope that the House will be satisfied that we have dealt with the matters in some detail, but I can certainly respond to any questions from right hon. or hon. Members about those matters. The main change in the Bill has been tested. Following the efficiency scrutiny, pilot projects were established in Gloucestershire and Lancashire to test using witness statements in place of statements of fact. These ran from early September 1996 to late March 1997. The statement of facts procedure was replaced by concise witness statements served on the defendant with the summonses. Some 53,000 minor motoring cases were prosecuted using the streamlined procedure. This proved remarkably successful for all the agencies involved. Up to 77 per cent. of cases were finalised—that is, proved and sentenced—at the first hearing, and up to 86 per cent. of cases were proved at that hearing. Dramatic reductions in the number of adjournments were achieved. In Gloucestershire, the average number of hearings per case fell from 4.67 to 1.35, and in Lancashire the average fell from 3.15 to 1.22. Significant reductions in the average time taken from the date of the offence to finalisation at court were also achieved. In Gloucestershire, the average time fell from 144 to 95 days, and in Lancashire, it was down from 139 to 84 days. All the agencies involved in the pilots have indicated their clear support for the proposals in the Bill. In summary, the Bill is a practical measure, bringing procedural changes which will benefit all participants in the court process. The rights of offenders are preserved, but they will be dealt with more swiftly, reinforcing the connection between the offence and its consequences. The reduced administrative burdens on the agencies will free resources which may be deployed on other work. The Bill has been welcomed by practitioners, has been refined and improved during its passage to date and has proved uncontroversial. I hope that the House will be able to give these measures the same support it has previously given, and which the Bill has received in another place. I commend the Bill to the House.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I hope that this will be the widest point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. He must remember that we are debating the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

The Liberal Democrats also support the Bill. In response to points I made in Committee, the Minister has said that the consequences for defendants of not responding to summonses should be clearly and vigorously set out in the documentation, and that is very important. We are still concerned that, in an increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan age, adequate steps should be taken to ensure that, for example, members of the armed forces—who can often be away for months on end—are not unfairly convicted. I hope that the Minister will address that point, but, as I have said, we very much support the Bill.