................................................................................ ON THE RECORD MICHAEL HOWARD INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 14.4.96
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: There was a time when the Conservatives were called the party of law and order. There's a bit of a problem with that nowadays. Crime has doubled since they came to power seventeen years ago, hence the new White Paper on Criminal Justice which the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, published last week. It would mean new minimum sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers, automatic life sentences for people who are convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence, and prisoners wouldn't automatically be entitled to get out of jail before they'd served their full sentence. Tough stuff, and the judges don't like it. They don't think it will work. Never before have the most senior judges been so critical of a Home Secretary. Well, Mr Howard is with me now. Good afternoon. MICHAEL HOWARD: Good afternoon, John. HUMPHRYS: Your critics have said - judges, too -
that this White Paper has got precious little to do with cutting crime, but everything to do with sending a message to your voters that you want to be tough on crime. HOWARD: Well, that's not the case, and that is just sloganising, and I'm not really interested in sloganising. I'm interested in taking very specific action to deal with the problems we face on law and order, and I want my proposals to be argued about and debated on their merits. So I hope that we will get on to the merits of the proposals today rather than talking in slogans as some of my critics have done. HUMPHRYS The White Paper is based on the logic isn't it, that when a persistent villain is locked up he can't be committing any crime while he's in jail. That's the essence of it isn't it? HOWARD: Yes. I put protection of the public at the very top of my list of priorities. I have done every since I became Home Secretary. I believe we can do more to protect the public and these proposals are designed to do that and also to enhance confidence in the Criminal Justice system. I don't think confidence is served if people see someone being sentenced to ten years in prison and being relased after four or five. So protecting the public and enhancing confidence in the Criminal Justice system. HUMPHRYS: So what you're saying in essence is prison works. The judges say and many others in the legal profession say that longer sentences actually do not deter criminals. HOWARD: Well, I disagree with that, and I think you will find that if you looked at what judges actually say when they pass sentence up and down the land in courts every day, they frequently say to criminals in front of them: I am going to pass a severe sentence on you because everybody must know that crimes of this kind will meet with severe sentences. And they do that because they think that severe sentences will deter. Now, there've been a number of studies which have shown that what you need in order to deter criminals is certainty of sentencing as well as severity, and that's where mandatory minimum sentences come in. But, that is a different point - it's an important point, but it's a different point from protecting the public. And, if we look at my proposals first of all in terms of the most serious offenders, we must get away from the situation in which they are released from prison, having committed let us say two rapes, even when everybody knows they're likely to go out and commit a third rape. So let's make sure there's an assessment of risk before they are released - that's one of my proposals in order to protect the public. And as to those who persistently burgle or persistently traffick in hard drugs, let's make sure that they know that they will face a stiff minimum prison sentence in order that they should be deterred but also in order that the public should be protected from their activities. HUMPHRYS: The deterrent stuff though. You say that judges say to the man in the dock: I'm going to bang you up for a long time, and let that be a lesson to you. But, the Lord Chief Justice, the former Master of the Rolls, the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Chairman of the Bar Council, Probation Officers, an endless string of people with huge experience and huge knowledge of the penal system, say it does not act as a deterrent. HOWARD: Well, against those I would cite the Police who are at the sharp end of dealing with crime, who have to deal with criminals day in and day out and bring them to justice. And, there is a string of quotes which I could produce from Chief Constables up and down the land who have said that they have absolutely no doubt that stiff sentencing deters. And, in addition to that, there have been at least three studies, studies carried out by Bylaveld (phon.) in 1980, by Lewis (phon.) in 1986, by Burnett (phon.) in 1992 which have demonstrated that certainty as well as severity of sentencing does deter criminals from committing crimes. Let's look at burglars - let's just look at burglars. I say that everyone who's convicted of a third offence of burglary should serve at least three years in prison. At the moment you have many career burglars, persistent, professional burglars, prolific burglars who know that they can carry on burgling with virtual impunity. They may get a short prison sentence, and they regard that as something tantamount to an occupational hazard. We know what the figures are. If you-If in the Crown Court you're sentenced to prison for a first offence of burglary you get sixteen-point-two months on average, and many people of course don't go to prison at all, for a third offence you get eighteen-point-nine months on average, and for a seventh offence you get nineteen-point-four months on average. And when people find out about these figures - I've been speaking about this up and down the country - when I tell people these figures they react with incredulity. HUMPHRYS Right. So, if previous Tory Home Secretaries had been as tough as you now want to be we wouldn't have had this massive increase in crime that we've seen in the last seventeen years? HOWARD: We've got to be prepared to learn from experience, and, and- HUMPHRYS: An awful lot of learning that should have happened and hasn't then, isn't it? HOWARD: We've tried. Well, we've tried various things. We've listened to the judges in the past, and-and listened to some of those who criticise me now, and the truth is that those policies haven't worked as effectively as they could have done or should have done, and so-. HUMPHRYS: So, previous Home Secretaries have been misguided then, they've been misled by the judges. Unlike you they've not said to the judges: I don't want to hear from you, I want to listen to others. HOWARD: I'm in the position of being able to learn from experience, so I think we've got to learn from experience. We can't carry on as though nothing has happened. We've go to learn from experience. HUMPHRYS: Right. With learn from experience, you mean learn from their mistakes, from the mistakes of previous Tory Home Secretaries? HOWARD: I mean we've got to be prepared, constantly, to look at what works and what doesn't work and concentrate on what works. That is what Government is about and of course you've constantly got to be prepared to re-examine what you're doing so that you can operate more effectively in dealing with the problems which as a country we face. HUMPHRYS: Will you listen to the Lord Chief Justice on the latest thing he's been saying which is that the courts ought to hear from the victim, before sentence is passed? HOWARD: Oh yes, and for the most part what the Lord Chief Justice has suggested is what we're about to do and indeed we've been consulting him about it. We're about to issue a new Victims' Charter which would build on some of the changes that we've recently made. Every pre-sentence report now should contain a statement of the impact of the crime on the victim and we're going to build on that and make sure that the experience of the victim is drawn more systematically to the attention of the court, in the way that the Lord Chief Justice suggested. I think that that is a sensible way forward. HUMPHRYS: Why not allow the victim himself, or herself, to appear in the court after conviction, so that she or he can make their own statement? HOWARD: Well I don't think that is necessarily the right way forward and I rather agree with the Lord Chief Justice about that. Many victims wouldn't want to do that... HUMPHRYS: No, but those who do? HOWARD: Well then you're into a rather difficult situation in which you might get a more severe sentence passed on someone simply because the victim had decided to appear in court, as opposed to someone who'd done exactly the same kind of thing, where the victim had not decided... HUMPHRYS: Yes but it's given the victim the chance hasn't it? HOWARD: Well, there are different ways. It is very important that we recognise the concerns of victims and very important that we take them more systematically into account and we're proposing to do that in much the sort of way that the Lord Chief Justice suggested last week. HUMPHRYS: Are you prepared, by the way, to legislate on that, is that something that you might pass a law on? HOWARD: I don't think we necessarily need to legislate on that but if we need to, of course we will. HUMPHRYS: Let's move onto something else then. The principle of what you've been talking about sentencing. Let me give you a couple of reasons why your critics say it is more political than practical. The underlying principle has been that judges ought to pass sentences that they believe fit the crime. Now that is something we've observed, there have been exceptions, of course, mandatory life sentence for murder. But nonetheless you are now messing about with that principle in a way that's causing meyhem as far as they are concerned. HOWARD: Well, as you say, this is not a novel principle, there have been exceptions to that in the past. Now let me take, as the example of why I want to change things, the automatic life sentence that I propose for those who have been convicted for a second serious sexual or violent offence. There were two-hundred and seventeen people who come into the category that I've identified, came before the courts in 1994. Only ten of them got life imprisonment. That means that the other two-hundred and seven were released at the end of their sentence, which had been passed for a given number of years, released regardless of the fact that they may still have posed a risk to the public. And in 1994, there were forty cases where people in that category went on to commit another serious offence. Now I just do not think that we can allow that to continue. I think the public have to be given greater protection from that and that means...that means that people should only be released in those circumstances if they've committed two such serious offences before, if there's been an assessment of whether they're still a risk to the public, and then they're released. It's nothing to do with giving the Home Secretary more power. I won't decide. The Parole Board, the judge will say on the facts of this case you ought to stay in prison for at least seven years. But at the end of that period of seven years, the Parole Board will assess whether you're still a risk to the public. If you're not, you'll be released, but if you still are, you will have to stay in prison beyond that seven years. HUMPHRYS: But the effect and here's the problem, isn't it, one of the problems, the effect of what you're proposing could mean that mandatory minimum sentences will mean more guilty men going free, not spending any time in jail at all. HOWARD: I don't see how that's likely to arise at all. HUMPHRYS: The White Paper of 1990 which looked at precisely this concluded that. HOWARD: I don't see what the evidence for that is. HUMPHRYS: Let me give you an example. HOWARD: You see one of the things that has been suggested in this context is that there won't be any incentive for people who plead guilty. But there will be, because when the judge decides under my proposals, when the judge decides the number of years which it's appropriate for the prisoner to spend in prison, subject to the risk assessment, he'll be able to take into account whether or not they've pleaded guilty, so there still will be an incentive for people to plead guilty. HUMPHRYS: Let me give you an example then. Drug dealing. You've talked about rape, a very serious offence. Drug dealing in Class A drugs is another immensely serious offence. You've a youngster who sells a few Ecstasy tablets and is convicted for it. He does it again, he's convicted again. The third time, your law would say he's got to go down for seven years. Now, the jury, when they learn of that fact, which they could if the defence lawyer chooses to apprise them of that fact, the jury might say I'm not going to send that youngster to jail for seven years - he'll go free. HOWARD: Well first of all, I think it's not at all clear that that is how the jury would react. I think juries will know full well the serious consequences of trafficking in hard drugs. It only took one Ecstasy tablet to kill Leah Betts and I think to suggest that trafficking in drugs, if it only means passing on a few Ecstasy tablets is perfectly okay, is a very very wrong signal to send. So I don't think your basic premise is at all justified. HUMPHRYS: But it's not my basic premise. It was in the White Paper, your Government's White Paper in 1990. HOWARD: I'm prepared to learn from experience and anyway you know perfectly well that in the vast majority of cases the jury wouldn't know that someone had had two previous convictions. HUMPHRYS: If the defence wishes to tell them so it would. HOWARD: Oh, yes, but the defence wouldn't because the defence would know that if a jury knew that someone had been doing this before - had done it twice before - they would, in fact, be much more likely to convict. So, I don't think that this is an argument that is likely to bear very much relationship to reality. HUMPHRYS: If that's the case, why have you introduced the notion that there may be extraordinary circumstances- HOWARD: Well, that- HUMPHRYS: -in which the minimum sentence wouldn't apply. HOWARD: Well, I'll tell you why. There may be exceptional circumstances. You cannot foresee absolutely every set of circumstances and if there are very exceptional circumstances, then, there should be a discretion for the Judge, who would have to say what the exceptional circumstances were and exactly why he had come to the conclusion, in that very special case, that it wouldn't be right to pass the minimum mandatory sentence. And, there are similar exceptions in those cases where we have other minimum mandatory sentences in our law, at the moment. Like, for instance, Drunk-Driving, where you have to lose your licence if you're convicted of Drunk-Driving and that is one of the things that has had a remarkable impact on the reduction in casualties on the roads. But, there are special reasons which a Judge can give, or a Magistrate can give, for not passing that sentence in a very special case. HUMPHRYS: So, it might not have been appropriate in the case I raise with you - the drug dealing case. Perhaps, that might be an extraordinary circumstance, for instance? HOWARD: I very much doubt if that would be a sufficient, exceptional circumstance. But, there are things that you can't always anticipate in advance. So, I think, it's reasonable to have a caveat that for exceptional circumstances - in exceptional circumstances - the judge should be able to say: these are the reasons why I don't think it's appropriate to pass the minimum, in this case. HUMPHRYS: So, right, the principle might not hold in every circumstance. It might in the end come down to the judge, as it does today? HOWARD: No, no, no. We must be clear about this. There would not be as there is today a completely unfettered discretion on the part of the Judge to pass any sentence that he thinks appropriate. HUMPHRYS: But a little bit of discretion? HOWARD: There would not be the discretion which
has led to only five per cent of those who've been convicted of second serious sexual violent offences being given a Life Sentence. There would not be the kind of discretion which has led the sentences for Burglary - which I quoted to you earlier on - being repeated. HUMPHRYS: Right. HOWARD: So, this is a very substantial shift but I think it's reasonable that there should be exceptional circumstances in which judges should be permitted to come to a different conclusion. HUMPHRYS: Something else that worries people - you touched on it earlier. Honesty in sentencing. People see a burglar being sentenced to four years and he serves eighteen months or two years instead. Now, you said you would stop that. HOWARD: Yes. HUMPHRYS: But, you're not, are you? HOWARD: Yes, yes, indeed, we are. We are saying that when the court passes a sentence that should be the sentence served, subject to a modest amount, which has to be earned by the prisoner by good behaviour, which could, then, be remitted from the sentence. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but that's not the same story though, is it? HOWARD: At the moment, people are released halfway stage in their sentence, depending on the length of the sentence, automatically, regardless of their behaviour and the public feel cheated in consequence. And, indeed, I'm delighted that on this particular proposal the Lord Chief Justice agrees with me. HUMPHRYS: But, but that isn't the full story, is it? Because the reality is that judges will pass fewer sentences. Now, people may think shorter sentences-People will think: yeah, that's fine. He was sentenced to four years, he ought to damn well serve four years. And, they will think, as a result of things that you have said, in future he'll sentence four years and he will do four years. The truth is judges will pass shorter sentences. So, he'll still only do the two years. That is the real effect of this White Paper. HOWARD: No, no, no, no. The proposal is that the public should see what happens. That the public should not be cheated, that there should be honesty and transparency in the sentence, so that if the sentence is four years, then, subject to remission for earned good behaviour, then, four years will be served. If the sentence is two years, two years will be served. Now, of course, judges will know that when they pass sentence. HUMPHRYS: The White Paper says- HOWARD: Just as they know it now. HUMPHRYS: The White Paper said it is not - says - it is not intended that there should be a general increase in sentences served. Now, you said in Blackpool last year release from prison comes too soon. No more half time sentencing for full time crimes. Literally, that is true but the effect of what you said was that people thought: ah, they're gonna get their just desserts. In truth, it's rather different from that, isn't it? HOWARD: The effect of what I said is that people should know that the sentence passed is the sentence served and that they should not be cheated. I want the public to have greater confidence - HUMPHRYS: Yeah. HOWARD: -in our criminal justice system and I want them to know that the courts mean what they say when they pass sentence. HUMPHRYS: Yeah. But, what the public didn't know was that it meant half the sentence that is now being passed being passed in future. HOWARD: Well, that will depend on the attitude which the judges take. But, I would expect every judge to pass- HUMPHRYS: White Paper says that. HOWARD: Yes! I would expect every judge to pass sentence in future knowing how much will be served, just as they pass sentences now- HUMPHRYS: Can- HOWARD: -knowing how much will be served. It's the public that is taken in. Not the fault of these judges, it's the system. HUMPHRYS: Can I- HOWARD: And, I want to change the system, so that the public see exactly what's going to happen. HUMPHRYS: Can I suggest to you the real reason why you're having to bring in - some people suggest is the real reason why you're bringing in another Criminal Justice Act - yet another one - the crime rate has doubled since the Conservatives came into power and that is because the crooks haven't been getting caught and convicted. Now, it is very difficult to change that, to get more crooks caught and convicted. It's very easy to say we will be tough on crime. So, what you're doing is actually making a political statement here. That's what it's all about. HOWARD: Well, that's another attempt to sidestep the argument on my proposals and not to deal with them on their merits. But, the answer to your question is that, of course, you need both. In the last three years, we've seen crime come down by something like eight per cent. It's only the third time this century that we've had three successive annual falls in recorded crime. And, that has been largely because the police are using new methods and more effective methods to bring criminals to justice and because we've established a framework of law against the opposition of the other Parties, which has helped the police to bring more criminals to justice. But, I'm not going to sit on my laurels and say: well, we've had an eight per cent fall over the last three years. Nothing more needs to be done. Crime is still far too high. We do have to do more to tackle it. That is why I've brought forward these proposals. HUMPHRYS: You mentioned the other Parties. Claire Short said this morning she thought it was pretty sensible and people would approve of the notion that well-paid chaps, like yourselves - MPs, thirty-four/thirty-five thousand pounds a year - should pay a bit more in Tax. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you? HOWARD: Well, Claire Short is only telling the truth about the Labour Party's proposals. She's told the truth, yet again, that Tony Blair is desperately trying to hide. Of course, people earning thirty-four thousand pounds a year would pay more tax under Labour. No one should be surprised by that. Roy Hattersley, who knows a bit about the Labour Party, said just a few months ago on Tax, he said the Labour Party has a choice. It can be proud of being the Party of high taxation or it can be ashamed of being the Party of high taxation. The one thing it can never be is the Party of low taxation. Claire Short has just confirmed that today and every family in the land should know that if there were to be a Labour Government they would pay higher taxes, as a result. HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, thank you very much. HOWARD: Thank you. ...oooOOOooo...