Baroness Goldie (Con)

My Lords, Amendment 37 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto. This issue has caused deep disquiet on these Benches for many months. We have opposed the Government’s introduction of a presumption of suspended sentence orders for sentences of over 12 months on numerous occasions. We opposed this presumption when it was introduced in the Sentencing Act and we opposed it again when the Government resisted our attempts during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill to carve out exceptions for repeat and dangerous offenders. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower warned this House at the time that, under this presumption, a stalker could breach a protection order or a suspended sentence order and still never see the inside of a prison cell. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie pressed similarly and rightly for sexual offenders and domestic abusers to be excluded from a presumption that treats a 12-month threshold as an almost automatic bar to custody. The Government and the Liberal Democrats resisted both attempts. We believe that events will prove these warnings correct and we do not resile from them now. Our objection to this presumption has never been confined to any one category of offence. It is a broader objection that Parliament should not instruct judges as a starting proposition to look away from custody before they have even considered the facts before them. The evidence on breach itself gives us little comfort. Where a suspended sentence order is actually breached, whether by reoffending or by failing to comply with its requirements, research from the Sentencing Academy shows that only around half result in the sentence being activated in full or in part. In practice, that means an offender can breach the very order that was meant to hold a custodial sentence hanging over their heads and still avoid serving it. Given that theft offences, including shoplifting and offences of violence, make up a substantial share of those receiving suspended sentences, this presumption risks something close to the effect of decriminalisation of persistent minor theft. An offender can be convicted, be sentenced, breach the terms without sentence, and still walk away. It is our view that the presumption generally is a folly, but it is equally a folly for the presumption to exist in the service justice system. Indeed, I would go further. The case against it is, if anything, stronger in a service context. Good order and discipline within the Armed Forces depend on offences being met with a proportionate and, where necessary, custodial response, determined by the court on the facts of the case, not nudged towards suspension by a statutory thumb on the scales. A commanding officer’s confidence in the system and the confidence of the wider service rest on knowing that serious or persistent offending will be met with a sentence that reflects it. This amendment would simply restore to the service courts the same sentencing discretion that existed before this presumption was imported wholesale from the civilian system. Given all we have discussed today regarding sexual abuse, stalking and the general treatment of female members of the Armed Forces, I think it is a dereliction of duty to allow this presumption to stand. I beg to move.