Member

I am also sceptical of my noble friend’s Amendment 361. Standardising sentences for crimes of different degrees is not a common rule of thumb, and I do not see the benefits of doing so for the Act in question. I might agree with my noble friend if his argument was for higher and harsher sentences. Since the 1990 Act came into force, computer misuse has become a far greater issue, but simply levelling all maximum sentences to 14 years seems illogical. By definition, unauthorised access to computer material with intent to commit or facilitate an offence is worse than unauthorised access without the intent. That is why, in the Act as it stands, there exists a disparity of maximum sentences, and to level these punishments provides no incentive against committing the worst crime. I understand that a 14-year maximum would give the courts room to judge for themselves, but I do not think that it is the right way to legislate in general to set a maximum penalty and leave it to the discretion of judges. There must be a scale of punishment.