Issue 242  30th April 2022

The government delivers on its pledge to protect the public better and restore confidence in the criminal justice system as four major bills became law today (28 April)...

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act key measures:

• Mandatory life sentences for those who kill an emergency worker in the course of their duty, known as Harper’s Law.
• Increasing the maximum penalties for child cruelty offences, including up to life imprisonment for those who cause or allow the death of a child or vulnerable adult in their household, known as Tony’s Law.
• Creation of new offences of breastfeeding voyeurism punishable with up to 2 years in custody.
• Extending the prosecution time limit for domestic abuse-related common assault and battery charges from 6 months of the offence to 6 months of it being formally reported to the police, up to a maximum of 2 years.
• Whole life orders for the premeditated murder of a child as well as allowing judges to hand out this maximum punishment to 18-20-year-olds in exceptional cases to reflect the gravity of a crime. For example, acts of terrorism which lead to mass loss of life.
• New powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public.
• For children who commit murder, introducing new starting points for deciding the minimum amount of time in custody based on age and seriousness of offence, and reducing the opportunities for over 18s who committed murder as a child to have their minimum term reviewed.
• Ending the halfway release of offenders sentenced to between 4 and 7 years in prison for serious violent and sexual offences such as rape, manslaughter and GBH with intent. Instead, they will have to spend two-thirds of their time behind bars.
• Ensuring the courts pass at least the minimum sentence for certain offences, including repeat knife possession and third strike burglary, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
• Tougher community sentences which double the amount of time offenders can be subject to curfew restrictions to 2 years.
• Extended ‘positions of trusts’ laws to protect teenagers from abuse by making it illegal for sports coaches and religious leaders to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds.
• Increasing the maximum penalty for criminal damage of a memorial from 3 months to 10 years.
• Doubling the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to 2 years.

These Regulations bring into force on 2nd May 2022 provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (“the 2003 Act”) and the Sentencing Act 2020 (c. 17) (“the 2020 Act”).

Regulation 3(a) brings into force section 282 of the 2003 Act (increase in maximum term that may be imposed on summary conviction of offence triable either way). Section 282(1) amends section 32 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (“the 1980 Act”) (penalties on summary conviction for offences triable either way) to increase the maximum penalty that a magistrates’ court can impose on summary conviction of an offence listed in Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act, from 6 months’ imprisonment to 12 months’. Section 282(2) and (3) together increase the maximum term of imprisonment to which a person is liable on summary conviction of an offence that is triable either way in the following circumstances: the offence is set out in legislation made before or during the same session as the 2003 Act, is punishable with imprisonment on summary conviction, and is not listed in Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act. Section 282(4) provides that only offences committed after the provision is commenced are affected. The maximum penalty is increased from 6 months’ imprisonment to 12 months’.

Just one in 16 crime suspects were taken to court last year as the rate of offences that led to a charge fell to a new record low. Suspects were charged or ordered to appear in court relating to 274,421 offences last year, just 5.8 per cent of all crimes reported to the police, according to Home Office figures. It is the lowest rate since records began six years ago and was down from a 7.5 per cent rate in a year...

The criminal legal aid sector will disappear if the government does not invest the bare minimum recommended by Sir Christopher Bellamy following his independent review, the Law Society told MPs today. Giving evidence to the House of Commons justice select committee today, Society president I. Stephanie Boyce said it had been 25 years since criminal legal aid rates had been significantly increased. ‘Failing to meet the minimum means firms will continue to disappear until eventually the entire sector disappears,’ she said.

Opening the session, committee chair Bob Neill MP pointed out that ‘that there was a bit of a change in tack’ in Chancery Lane’s initial response to the government’s proposed £135m reform package, which went from welcoming to critical. Boyce said the Society welcomed the Ministry of Justice’s embargoed news release. But when it received the government’s response and impact assessment, ‘it was very clear within the detail of that it was not a 15% overall package for solicitors. It amounts to 9%.’ She added: ‘If there’s one flaw in the package, then the whole package is flawed.’ The committee heard that £11m had been earmarked for experts, £3.2m for the Public Defender Service and £2.5m for training grants, which the Society wants ‘repurposed’ to get solicitors to the minimum they need to survive.

The director of public prosecutions has formally described ’as inaccurate’ the suggestion that the Crown Prosecution Service ‘deliberately [shrinks] the font’ in which prosecution evidence is printed to limit the amount claimable by defence solicitors.

Sir Christopher Bellamy QC, who led the independent criminal legal aid review, told the House of Commons justice select committee in January that ‘senior officials at the CPS’ had said that they ‘deliberately shrink the font of the pages served in order to reduce the page count’. However, Max Hill QC has denied that is the case in a letter published by the committee last week, saying that ‘this is neither CPS policy nor practice’ and noting that Bellamy has since ‘clarified that his comments were driven by anecdotal evidence picked up from his many engagements with the defence community during his review’.