Derek McDowell (Labour)

This looks like a massive raft of amendments but it is not as intimidating as it appears. The Bill as it stands provides a range of maximum and mandatory minimum sentences in respect of certain firearms and drugs offences. In deciding whether it would be just to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in all circumstances, there are a number of factors that the court must take into account, including whether the convicted person pleads guilty, materially assists in the investigation of the offence or has previous convictions for firearms or drugs offences.

The Bill provides that these matters may only be taken into account in circumstances where a first offence is concerned. However, when the draftsman examined her handiwork, she noticed a concern, namely, whether it could be argued that the relevant provisions of the Bill as currently drafted could have the effect of not allowing the court to impose the maximum sentence provided for in respect of a second or subsequent offence. While they will probably never be construed in such a way, to be 100% sure about no one being able to argue that we created a loophole, the draftsman noticed this possible interpretation at a late stage.

The amendments I have proposed make it clear that where second or subsequent offences are concerned, the court, while being obliged to impose the mandatory minimum sentence, may also impose the maximum sentence provided for. Where life is the maximum sentence, nothing in the amendment's earlier draft could be construed as stating that life was no longer the maximum sentence for these offences.