LABOUR’S GRAY AND BAKER RUN AWAY FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR KNIFE CRIME POLICY

LABOUR’S GRAY AND BAKER RUN AWAY FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR KNIFE CRIME POLICY

Speaking after Labour’s Ian Gray failed to take the opportunity to tell the truth about Labour’s knife crime policies at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament today, SNP MSP Stewart Maxwell has revealed that Labour’s Justice Secretary Richard Baker has also run away from demands to clarify Labour’s policy.

Labour Justice spokesman Richard Baker has so far failed to respond to a letter from Mr Maxwell, dated 26 March, asking for an explanation as to why Labour are misleading voters with their knife crime policy.

Despite publicly proclaiming 'carry a knife - go to jail' they have admitted to Justice Committee witnesses that final discretion would remain with the judges. They have also failed to produce any evidence that mandatory sentences would reduce the level of knife crime, and - perhaps most seriously - have been inconsistent in the wording of their petition, meaning that voters have signed up to support different policies.

Mr Maxwell, a member of Holyrood’s Justice Committee, commented:

"Labour are claiming that, under their plans, everyone caught carrying a knife will go to jail and that this will reduce knife crime in Scotland. On both counts, they are trying to mislead voters.

"Why are they using the slogan 'carry a knife - go to jail' and then conceding that discretion will remain with judges? That doesn't sound very mandatory to me. What would the exceptions be? Labour needs to make this clear.

"The Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police told the Justice Committee that it was 'misleading' to try and persuade people that mandatory sentences will have a big impact. His counterpart from Strathclyde Police, the head of the Violence Reduction Unit and Victim Support Scotland are equally sceptical. There is an utter lack of support for Labour's policy among criminal justice professionals. What do Labour think they know that these experts don't? Can they produce any evidence that mandatory sentences would reduce knife crime?

"Our priority must be catching as many knife carriers as possible. That's why the SNP has invested in record numbers of police officers, in early intervention and in prevention - and that's why the number of knife crime offences has fallen since the SNP took office.

"Until Ian Gray and Richard Baker stop running away and answer these serious questions about their policies, they cannot expect voters to trust a word they say."

1. In England and Wales, only 21% of people convicted of possession of a knife go to prison - in Scotland it is 30%.

2. In England and Wales, the total number of cautions and sentences given for knife or offensive weapon possession has decreased by 21% between 2008 and 2009 (7,200 to 5,600).

3. The average length of a custodial sentence for possession of a knife was 209 days in England and Wales in Scotland it is 263 days - 25% higher.

4. In 2005 Labour proposed to double the maximum sentence for knife carriers only for those tried under solemn procedure, which would only have affected around 1% of cases. It was only SNP MSP Stewart Maxwell’s amendments that ensured that it would cover those tried under summary procedure as well.

5. In evidence to the Justice 2 Committee in 2005 then Labour Justice Minster Hugh Henry said: “I do not think that the proposal for mandatory sentences would either solve the problem or help with it. Indeed, there could be unintended consequences.”

6. In an interview with Scotland on Sunday on 18 October 2009 Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House said: "I cannot sign up to [the idea that] everybody who carries a knife should be locked up”

7. Lothian & Borders Chief Constable David Strand told the Justice Committee on 23rd March 2010: "All the evidence shows that the deterrent effect of mandatory imprisonment is marginal. Early police involvement and a prevention strategy that includes pre-emptive searches and tackling knife and gang culture have much greater deterrent impact...I think that there is almost a sense that it is misleading potential victims to try to persuade people that introducing mandatory sentences or increasing sentence tariffs will somehow have a big impact."