Agenda item

To consider the Member Motion – Harper’s Law as proposed by Councillors Day and LeCount.

As the meeting had moved past the two-hour mark, the Chair asked Council whether they were willing to continue. Members indicated that they were content to do so.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.10pm for a comfort break.

The meeting was reconvened at 9.15pm.

Councillor Armstrong left the meeting at 9.45pm.

Councillor Day presented his motion regarding Harper’s Law to Council, which called for a change in the law to ensure a mandatory full life tariff for killers of emergency service workers. He said there was a great need to “protect our protectors” and was saddened by correspondence that objected to the motion. He proposed the motion as follows:

 This Council is resolved to request that the Chief Executive write to both the Rt. Hon. Robert Buckland QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Priti Patel, Secretary of State for the Home Department outlining its support for the widow of Police Constable Andrew Harper in calling for a change in the law to ensure a mandatory full life tariff for killers of emergency service workers to ensure they ‘spend the rest of their lives in prison’.

The campaign is known as ‘Harper’s Law’.

We as a Council believe that such a change in the law will allow both offenders and the families of victims to ‘get the justice they rightly deserve’. It will mean that anyone wilfully or recklessly killing a police officer, firefighter, prison officer, nurse, doctor or paramedic who is acting in the course of their duty is jailed for life.

Councillor LeCount seconded the motion.

Councillor Dean said the death of PC Andrew Harper was a truly terrible event and expressed condolences to all those effected by cases of manslaughter and murder. However, he explained the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter, and expressed concern that this motion, while well intended, could bring the Council into disrepute. He urged Members to reject the motion.

Councillor Fairhurst said decent people were right to be outraged by the death of PC Andrew Harper, but he was reluctant to impose prescribed sentences on judges as each case should be adjudicated on its own merits. He said he would support the motion in solidarity with victims, but he felt this was a “bad law”.

Councillor Sell said the current legislation already allowed for life sentences for cases of manslaughter, depending on the circumstances, and therefore this law was not required. He said legislation should not come from an “emotional place”.

Councillor Coote said this law had not come about due to one death, and cited the case of another young police officer who was killed in the line of duty. He said he would be supporting the motion.

Councillor Tayler said he did have an issue with creating a new law in relation to cases of manslaughter and murder of emergency workers. However, he did want justice to be done for the families of victims. He said he felt the sentences in this case were unduly lenient. He hoped better sentencing guidelines could be redrafted in light of this but concluded that laws should be written by lawyers, not politicians.

Councillor Hargreaves said this law would take the role of emergency services into account and that the status quo did need to change; those who were harmed in the line of duty deserved the law’s protection.

Councillor Driscoll said he did not have enough of an understanding of Harper’s Law and felt this was not a Council matter. He would be abstaining from the vote.

Councillor Fairhurst said Harper’s Law was proposing a new law, that would be applied to emergency service workers only, and which would carry a prescribed mandatory sentence. He said the law already recognised “a different class of victims” and that a system of appeal was in place whereby lenient sentences could be overturned.

Councillor Light said she supported the sentiment of the motion but was not informed enough in the workings of the law to vote on this matter. She expressed support for the family but would not be voting for the motion.

Councillor Loughlin said she had a brother in the police force. She said it was not for politicians to be changing the law; she would not be supporting the motion.

Councillor Storah agreed and said this was not a matter for Council. He said there was not enough knowledge of the proposed law to demonstrate how it would work in practice.

Councillor Pepper said laws could become outdated and should be revised to reflect the current times.

Councillor Freeman expressed solidarity with the family of the victim but said this was not a matter for Council. Furthermore, evidence suggested that draconian laws did not necessarily deter crime from taking place. He said Council should be looking at matters that could be changed in their jurisdiction.

Councillor LeCount said a vote for this motion would make a difference as it demonstrated that Uttlesford supported Harper’s Law. He said emergency workers doing their jobs needed protecting, as they were putting themselves in danger to protect the public. He urged Members to support the motion.

RESOLVED to request that the Chief Executive write toboth the Rt. Hon. Robert Buckland QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Priti Patel, Secretary of State for the Home Department outlining its support for the widow of Police Constable Andrew Harper in calling for a change in the law to ensure a mandatory full life tariff for killers of emergency service workers to ensure they ‘spend the rest of their lives in prison’.

The campaign is known as ‘Harper’s Law’.

We as a Council believe that such a change in the law will allow both offenders and the families of victims to ‘get the justice they rightly deserve’. It will mean that anyone wilfully or recklessly killing a police officer, firefighter, prison officer, nurse, doctor or paramedic who is acting in the course of their duty is jailed for life.

The motion was carried 12 for, 7 against and 13 abstentions.