MP condemns Courts Service incompetence
8th June 2009
Mike Penning has condemned the incompetence of the Courts Service that left Daniel Sonnex free to brutally murder two French students.
Hemel Hempstead MP Mike Penning has added his voice to condemnation of the Courts Service procedures that enabled Daniel Sonnex to walk free from Magistrates Court and brutally and sadistically murder French students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez.
Mike asked Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, what exactly happened in the Magistrates Court that led to someone being given bail when he should have been in prison?
In a shocking reply, Mr Straw told MPs: “Magistrates courts are not courts of record, and there is a wholly inadequate record of what transpired. It is clear that no application to oppose bail was made by the prosecution. It also appears clear that the reason why no application was made was that inquiries had suggested that Sonnex was due to be rearrested for a breach. It is clear that the information available to the court was flaky.”
Speaking afterwards Mike said: “This is a shocking and upsetting state of affairs. In essence no one knows what went wrong. The horrific torture and sadistic murder of these two students – who should have had long and promising futures ahead of them – have been allowed to happen because of a series of incompetent administrative and communication errors.
“It is, to be frank, sickening.
“The Government should review the workings of the Court process. It angers me that lessons do not seem to be being learned.”
Last year Mike Penning led calls for a review of guidelines given to judges following the case of Met Police Inspector Garry Weddell who murdered his mother-in-law whilst on bail before shooting himself at Broomhills Shooting Club in Markyate.
TEXT FROM HANSARD
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): The statement understandably concentrated on the probation service, but if events on 16 May had been handled correctly, two young men would be alive today. Sonnex was brought before the courts on a completely separate offence and was granted bail, when that should never have happened. In the statement, the Secretary of State says that it is still not clear exactly what transpired on that day. How can we have no idea why someone was given bail when he should have been in prison?
Mr. Straw: I try to tell the truth in this House, and I wish I could give a better account of what happened in that court, but I cannot. Magistrates courts are not courts of record, and there is a wholly inadequate record of what transpired. It is clear that no application to oppose bail was made by the prosecution. It also appears clear that the reason why no application was made was that inquiries had suggested that Sonnex was due to be rearrested for a breach. It is clear that the information available to the court was flaky. The answer to the question about whether he was about to be rearrested was not pinned down, and the Attorney-General, the police service and Her Majesty’s Courts Service are determined to ensure that this does not happen again. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that if this man had been remanded in custody on 16 May, as he had been on 3 May, none of the rest of this would have happened.
