Miners' strike 1984 to 1985 pardon: consultation

Consultation Questions

Part 1: Range of offences suggested by the independent review group

Miners were convicted for a range of offences related to the Strike. The criteria proposed by the independent review panel, was that miners convicted of Breach of the Peace or Breach of Bail related to the Strike should be pardoned. We are interested in hearing your views on the range of offences to be included in the criteria for a pardon.

Question 1: Do you agree that miners convicted of Breach of the Peace related to the Strike should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 2: Do you agree that miners convicted of Breach of Bail related to the Strike should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Part 2: Other offence-related matters for consideration

Although the independent review group did not suggest any other qualifying offences in addition to Breach of Peace and Breach of Bail, for completeness we are interested in your views on whether any other offences committed by miners during the Strike should be included in the qualifying criteria. We are also interested to know if committing multiple offences relating to the Strike rather than just one, should be a relevant criteria.

Question 3: Are there any other offences which miners were convicted for and which related to the Strike that you think should be included in the qualifying criteria?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

If yes, please tell us what other offences you think should be included in the criteria.

Question 4: Do you think that miners who were convicted of a single offence related to the Strike should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 5: Do you think that miners who were convicted of multiple offences related to the Strike should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Part 3: Previous or subsequent convictions

The criteria proposed by the independent review panel are that in order to receive a pardon miners must have had no previous convictions, before the Strike began in March 1984 and have no subsequent convictions after the Strike ended in March 1985. This section therefore asks for your views on whether a history of committing offences should disqualify someone from receiving a pardon.

Question 6: Do you agree that miners who had been convicted of an offence before the Strike began in March 1984, should be pardoned for offences committed during the Strike?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 7: Do you agree that miners who were convicted of an offence after the Strike ended in March 1985, and which did not relate to conduct during the strike, should be pardoned for a conviction related to the Strike?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 8: In considering your responses to question 6 and question 7, do you think that the severity of the offending is relevant?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Part 4: Consequences of the conviction

The independent review group suggested that miners whose convictions led to imprisonment should not receive a pardon. This section asks whether the outcome of the conviction is relevant to receiving a pardon. It also asks whether the loss of employment is relevant.

Question 9: Do you agree that miners whose conviction relating to the Strike resulted in a non-custodial sentence (such as a fine or a community service order), should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 10: Do you think that miners whose conviction relating to the Strike resulted in imprisonment should be pardoned?

Yes
No
Don't Know / No opinion

Please explain your answer.

The independent review group's report notes that that the dismissals policy of the National Coal Board was inconsistent - with some miners losing their jobs as a result of a conviction, while others did not. The independent report did not include loss of employment as a consideration in its suggested criteria for receiving a pardon. We are interested in your opinion on whether the additional hardship of being dismissed from their job, should be relevant to receiving a pardon.

Question 11: Thinking about the fact that some miners were dismissed by the National Coal Board, as a result of a conviction relating to the Strike, and others were not, which of the following statements most closely matches your view (please select one option only)?

• All miners who meet the criteria should be pardoned, regardless of whether or not they were dismissed by the National Coal Board.
• Only miners who meet the criteria AND were dismissed by the National Coal Board should be pardoned.
• Neither of the above.
• Don't Know/No opinion.

Please explain your answer.

Part 5: Further criteria / comments

Question 12: Are there any other criteria that should be added to those mentioned above?

Yes
No
Don't Know/ No opinion

Please explain your answer.

Question 13: Do you have any further comments that you would like to make concerning the criteria? If so, please use the box below.

Part 6: Equality Impact Assessment

Ensuring that there are no negative equalities impacts from this consultation is a key part of the development. Presented alongside this consultation paper is a partial Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) attached at Annex A. This document examines where possible equalities impacts could be, and will help us ensure that any negative impacts will be avoided. A final EQIA will be prepared and presented following this consultation. We would welcome your feedback on the partial EQIA.

Question 14: If you have any comments on the partial EQIA, please tell us, using the box below