Protecting the public
The judges are in the dock. The charge? Being too soft. The sentence? To be named and shamed in The Sun followed, if they get their way, by the sack.
The new home secretary has rushed to join the campaign, issuing a public denunciation of , the paedophile whose horrific attack on a three year old girl resulted in a sentence that could be a short as five years (although it might be as long as life).
John Reid believes that the public should know where the fault lies for sentences which are "too lenient", and hopes that public pressure will make judges think twice before passing them. Good for him, many of the public and a good many politicians will say.
Not so the attorney general. It is he who has the power to ask the Court of Appeal to consider whether a sentence is too lenient - something he's done 339 times in the past three years, producing increased sentences in roughly three quarters of cases. He has, though, to make a legal case and not one rooted in politics or public outrage. He knows that the judges regard comments like those of the home secretary as an improper political assault on judicial independence (listen to the former judge Sir Oliver Popplewell on the Today programme this morning warning John Reid that "it is unwise for the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Secretary to poke his nose into legal affairs").
The attorney fears that defence lawyers may use such political pressure in court to argue that their client's case has been pre-judged by the media - as happened in last week's review of the sentences given to a baby rapist.
The attorney general also has powers to ask judges to look again at sentencing practice. He has already asked the Sentencing Guidelines Council to look at what he believes is the unduly lenient sentencing in paedophile cases. And the council is already looking into the issue of whether and how sentences should be reduced for guilty pleas.
The five year minimum sentence handed out yesterday stemmed not from the top of the judges head, but from a sentencing formula - 18 years for the offence, take away a third for a guilty plea (leaving 12), then half what you're left with for the date parole can be considered (which gets you down to six). Finally, take away the time already served on remand (leaving you five years and 108 days).
The process - of asking M'luds if they'd be so kind as to think again - appears painfully slow and ineffective to many politicians. After all, it's three years since the Court of Appeal warned judges that if they failed to pass proper sentences in sexual cases this would "cause public concern and affect the confidence of the public in the system".
So, it is that a politician under fire for failing to protect the public leaps at the chance of turning fire on the courts for - you guessed it - failing to protect the public.
And the public are left wondering what on earth is going on.
I'm 
Comments
In the past judges were allowed to pass down sentences which "they saw fit". The appeal court would then decide whether emotions blurred the judge's decision and make changes accordingly. I'm afraid politicians have only themselves to blame for the situation they (and the judicial system) now find themselves in.
Years of meddling; of guidelines; of politlical whims has meant that judges no longer call the shots. As soon as a defendant is found guilty the judge can only pull out his slide-ruler and work out the sentence based on a mix of Pythagoras' therory and whether the home secutary is feeling the pressure at the moment.
If judges were allowed to 'punish' convicts in a way that was suitable (rather then a way that was currently fasionable), I am sure this monster would still be serving time for his previous conviction - instead of counting the months until he is released from this one!
I am very tired of politicians bashing judges. It is not their fault. It was this government who brought in the early release scheme. That scheme has let out thousands of people from prison early who have gone on to commit serious crimes.
How many times does it have to be said: JUDGES MUST FOLLOW THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT!!!!
So if a government with a clear majority doesn't like what the judges are doing, they simply have to pass new legislation instructing the judges how to sentance.
THEY MUST OBEY!
I wish the media would mug up on some of the basic principles of our constitution (like the fact we do have one) and stop indulging the government's game of bash the judges. This pathetic ‘campaign’ has been cooked up to get the spotlight of Prescott’s trousers, the failings of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office and the timing of Blair's departure.
Hi Nick,
Why is it the formula isn't under review?
I agree that a guilty plea deserves a reduction in sentence as this saves the tax payer money as well as having other benefits. But is a 1/3rd reduction too much? You need the benefit to be large enough to encourage the plea, but is there logic behind choosing 1/3rd or was it arbitrarily chosen?
Similarly, why parole after 50% of the sentence is served. This sounds too low to me, an incentive for good behaviour should be offered but to halve the sentence seems to be going too far.
Finally the point about remand is just the tabloids trying to make things look as bad as possible. Being held on remand is not somehow avoiding punishment.
I think the solution to all these problems would be to stop giving minimum and maximum sentences and early release. However politicians getting involved in these cases just makes it worse as it draws media attention to it and can hinder the outcome. Just let the judicial service get on with its job
A few years ago the Court Service (or the CPS I can’t remember which) carried out an experiment. They formed a panel of Judges, a panel of Legal Service workers (clerks, ushers etc) and a panel of "ordinary" people. They were they asked to assess cases, were given the guidelines on sentencing, and were asked to pass a sentence. In over 90% of the cases, the Judges passed the longest and harshest sentences.
My point is that every time a judge passes a sentence that seems a bit on the lenient side, the same "perpetually angry" section of society goes on the rampage, the Government blasts "liberal judges" and threatens more awful shake-ups to the system. But no good press is ever generated when, 99% of the time, the sentence is considered appropriate. Besides, this Government has no right to speak out against such things, seeing as it was they who created the Early Release Scheme.
I just cannot understand why someone like Craig Sweeney isn't locked away for the rest of his natural life. He clearly presents a tangible and terrible danger to children. Can parliament and the judiciary not work together to make sure that all predatory paedophiles are removed from society completely? Have we learnt nothing from the Sarah Payne case. Her killer, Roy Whiting, kidnapped a child and sexually assaulted her previous to murdering Sarah. His sentence on that occasion was four (yes, four) years. If the courts had acted responsibly and with a grain of common sense, he would never have been let out in the first place and Sarah Payne would still be alive. How many more babies have to be raped, how many more children have to die or be kidnapped before someone does something?
It seems to me that John Reid is trying desperately to put the blame on anyone but the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office. Spin after Spin after Spin. Firstly he said that it wasn't fit for purpose, then he tells us that it is our fault for not tackling crime locally and now we have him saying it is the judges fault for lower sentences. We need local judges to be voted in by the local people and not centrally by the government. Only then will they become accountable and truly representative of the community. Come on Mr Reid - your government made a big play on the "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" at the election and how you were going to make everyone safer. Shere hypocrisy towards the public will only help you create your CV for your next job outside of government with the rest of your spin officials.
Of course everyone's concerned with the (very unlikely) prospect of Sweeney being free in five years. But populist politicians meddling with Justice is absolutely not on. That's what happens in the USA, with death-row prisoners' lives being tools in election campaigns.
It's just yet another example of the cynical - but admittedly effective - policy of this government, to spin problems, mistakes and failures into "challenges" with skillful buck-passing.
John Reid is just playing politics. We already lock up more people than any other Western European country, and sentences have been getting longer, not shorter.
Part of the problem seems to be the conflict between public desire to see those convicted of se4rious crimes to be locked up for longer which leads to increases in the prison population which in turn can lead to calls for early release of some prisoners to ease oversrowding and thus sending a confused message to the public.
Nick,
I thought we were being told that the prisons were over-crowded and that judges should use more community based scentences. Whilst the case you have mentioned is much more serious, will it mean the the Government will finally admit that we need more new prisons built?
I WAS BORN AND BROUGHT UP IN THE EAST
END(STEPNEY GREEN)I AM 85, AND BIRD
WAS BIRD. HARD LABOUR, AND IF A
PRISIONER GAVE TROUBLE, IT WAS BREAD
AND WATER,AND THEY SOON KNOCKED THE
STARCH OUT OF YOU. NOW WE HAVE GONE
IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, SO WE WILL
HAVE TO LOOK AGAIN AND COME TO SOME
SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND (THAT IS A
POPULAR POSITION IN THIS DAY AND AGE
BUT LET'S NOT BLAME THE JUDGES FOR
THE STATE OF THE NATION. BE LUCKY
Would it be possible - please - to fix the blog so that the threads display the appropriate and full number of comments?
Assuming that it's not a problem with my browser, there is something amiss with the Newslog - or else it's absurdly censorious.
Joshua Payne
Dr John is walking towards a very dangerous line in the sand.
Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 enshrines the principle of judicial independence into UK statute for the first time. It could be argued it was there in any case, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which talks of 'independent and impartial tribunals' and the European Court decision in McGonnel v UK [2000].
He hasn't quite got there yet (he appears to be criticising, not attempting to direct) but it's easy to understand the AG's annoyance. Criticising judges is a popular sport of Ö÷²¥´óÐã Secretaries. It was David Blunkett who called the Lord Chief Justice a confused and muddled old codger - Dr John hasn’t quite reached that rabid extreme.
What would Craig Sweeney have been sentenced to in the USA?
It's not the judge's fault he can't hand out 99 years with no chance of parole.
The public deserve to be protected from violent and evil people, when that message get's through to parliment we will all rejoice.
Let's not forget that this man did receive a life sentence. All the judge did was set an absolute minumum on the time he serves, and leave the maximum ultimately up to the probation service, as the people who determine the risk to society of letting this man out. If it should transpire that he is released after not very much more than 5 years, then one can fairly argue the need to reform the probation service - or else we'd merely be papering over the cracks in yet another department which is "not fit for purpose". That, ultimately, must be more damaging than the sentence given to one man.
This is an unforgivable political move on the part of John Reid, attempting to ingratiate himself with the tabloid media - particularly, as you say, "The Sun".
If he seriously cares about the judicial system, he should do something about it in the context of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office, or lobby the cabinet for new directives or even legislation.
If he's amending 75% of all cases that he is asked to review, what does this say about the quality of sentencing around courts at the moment?
Why don't the state consult the people on this issue? Clearly, they are afraid that the public might demand something that they do not want to/are afraid to deliver.
Nick,
Congratulations on your win on university challenge, I thought it was hilarious. It is a pretty good job you won as it wouldn't be much good having somebody scrutinising and assessing these policians if they weren't as clever as them. Good luck in the next rounds (don't know if you need it)
PS, the comments keep messing up when I look at them so it is not comment 13's author's computer- it happens quite frequently
A former Judge interviewed on ITV news yesterday (13/6/06) made clear that Judges did not have to follow the guidelines to the letter, and he placed the blame on the Judges.
Tom Scott, the reason we lock up more people than any other country in Western Europe is because we have more crime.
The actual proportion of crimes that result in a prison term is lower than most countries in Europe.
If you think it's fine for serial burglars, muggers and thieves to recieve community sentences rather than prison terms then you are out of sync with what the man on the street thinks.
The hand wringing brigade have handed all the power to the criminal, and if it's not addressed soon people will start to take their own forms of revenge.
Is it only me that thinks that Tony Blair is starting to rely on a more populist politics since the spin machine started to crumble?
This just seems to be the latest manifestation.
Joshua, it happens for me too so it is not your browser. I know it is a small point, but it is annoying to think you are going to get five responses and there is only one. I generally find they are very interesting, inciteful and well informed responses too. I know they have to be checked by Nick or one of his colleagues before they are made public but in that case it would be best if the number just stays as one until the others are approved.
I think I've discovered a new syndrome! It's called the "Angus Deaton Syndrome" ADS for short.
If you can think back Angus actually became the news on "Have I got news for you" and eventually it led to his departure.
Now practically every news story is about the mis-deeds, wrong-doings or imcompetance of this government John Read being the latest.
Fingers crossed!
A curse on the liberal-left governments of the last 40 years (Torys included) that passed the legislation and underfunded the prision and police services, a curse on the liberal-left judiciary and criminal justice system that enforce the legislation as leniently as possible and a curse on the liberal-left inteligensia who set the agenda.
I believe that John Reid was right to speak out. All men and women of good faith should do the same. Unfortunately,the really sick core in our society are the judges, many whom I believe are psychologically ill, if not something more sinister. I cannot forget that terrrible case in Belgium where men of public importance were involved in a paedophile ring. Political dealings and personal ambitions should not take a part in such serious matters.
I tend to agree with the general trend of the comments on this page. The Judge was only following the guidelines of the law. Another one of the 100 or so acts of parliment at least passed on law and order. Since Labour came to power. John Reid should admit this instead of criticising the Judge. Unfortunetly as tends to happen nowadays. When ever the Sun gets on its hobbyhorse about anything.(Whether it is justified or not) Whom ever the goverment minster is ultimately responsible at the time for the problem. Blames everybody else except the Government and therebye hopes to pacify the newspaper. Instead of saying ok this is wrong but we did it because. As in this case it seems to me The Judge was only following the guidelines layed down by the act of parliament. But unfortunately I know there is as much chance of this happening as me flying to the moon.