Curiouser and curiouser...
- 14 Jun 06, 11:52 AM
First, the home secretary condemns this week's five-year sentence for the paedophile Craig Sweeney for being "too lenient".
Then, the judiciary's defenders insist that this sentence stemmed directly from a law this government passed - the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
As I explained in , "the five year minimum sentence handed out 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)."
Now, the architect and parliamentary pilot of that act - David Blunkett - has hit back. He insists that the law was drawn up to ensure that the most serious offenders were given what were called "indeterminate" sentences - in other words there would be no "tariff" for the number of years they should serve. He clearly expected that people like Sweeney would come into this category.
Did the 91热爆 Office draw up the law badly or did judges - angry at being told what to do by politicians - subvert the law? Did both parties worry about prison overcapacity - whatever they said in public?
Finding the answer is my task for the day.
PS
My guess for what David Cameron will say at PMQs to Tony Blair "Don't moan. Act now"
