Lord chancellor's verdict
- 15 Jun 06, 10:41 AM
So, now we know. is over. The judge, you may recall, was in the dock. He faced the charge of being "soft". The prosecution led by The Sun was - it seemed - supported by the 91热爆 Secretary.
The verdict though is "not guilty". Not my verdict, you understand, but that delivered by none other than John Reid's Cabinet colleague, the lord chancellor.
Lord Falconer has - I'm told - read the judgement in the case of the paedophile Craig Sweeney (who got life but was told he could be out in 5 years). He also knows the judge. His conclusion is that a combination of the sentencing guidelines - which set out a discount of a third for an early guilty plea - and the law - which gives automatic consideration of parole after half a sentence has been served - put the judge in a straightjacket.
This is not what the home secretary thought. It was not what the prime minister said at Question Time yesterday (watch it here).
It does though go to the heart of the tension between the judiciary and politicians. Governments - this one and the Tories before them - have sought to limit the discretion of the judiciary often in response to public outrage at low sentences. The problem is that discretion can be used to be tough as well as soft.
In this case, the judge wanted to be tougher but could not be. The sentencing guidelines are already under review. The lord chancellor has made plain that the law on parole - a new law that's only just been enacted - needs to be re-visited but he has not said how.
We witness once again the law of unintended consequences. Consider the 53 "lifers" who were released after serving less than six years. They only got life because of the "two strikes and you're out" law Michael Howard introduced as the last Tory home secretary. It forced judges to give life for a series of offences which had never earned that sentence before. Many of M'luds felt it devalued "life". Many reacted by setting very low tariffs. That's why many are now out.
The Holy Grail politicians have sought for years is how to fill the prisons with the really bad guys serving very long sentences and empty them of people who are probably only learning how to be badder. No-one's cracked it yet.
So, we are left with the odd paradox of imprisoning more and more people whilst letting out serious offenders who then re-offend which then fuels demands for more to be locked up.
And so on and so on.
