Curiouser and curiouser...
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 Home 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"
I'm 
Comments
This is what happens when you have vague laws - it's all well and good to say at the time 'it won't mean this', but it's impossible to guarantee that it won't be interpreted differently in future.
The scary thing is that most of the recent terrorism legislation uses this same vague language.
Oh, and no offence Nick, but is there really a word 'curioser', or did you just make it up?
Oh dear, James - someone hasn't read their Lewis Carroll ...
" 'Curiouser and curiouser', said Alice" is a well-known quotation. It is deliberately ungrammatical.
Hmm... got an American version of 'Alice' Nick? Curiouser and curiouser...
As I'd said in the past - so often in fact that I almost feel guilty saying it again - this Government rushes so much legislation through that MPs are denied the chance to properly scrutinise bills thus reducing the prospect of poor wording/unclear intent being picked up.
"Curiouser and curiouser" is an extremely well known quotation from 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' by Lewis Carroll. Or did I miss a spelling mistake that's now been corrected...?!
James Le Grys asks if Nick made up the word 'curiouser'. No, he didn't. Lewis Carroll did when he gave the expression "curiouser and curiouser" to Alice in 'Alice in Wonderland'. Nick was presumably subtly suggesting that the current discussions on sentencing policy are reminiscent of the bizarre events in the famous Victorian novel.
Yes indeed, completely Alice. What was that about words' meanings?
And as far as the Home Office is concerned we should remember the Queen of Hearts' usual response -which might be entirely appropriate.
Maybe too, we should recall the use of flamingos - perhaps that what John Prescott was doing.
Perhaps, Nick, this analogy is a little more apt than at first sight....
The law's a joke but it's all part of a bigger picture going back years. Social security has been too easily paid out for the past twenty years and this support meant there was less incentive to tough it out. It became common for families to split and become fragmented. This lead to a lessening of parental guidance and personal responsibility. Today people are free to do just do whatever they want with little consequence. Firming up on legislation may be a good idea but it's far too late - there's simply not enough prison cells to house everyone that would be jailed. Focus first on reducing the reliance on social security. No?
'Did the Home 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?'
'Yes', possibly 'yes', and 'yes'. However, I expect you'll get a 'no' to all three.
I am not sure what of these two it is- I hope you do find out the answer- and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both- a bit more govt inefficiency and some crap from the judges
'Did the Home Office draw up the law badly......'
Where have you been for the last nine years, Mr Robinson? The Knitting Channel?
1. James Le Gray...Hear Hear
Cant believe Blair pulled out the terrorism legislation in PMQs to show he was tough on crime. only confirmed my view that the 90 days was just him posturing.
The real crisis will come when the public come to realise how little crime is actually being prosecuted in this country. The government started to process most crime though the magistrates courts about 4 years ago. Maximum sentence there 12 months imprisonment. This means that serious crime including most acts of violence in our streets is now being dealt with in an inappropriate way. It saves on costs because criminals like the limited sentencing powers but it does not deter criminals at all. Most criminals in the magistrates don't even see a prison. In fact most criminals don't even see a magistrates court they are cautioned. In the crown courts very little is actually being prosecuted. Go and have a look at Bradford or Leeds Crown Courts. They are practically empty!! Crime is rampant but not being dealt with appropriately. The CPS are only prosecuting criminals who are practically handing themselves in or where the evidence is unanswerable. This is to keep within their budgets-they cannot afford to lose. Come and see what is happening. Its justice on the cheap undertaken by the CPS lawyers (badly)- Its a joke!
The CV of New Labour is that they cannot draft laws properly which makes them mighty leaky. Indeed, we know that the judiciary are all liberals at heart, they want to reduce the jail population, so there is an opportunity for judges to ignore the nub of legislation and act contrarily. What judges fail to realise is that they are Civil Servants and the tax-payers fund their excellent lifestyle. So, if they will not enact the laws as they are meant, then perhaps we need to revert to the American system, whereby judges are publicly elected, if they fail to perform and protect then they are out. In the meantime Nick i would suggest that you look to the drafting of laws to get the answer that we all search for...Our Grail!
Blunkett is mistaken about indeterminate sentences.
Indeterminate sentences are actually a slightly diluted version of a life sentence, available for crimes where either a life sentence is not available in law, or the crime is not serious enough to warrant life.
Indeterminate sentences have a tariff, just like a life sentence - this is clear in Clause 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts 2000 Act (the clause was inserted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which specifies how tariffs are determined.
An indeterminate sentence differs from a life sentence in only two respects:
1. 10 years after release, you can apply to be released from the terms of your licence. Lifers are on licence for life
2. In setting the minimum term the judge cannot make a "section 4" order, which means that early release provisions do not apply.
I'm sure Mr Blunkett read every clause of his bill extremely carefully at the time. If only he'd had another look this morning...
Nothing like a bit of debate about the English language to make people forget about politics. Quite refreshing really.
Why are "indeterminate" sentences preferable to a tariff? In the absence of a tariff a prisoner could be assessed for parole at any time, removing completely any minimum sentence to be served. The indeterminate sentence is just a device to look tough whilst pushing responsibility out of sight and on to the parole board. Good for politicians like Blunkett but not really appropriate for public servants who take their responsibilities seriously.
Just as Maggie Thatcher paid the price for her "one man" (yes man in her case) style of government, typically the poll tax, then surely Blair will pay the price.
This is yet another one of the endless pieces of legislation brought out either by him or one of his toadies (probably under his instruction) not properly thought through. The result yet more flawed laws.
Will this man never learn or does he believe that as long as he can pass the buck he remains exonerated. Generally they blame civil servants, recently John Read has blamed us the public and now it's the judges. Who's next?
Desperate men.....desperate measures!
I try to keep reasonably abreast of current affairs, but the contents of post no. 13, by Elizabeth, took me by surprise. Is her post a fair representation of what is going on? If so, it is outrageous not only that it is happening, but also that there has been no campaign for it to be corrected.
I had thought of making a comment then wondered why I should bother After all, when squabbling has become the focus there's little you can do to stop it. Then Lord Faulkner took the position that it it's better to engage positively with all stakeholders in the outcome to move things forward. This is an important and significant move. I’m impressed.
I met Lord Faulkner some years ago and had the opportunity to discuss an almost invisible regulatory change that would greatly benefit many people. I never thought anything would come of it, yet, a few years later I heard the change I’d advocated had come to pass. I am thankful and respect Lord Faulkner for his insight in seizing this opportunity.
British politics has become soured by too much focus on arguing and useless change. I strongly support the clear, firm, and flexible lead the government is taking on many issues, and applaud efforts such as the one Lord Faulkner is making, in partnership with other members of the government, to move through this difficulty. We can all learn from this.
This is not new, as the Zen koan demonstrates.
'Did the Home Office draw up the law badly......'
'Where have you been for the last nine years, Mr Robinson? The Knitting Channel?'
It was not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for sure.
Neal Saferstein
Mr Hardwidge, if you had really met the Lord Chancellor to discuss subtle changes in legal regulation, and if you had so impressed him with your brilliant insights, one suspects you would be the sort of person who would know how to spell his name.
My mistake, Adamos. Apologies to Lord Falconer. Somehow, I doubt he even remembers my name, and that's before we even get to issues of spelling it correctly.
Anyhow, I'm just pleased Lord Falconer is trying to set such an agreeable tone and work with everyone to achieve a common goal. It's a dynamic Britain can really benefit from.
In relation to the sentencing of Craig Sweeney, I read that the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, Ms Vera Baird, has said:-
"Now it seems to me that this judge has just got this formula wrong, so I'm critical of the judge for three reasons - one, starting too low; two, deducting too much for the guilty plea; and three, getting the formula wrong."
There doesn't seem much room for doubt that Ms Baird is making this statement as a fact, and not as an opinion. Is she right in what she says? Has the judge made errors of fact?
If so, why has there been all this kerfuffle over the last few days? It's quite simple - he's misapplied the rules of sentencing, and this should be corrected in the Court of Appeal.
But if not, if the judge hasn't misapplied the rules, or if the rules are unclear, and a matter of interpretation, what on earth are we doing having a Government Minister who can think it right to make such a ridiculous, blatantly untrue statement?
Post number 18 stole rather beat me to
it Desperate men desperate measures.The
comparisons with the Major years are
staggering "GROUNDHOG YEAR" perhaps!!!
Tony and his pals are right out of gas.
Brown wont make any difference now the
voters minds are closed to them.Shame it
all started with such promise??,1997 now
looks a light year away.