Lord chancellor's verdict
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 Home 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.
I'm 
Comments
I believe that is is the politicians and not the judges who should be taking the responsibility for these problems. And they also need to be the people to sort them out- the politicians are the ones elected and I believe that giving responsibility and room for interpretation to judges is not a good thing- while I am not a big fan of the American justice system there are definately some lessons that we can learn from them with the classification of offences- I believe drastic reform of the judiciary and the whole justice service is needed now and not just for the politicians to talk about these problems for a couple of weeks until something new arises
So, contrary to Tony's assertions yesterday, it is the fault of the government and not the judiciary.
I'm somewhat confused though. Is Tone himself not a lawyer? Not a particularly good one, so they say. Should he not therefore understand the law? If he doesn't how can anyone else be expected too.
I'm all for separation of the judiciary and parliament. We don't want to go down the road of elected judges who dispense justice with one eye on reelection. Most people don't understand the workings of the legal system, so how would we choose?
Maybe Blair and his government have finally become what the judges supposedly are - a bunch of old fogies no longer in touch with the rest of the country.
Screw The Sun and their campaign. Let's leave the professionals to do their job.
This is written by someone with no legal experience, working in the transport industry. Therefore I think its safe to say I've no axe to grind on this.
I can never understand why Labour seems to want black and white law for sentencing, but 'grey' law where you have to ask for an answer from some public servant in every other piece of legislation they enact (to make sure it is 'fair').
Surely it should be the other way around.
So Lord Faulkener does the apologies for Teflon Tony.
Is he the honest guy or just a fall guy?
Why did Hazel Blears refuse to talk to Diminic Grieve on Newsnight, June 14?
This always happens. The Government comes along, fiddles with everything, confuses everyone and messes up the system, then looks astonished when things don't work out and try to blame the Tories for it.
I look forward to the day that Blair realises that he's been in office for nearly ten years now, so these are his problems, not everyone elses. He's like a child who can't take responsibility for his own actions, and continues to protest that someone else did it even when caught red handed.
PS. Can I have an apology for your sneaky changing of your title after I'd posted yesterday?
'put the judge in a straitjacket.'
You speak for the nation, Mr Robinson.
Well, unsurprising.
Once again Tony and his bulldog demonstrate their greatest ability is to jerk their knees.
Wasn't one of the Home Office's problems there was *too much* legislation?
So, what shall we do? Legislate some more. Trebles all round!
Nick we all knew that.
The last Home Secretary who understood what the public wanted was Michael Howard. Since then we've had a succession of pygmies, buffons and skirt chasers with the odd well meaning liberal thrown in for good measure.
Tough on Crime? Then why on earth make Jack Straw your very first Home Secretary? That's about as barmy as making Frank Dobson your first Secretary of state for Health.
All this is just the chickens coming home to roost.
"Automatic consideration of parole after half a sentence has been served".
Could M'lord please tell me when half a life sentence has been served?
Funny how people pick out the bits to suit their political leanings, Tom Maxwell says that "The last Home Secretary who understood what the public wanted was Michael Howard." ignoring the fact that it was his law change that has caused the downgrading of the 'Life' sentence.
Just two questions. Was the judge forced to give an 18 year sentence? If not then could he have given a longer sentence?
Finally (please let it be so), Tony Blair has been hoisted on his own petard. As a criminal barrister for the last 18 years I have been subjected to continous rotation of policy most of which is unnecessary and most of which was designed not with an efficient crimnal justice system serving an enlightened society in mind rather than the garnering of more votes to keep the elite band of expense account-fuelled politicians in power. It's that simple.
None of the successive governments have sought to educate the electorate about the criminal justice system for to do so would be to remove a perennial aunt sally that the governemnt can abuse with vote-catching in mind.
But now with such absurd claims being made by people like David Blunkett and Tony Blair, even Lord Falkener cannot sit back and watch a judge be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
And I sense that people won't stand for this nonsense anymore.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the return of a sensible criminal justice system, the sort I chose to become a part of before the politicians got their dismal hands on it.
Confidence in the judicial system is being undermined by the very people who are not so squeaky clean themselves.
Most politicians are tarnished to some degree, so trusting these people to pursue a moral crusade against others, convicted of crime, is akin to the frying pan calling the kettle.
What is needed is impartiality, and a legal system wholly free from political contraint and influence.
Prejudice is no way to administer justice.
The PM is wholly flawed, as he has a propensity to "believe" in things that fail to materialize (WMD!!); and then wonders why no-one agree's with his conviction.
Also remember, that whilst we talk about these issues the government is conspiring against you, whether you like it or not!
You are tomorrows criminal.
Nick Robinson's article summarises the dilemma in this situation very well. However, how very 'post-Hutton report' ´óÏó´«Ã½ of him to only criticise Michael Howard by name.
Can any journalist left at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who isn't afraid of the Labour party please stand up?
Nick,
Everyone is agreed that the actual "tariff" here was the one bizarrely but properly calculated, and that the judge was technically correct on that point - fine.
You are though so far the only commentator to mention the question of whether Sweeney should have been jaild indeterminately for public protection (yesterday's blog) but (curiouser and curiouser!) today's entry makes no mention of that possibility.....did your "task for the day" uncover whether the judge would have had that option open to him?
If he didn't, then we (again) conclude that politicians are to blame
If he DID have that option (and merely CHOSE not to use it), then the heat's back on the judge.
Judges imply that the exact sentences they must pass are set out for them in the guidelines. I am a police officer and in my experience sentences for the same offence vary widely, so the guidelines are surely just that. If the judge wanted to, he could have started with a 25 year tariff instead of an 18 year one. The defendant would still have only served about 8 years, but it would have been better. If the Appeal Court had reduced it, then at least it wouldn't have been the sentencing judge's "fault".
One of your best blogs - 90% analysis, 5% extra information and and 5% opinion.
It's a shame that such a difficult topic is driven in practice by the need to satisfy public bloodlust rather than cold relaities.
I can't tell you how pleased I am to discover that the Home Sec. and the PM turn out to have been as confused about the Sweeney case as I was by the exchanges about it and other law and order matters at PMQs yesterday. I had to watch them three times before I thought I'd cottoned on and even now I'm not sure I did! Such spectacular confusion! Yet when you step back from the detail the broader picture is clearer and deeply depressing. The government is posturing to impress the Tory tabloids and to cover its own shame.
It is not a pretty spectacle at all.
Justice and Integrity are so key to the success and future of this nation. We need to see a wise leadership reaching decisions and frameworks that allow true justice to be outworked and seen both in the courts and in the public at large. Sadly, Prison is not the solution to every crime but has to be seen as a necessary option as part of the wider 'just' justice system
Nick, the holy grail of locking up the "really bad guys" for a long time is easily achieved. Set very, very long sentences for serious and repeat offenders. In the case of Sweeney, the sentence should have been 100+ years, with a resulting tarrif of 50+ years.
This would undoubtedly upset the criminal-loving human rights brigade; but as they are the ones who caused for the problem in the first place, maybe we should just ignore them.
The politicization of the Law is an offence to a civilised society. Law is a corner stone of any society and therefore not an issue of ideology, merely one of morality. The imposition of political expediency allows conflicting laws to emerge that are open to 'legal argument' - a horrible phrase, surely a sound argument is not open to discussion - and this results in a confused application of intent. I'm told that this nation is led by the wise and the worthy, I see no evidence that supports this claim only a reality that consists of varying degrees of incompetence.
Sir John Powell (1645 - 1713) Coggs v Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond, 911: "Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason."
We live in a time of reason existing in darkness. Mehr Licht!
Here's an idea: when any murderer, rapist, paedophile, or violent offender is sentenced 'softly', and who subsequently re-offends following release, then the judge in question should stand trial as an accessory to the second offence. If the judge was constrained by the law during the first sentencing, then the Home Secretary at the time of the original trial should be charged as an accessory.
With such accountability, these 'climbers of the greasy pole' might take their responsibilities to the public they serve somewhat more seriously. And we, the public, will be a lot better off for it.
The simple answer to this question is stop using equations to work out prison sentences.
If someone has commited a serious crime, the Judge needs to look at the case and use his brain and remember the evidence he has been hearing and sentence accordingly.
If that means someone goes to prison for 15 years even tho they admitted guilt so be it. They need to show remorse in prison before they are released and after they have been punished. Not show remorse in the court case when they have been caught and have their sentences slashed before stepping foot in a jail.
If the prisons had room, the country would be a far safer place.