Judges reject mandatory-sentence Bill
Judges have attacked ministers' controversial plans for mandatory sentences, which they claim will stop them from protecting women and young offenders from harsh punishments.
The Council of Circuit Judges, which represents 652 judges in England and Wales, said measures contained in the Coroners and Justice Bill were "unnecessary, costly and unwelcome".
In a rare but outspoken attack on Government policy, they said the Bill, which is passing through Parliament, would tie judges' hands in very difficult cases. The guidelines, which set out exactly what length of sentence a convicted defendant must face without taking into account individual circumstances, are regarded as a threat to judicial independence.
In a statement, the judges accused the Ministry of Justice of trying to impose "mandatory guidelines" on how offenders should be punished which could result in "injustice" to victims and offenders, for example single mothers whose children might be taken into care if judges are forced to jail them.
This is a step in the right direction. Politicians should stop trying to be judges. If the government wants consistency in sentencing, why did it not do so in Lord Ahmed's case?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment