Judges reluctant to use 'three strikes' law, figures show

Judges are ignoring the Government's "three strikes and you're out" crackdown on career burglars and drug dealers, Home Office figures reveal.

Burglars found guilty for the third time are supposed to receive jail sentences of at least three years. A third conviction for trafficking class A drugs is meant to attract seven years behind bars.

But last year just two mandatory three year sentences were imposed on repeat burglars. No mandatory sentences were enforced for regular drug trafficking. Eight burglars and three drug dealers have been jailed under the new law over the past three years. More than 26,000 people were convicted of break-ins last year, about half of whom were imprisoned. About 49,000 were found guilty of drugs offences, although many would have been linked to class C substances.

The figures suggest the courts are reluctant to impose automatic sentences. Judges appear to be taking advantage of a loophole in the law that allows them to disregard a mandatory term if it is "unjust in all the circumstances". The fact that judges are using their discretion isrelieving the pressure on the prison system, which is struggling to cope with a record level of more than 74,000 inmates.

The Crime Sentences Act was put on the statute book by the last Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, who is now the party leader. His successor, Jack Straw, delayed the Act until 1999 to allow for more prison space to be created. When the Act was introduced he said: "We will punish persistent burglars. If someone continues to commit burglaries, the public deserves to be protected."

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "Yet again, the Government's appetite for headlines exceeds its ability to deliver. This failure to put away career criminals, particularly for drug dealing, demonstrates how ill thought-out this policy was. It's of a piece with the Prime Minister's plans to march people to cashpoints to pay fines or impose curfews on teenagers, which never made law or have never been used."

Claire McCarthy, a spokesperson for the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "Too often government policy is about appearing tough. But frequently the courts and other public bodies supposed to be implementing the legislation choose not to."

Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "Any lawyer worth his salt has used the get-out clause to avoid a mandatory sentence, arguing their client has problems with drink, drugs, relationships, housing or education and that includes virtually every burglar."

The lack of enthusiasm for mandatory sentences for burglars and drug dealers echoes the poor response to child safety orders, introduced in 1998, which placed unruly children under 10 under the supervision of a social worker. Only a handful have been issued.

Anti-social orders, aimed at teenage behaviour, also had a poor uptake. Only 1,100 have been issued in the four years of their operation. But the Home Office says the orders are a success and are being applied to other types of offence.