Letter: Sentencing must be left to the judges

Sir: It is a fundamental principle of retributive justice, and a cornerstone of the rule of law, that persons who have been convicted of the same offence receive the same sentence. Judges in criminal cases, either at first instance or on appeal, continually strive to implement this principle, even though they may occasionally miss the mark.

Yet equal treatment can occur only if certain conditions are met. Those who sentence offenders must be trained professionals, fully apprised of the facts of each case from having sat through all the evidence. Above all they must be able to decide upon penalties without reference to the wavering, emotional and frequently prejudiced tide of public sentiment.

For a politician, such as our Home Secretary, to have the power to alter a sentence judicially determined is a flagrant violation of this principle. I recently watched in astonishment as Mr Howard, one of her Majesty's counsel after all, explained without any apparent embarrassment to an interviewer on a television programme that this power was necessary to ensure that he could respond to public opinion in any particular case by altering the sentence. So much for the rule of law.

The pathology of this infection in our system of criminal justice has now become very obvious in Mr Howard's increasing the sentence of James Bulger's murderers to 15 years (report, 23 July). It is precisely in cases as terrible and emotive as this that we should be vigilant to exclude rather than pander to public opinion.

Mr Howard's supplanting of the judicial role in sentencing in the Bulger case brings home very dramatically the need to strip this power from politicians at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

PHILIP F. ESLER

School of Divinity

University of St Andrews

St Andrews, Fife

23 July