Judges accuse Blunkett of abusing power over tariffs

The Home Secretary goes head-to-head with the judiciary over his plans to bring in stricter sentence tariffs for murderers

Lawyers, judges and civil rights campaigners accused David Blunkett of abusing his political power yesterday by forcing courts to stiffen prison sentences for murderers.

In the biggest overhaul of murder laws for nearly 40 years, the Home Secretary proposed a rigid system of penalties for killers that would lengthen the minimum amount of time they have to serve.

But the reforms set him on a collision course with members of the legal profession, including his cabinet colleague, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor. Under the proposals, "life would mean life" for those who abduct and kill children, terrorists and multiple murderers. Under current practice, most are eligible for release after 20 years.

Minimum jail sentences of 30 years would be imposed for the murder of police officers, killings involving guns or explosives, race murders and sadistic sexual killings. All other murders would attract an automatic 15-year term. Judges who wish to impose shorter sentences will have to explain their reasons in court, leaving them open to public criticism.

The overhaul of the tariff system follows a ruling last year by the law lords that the Home Secretary's powers to decide how long criminals stay in prison breached human rights.

Mr Blunkett said yesterday that judges had proved incapable of providing clear and consistent sentencing in murder cases. He said: "It will be Parliament that decides the structure. It will be judges that act within it."

The Bar Council charged Mr Blunkett with trying to take a constitutional "leap in the dark" by undermining the independence and discretion of the judiciary. A spokesman said: "He is trying to institutionalise the grip of the executive around the neck of the judiciary, and that is not healthy for the long-term constitutional arrangements of the country.

"By legislative creep, we will gradually erode the separation of powers, something which has for hundreds of years been seen to be something which is a strength in our democracy."

Sir Michael Davies, a former High Court judge, said: "He wants to tell the judges how to sentence people and it won't work." Mark Littlewood, of the civil rights organisation Liberty, said: "Longer prison sentences may help the Home Secretary appear 'tough' but they will do nothing to reduce crime. The appropriate sentence for any crime needs to be set by a judge.

"Sentences should not be determined by politicians who do not know the specifics of a case and may be more interested in securing headlines than in securing good justice."

Enver Solomon, a spokesman for the Prison Reform Trust, agreed "genuinely evil people" should be jailed for a "very, very long time".

But he added: "There will be some individuals who do show the ability to change. There will be the lad who might have got involved with gun crime, that might have pulled the trigger when he didn't intend to. Should that individual get sent down for 30 years? What if they are able to change?"

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, said: "The proposals suggest there could never be room for redemption. Each case and release date must remain with the parole authorities to reflect remorse, change in the offender and the risk they may pose."

But Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: "At a time when the criminal justice system is in crisis and violent crime and gun crime are out of control, we need to send out a strong message to the criminal fraternity that enough is enough."

Mr Blunkett said that when hanging was abolished in 1965, it was understood that a rigorous alternative to the death penalty would be introduced. He added: "I am determined to ensure we have modern arrangements which maintain that commitment."

He said: "I am not prepared to allow sentences to be passed for the most horrendous, shocking crimes which do not reflect either the punishment required or the need to give a clear signal to perpetrators that we will not tolerate their presence in our society."

The proposal, to be introduced in an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill going through the Commons, will receive Tory support. Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The issue here is whether Parliament should set the general guidelines, leaving the individual judge free to make the particular decision about the particular case in the light of the circumstances of the case. That seems to me the right balance."

THE GUIDELINES

Under the proposed changes, "whole life" will be the starting point for adult murderers in the following cases:

* Multiple murders that show a "high degree of premeditation, involve abduction of the victim prior of the killing or are sexual or sadistic".

* The murder of a child following abduction, or that involves sexual or sadistic conduct.

* Terrorist murder.

* Where the offender has been previously convicted of murder.

The second level, with a starting point of 30 years, will apply in the following:

* Murders of police and prison officers during the course of duty.

* Murder involving firearms or explosives.

* Killing done for gain, such as burglary, robbery and professional or contract killings.

* Killing "intended to defeat ends of justice", such as killing a witness.

* Race, religion or sexual orientation-motivated killings.

* A single sadistic or sexual murder of an adult.

* Multiple murders excluding those in the previous category.

Any other murders would have a 15-year starting point, which judges could add to according to the circumstances of each case.

Killers under 17 would only face the 15-year starting point but offenders who are 18, 19 or 20 years will face either the 15 or 30-year starting points.