19 July 2006
Tuckers Partner commented for Lexis Nexis on the furore over sentencing:
Should sentencing guidelines be revised following public disquiet over the sentencing of paedophile Craig Sweeney? Tuckers Solicitors partner Andrew Keogh explains the issues to Elizabeth Davidson...
The sentencing guidelines came in for scrutiny this month in the wake of public uproar over the case of Craig Sweeney, a convicted paedophile sentenced to life imprisonment following a horrific attack on a three year-old girl.
Under sentencing guidelines, he will only serve five years and 108 days before becoming eligible for parole, although the Parole Board is unlikely to grant this given his past history.
Home Secretary John Reid asked Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, to re-examine the sentence on the basis it was “unduly lenient”.
However Lord Goldsmith concluded it was not, as the judge had followed the guidelines in setting a minimum sentence, and declined to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
This raises the question: do the sentencing guidelines need to be reformed and updated?
Andrew Keogh, partner at Tuckers Solicitors, says: “These guidelines were issued in 2005 by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The major concern has been in relation to the one-third discount for guilty plea, particularly in relation to cases where the prosecution case is overwhelming and therefore a defendant has little choice but to plead guilty. Members of the public, and a growing body of the judiciary appear now to be expressing disquiet over this seemingly very generous discount. It does need to be remembered though that by removing the discount some defendants may have a trial just for the sake of it—a process that can be deeply distressing for vulnerable victim's and their families.
“There is already a consultation under way and it is highly likely that the rules will change. But, even without the discount people will still be seeing sentences that appear lenient when in fact they are not. We should not lose sight of the fact that Sweeney actually got a life sentence, not six years. There needs to be a system of sentencing that the public can understand and have confidence in. The government is not only entitled, but in my view duty bound to involve itself in issues surrounding the sentencing framework. It should not however get involved on a case by case level and inappropriately criticise members of the judiciary who have faithfully implemented the sentencing policy of the very same government. Meddling of that nature has the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in our judiciary."
No matter how upsetting the sentence is for the victim’s family, Keogh believes there is little action they can take in terms of a legal challenge.
"Lord Goldsmith clearly believes, with good cause, that the sentence was correct in accordance with the law as it stands at the moment,” he says. “The family could, in theory, bring a judicial review against that decision, but it would clearly not succeed.
"The public consultation, underway now, is inclusive and members of the public are as entitled as lawyers are to put forward their views. Revised guidelines could be issued within a matter of weeks following the conclusion of the consultation."
However unpopular the guidelines are with members of the public, they have the support of the legal community, says Keogh. “The sentencing guidelines have brought a greater degree of certainty and uniformity to sentencing, something that has been long overdue. The legal community has welcomed the guidance.”