by RAY FLEMING
David Blunkett's determination to reassert the right of Parliament, rather than the judiciary, to determine appropriate prison sentences, especially in murder cases, is likely to be controversial but, on balance, is probably correct. Mr Blunkett is risking confrontation with his Cabinet colleague Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, who believes that judges should be able to exercise their discretion over jail terms according to their reading of each case. There is probably a general feeling in Britain today that judges lean too much towards leniency in their sentencing.
The recent muddled and misunderstood remarks of Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, about the sentencing of burglars contributed to this feeling. The pressure on prison accommodation has led all courts to avoid custodial sentences for lesser crimes if possible. However, Mr Blunkett is responding primarily to public concern over the tarrif (length of sentence) for murder. When the death sentence was abolished in Britain the Home Secretary assumed the responsibility of deciding how long a murdered should remain in prison; but court rulings in recent years have challenged this arrangement and last year Lord Woolf issued guidelines to his fellow judges that sentences for murder should start at 12 years and move upwards according to the seriousness of the offence. Mr Blunkett's guidelines are likely to be much tougher, while allowing judges some discretion within limits. For the murder of children the principle of life means life will apply and in other categories, such as murder of a police officer, the minimum sentence is likely to be 30 years.