[continued from previous message] 
  
 Sentencing 
 ********** 
  
 The issue 
 A dispute over the introduction of mandatory sentences, and automatic 
 jail terms for multiple burglary and drug offences - the "three strikes 
 and out" approach. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposed mandatory and 
 minimum sentences, and reduced judges' discretion to fit a punishment to 
 a crime. 
  
 What the judges said 
 Judges say they want to retain discretion to ensure a punishment fits a 
 crime and they want an end to mandatory life sentences for murder. They 
 believe mandatory prison terms could force them to impose sentences that 
 are unfair in some circumstances. In December last year, Britain's most 
 senior judge ended the most recent clash with new guidance that halves 
 the discounts killers can win by pleading guilty. 
  
 What the Government said 
 David Blunkett, the former home secretary, criticised judges' proposals 
 that murderers, as with other offenders, could win discounts of one 
 third with a guilty plea, and immediately indicated that such guidance 
 was contrary to what Parliament had intended. 
  
 Ministers favour tighter control over sentencing and have outlined a 
 guideline tariff with starting points from 15 years. 
  
 Outcome 
 This issue is at the heart of the dispute about the dilution of the role 
 and power of the judiciary. Judges also believe it reflects the 
 determination of successive home secretaries, from Michael Howard to 
 David Blunkett, to appear "tough on crime". The mandatory sentencing 
 regime is leading to an explosion in the prison population. 
  
  
 Control orders 
 ************** 
  
 The issue 
 New "control orders", or house curfews, were introduced after existing 
 anti-terror laws were ruled unlawful by the Lords. The Prevention of 
 Terrorism Act 2005 allows the Home Secretary to restrict individuals' 
 liberty on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities. 
  
 What the judges said 
 Peers have demanded a tougher burden of proof before control orders can 
 be imposed on terror suspects and have criticised the minimal oversight 
 available by the judges. After fierce opposition from the Lords and 
 opposition MPs, the Government compromised and the interim orders must 
 be referred to a judge within seven days for confirmation. 
  
 What the Government said 
 Government says control orders are needed to restrict the movements of 
 terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted in courts. Ten of the 
 controversial orders were imposed on foreign terrorist suspects held in 
 Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons as soon as the Prevention of Terrorism 
 Bill became law in March. Has promised future debate on the law, and 
 gives an opportunity for it to be changed next year. 
  
 Outcome 
 Tony Blair gets the principle of anti-terror control orders on the 
 statute book, and wins the battle over the burden of proof. The 
 opposition will have a chance to amend the law when new anti-terror 
 proposals are put forward, but there is no guarantee that they would 
 stand any chance of success. 
  
 Public inquiries 
 **************** 
  
 The issue 
 The Inquiries Act 2005, which restricts the independence of judges 
 appointed to chair inquiries, allows ministers to decide what evidence 
 is given in public and to block the disclosure of evidence. It enables 
 the relevant minister to impose restrictions at any time before the 
 inquiry ends. 
  
 What the judges said 
 Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, wants final say over whether judges 
 should chair any public inquiry, and over which judge. He said: "I take 
 the view that this provision makes a serious inroad into the 
 independence of any inquiry. It is likely to damage or destroy public 
 confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in any case where 
 the conduct of the authorities may be in question." 
  
 What the Government said 
 Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, says final say should rest with him. 
 The Bill is designed to modernise rules governing the establishment of 
 public inquiries. A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional 
 Affairs said: " It is highly unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would 
 appoint a judge against the wishes of the Lord Chief Justice. Judges are 
 free to decide for themselves whether to accept positions as inquiry 
 chairs." 
  
 Outcome 
 Many lawyers believe it is the latest attempt in a long struggle by the 
 executive to limit the role of judges and marginalise their influence. 
 This change can only add to the suspicion that the Government is trying 
 to manipulate or influence the outcome of controversial inquiries and 
 will damage public confidence in any findings. 
  
 - -- 
 ================================================================ 
 ~ NY Transfer News Collective   *    A Service of Blythe Systems 
 ~ .        Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          . 
 ~ 339 Lafayette St.,  New York,  NY  10012  http://www.blythe.org 
 ~ List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ 
 ~ Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr 
 ================================================================ 
 . 
  
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) 
  
 iQCVAwUBQwDUC0amV5Um0R3tAQJl5QQApWeeOqcNluC2gWo2PaM3ZSXkvfVP/R7y 
 Gg59HLNUflWxLbDL5QzZcS9W6kKA/3jRMwgA77LFpCxa1A29y7R16+d/YDLRnUAa 
 hrCo6+HifuLz98ih91/5cDuE9//RVn4GwOOFCi2w5dr1PrMQN2p44SEdaeLbOXlJ 
 3Ko/qqsATuQ= 
 =nKBg 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)