They say "The best form of defence is attack..."

3.11.45pm GMT Tue 30th Jan 2007

Dan Norris, Labour MP for Wansdyke and a former Bristol city councillor has launched a vehement attack against our judges for failing to jail offenders found guilty of sexual offences involving children. Mr Norris has spoken out on child protection matters before, and his views have been listened to with a degree of respect and agreement. However, the question must be asked on this occasion whether Mr Norris's first motive for his attack is to protect children or to defend the government of which he is a member?

Is he speaking out to protect the rights of children to enjoy an innocent and happy childhood without fear of the predatory nature of some adults? Or is he perhaps using this opportunity to bash our independent judiciary to deflect attention from the Home Secretary's failure to protect the public?

Bristol East Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokesman Philip C James said "Serious and violent offences require that offenders should be imprisoned to protect the public. Whether a judge lets the offender off with a suspended sentence or sends them to prison, they will end up back in the community because the prisons are full. The prisons are full because John Reid and his predecessors have failed in his duty to protect us."

"When junior government office-holders such as Mr Norris start having a go at the judges, you realise how desperate this Labour government is to deflect criticism away from the Home Office they have created - one that is now unfit for purpose."

"The mistake the judges have made is to listen to the Home Secretary, who wants them to stop sending convicted offenders to prison."

"The judge should give the offender the sentence they deserve. Justice should be seen to be done. It is only fair to the victims."

Philip explained: "If there is then no place for the offender in prison, it is absolutely clear who is to blame. It is John Reid, and earlier Labour Home Secretaries - I lose count at four in the last ten years. They have passed Criminal Justice Act after Act without thinking how to implement them or how many extra prison places and prison officers will be needed when their 'get tough' policies are enforced."

"If instead the judge suspends a jail sentence for an offender who to protect the public should really be in prison, it is the judge not the Home Secretary who takes the blame in the press for failing to protect the public."

Philip explained that there were additional implications of passing more lenient sentences not because there were mitigating circumstances but just to protect the Home Secretary from the consequences of his own failure:

"Justice has to be seen to be served. Victims and their families deserve a system that treats them fairly. If a crime deserves a sentence, that's what a defendant who is found guilty should get. Massaging the sentences handed down can have all sorts of unintended consequences affecting how the offender can behave in future. No-one would want to see a burglar allowed to run a security firm because they had previously been handed down a lighter sentence than their crime had warranted."

"Liberal Democrats argue that a prison sentence is not appropriate for some offenders, if we want to ensure that they do not re-offend again. The need to punish, deter and rehabilitate can be met by alternative forms of justice such as restorative justice. But prison does allow the authorities to protect the public from serious or violent offenders. The public is not served by filling prison places with elderly council tax protesters or those convicted of trivial or non-violent offences. Prisoner overcrowding also makes it impossible to devote effort to rehabilitating those serious offenders who are locked up."

Philip concluded: "Our judges need to stand firm against one group of serial offenders in particular; Labour Home Secretaries. And Parliament needs to protect the public against many dangers, not least any future attempts by this government to force our judiciary to toe their party line. The thought of Dan Norris, or his ilk, with the power to act as judge, jury and prosecutor is not an attractive one."

Related Link:

"Judges are the perverts' pals", Western Daily Press, Tuesday, 30 January 2007.