Downing Street Says » Sweeney – Paedophile Sentencing

Asked whether the Prime Minister believed the sentence was too lenient, the PMOS said that the Attorney General had said after considering the case in detail that his opinion was that given Sweeney’s past history he believed that Sweeny might never be released. This was not how the case had been reported at the time and the Attorney General had, himself, said at the time that he wished to review the case. He had now carefully considered this case and come to the judgement that given the law the judge had reached the appropriate verdict. The Attorney General, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor had each identified problems in sentencing which all three of them would make a further announcement on before the summer recess. Put that the Home Secretary still stood by his view that it was too lenient and did the Prime Minister agree and who was to blame, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view was that it was perfectly proper for the Home Secretary to raise this concern. As he, the PMOS, had said at the time it was right that different parts of government reflected different priorities in this area.

The Home Secretary had been reflecting the concern that had arisen from what appeared to be a judgement seemingly at odds with the public’s common sense view of justice. The Attorney General had looked at the judgement and had reached his view based on the law. This was, as the Home Secretary had said all along that, the Attorney General’s job. It was also equally important that the Attorney General, Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor had identified the areas of sentencing, which they felt needed to be looked at in light of this. Asked if the government would cut the one-third tariff for guilty pleas and if so how would it afford the extra costs incurred, the PMOS said that it was the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor who would come to a common view on the problems associated with sentencing in that area. They would make their announcement on that common view before the summer recess. We needed to wait for this announcement before we could deal with the knock on effects.

Asked how could it no longer be out of kilter as the Prime Minister had said previously, the PMOS said that the impact of the case the Attorney General had to consider was about whether the judge had complied with the law. The follow on question was whether the law, in terms of sentencing, needed to change. Therefore the question remained, if you like, how to bring sentencing into kilter with public opinion. This was what the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor were looking at. Asked then how could Sweeney be given a sentence that everyone thought was wrong, the PMOS said it was important that people read the Attorney General’s statement in full which said that given his past history Sweeney may never be released. The judge had actually said that the continuing danger that Sweeney posed to society should be very carefully considered when reviewing the case. Put that this did not change the fact that the Home Secretary had made it clear that he disagreed with the Attorney General, the PMOS said that what the Home Secretary was making clear was that the issues about sentencing had to be addressed and they would be before the summer recess.

Asked if that could be understood to mean that the Home Secretary’s original comments had been a criticism of the guidelines not the judges, the PMOS said that it was the guidelines that, on examination, needed to change. This was why we would put forward a common position from the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor before the summer recess. Put that it remained the case that Sweeny would still have a sentence that the Home Secretary disagreed with, the PMOS said that you did not make retrospective legislation for individual cases. There had been a situation where the judge had made unique comments about the individual and the judge had made it clear, despite its lack of media coverage that in his view Sweeney may never be released. Asked why the Home Secretary had then said it was too lenient, the PMOS said that there had been discrepancy between the reportage, which had focussed on the minimum possible sentence, and the judge’s comments and as result the perception of that sentence. The Attorney General had gone through the case legally, which the Home Secretary had made a point of saying was the Attorney General’s job, and concluded that the judge had complied with the law. As a result, however, the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor would produce a new assessment of what needed to change in sentencing.

The PMOS did not think anyone could deny the level of public concern that had arisen out of this case. Therefore was it right that the Home Secretary reflected that concern and ask the Attorney General to consider the case. The Attorney General had also, himself independently, made it clear that he would review the case. As a result of that the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor would, from their different perspectives in government, bring forward proposals on sentencing. Put that the Home Secretary should have concurred with Attorney General if he had read the judgement in full, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had been reflecting the perception that there was something seriously wrong with the judgement. Following the Attorney General’s legal assessment the analysis of what needed to happen was being brought forward.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, July 10, 2006

Sweeney – Paedophile Sentencing

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries