Punishment for murder should reflect the crime says Home Secretary
08 Nov 2004
Mr Blunkett agreed with the response from the Home Affairs Select Committee that murder should be treated differently to all other offences. He re-iterated that the length of time a convicted murderer should spend in prison before becoming eligible for parole (the tariff) should only be reduced by a guilty plea in limited circumstances – where the plea has particular merit, for example where the offender admits a crime that was unknown to the authorities or in relation to which there was no evidence against him. And when those circumstances do apply, a cap should be set on how much discount can be given.
The Home Secretary was formally responding to two sets of draft guidelines published by the independent Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) for consultation. He stressed that he respected the independence of the SGC and welcomed the fact that the guidelines promoted the shared objective of consistent and effective sentencing.
Giving discounts for guilty pleas means that offenders can be encouraged to plead guilty early, saving victims and witnesses the trauma of a trial. The Home Secretary broadly welcomed the Council's recommendations on reductions in sentences for guilty pleas for all other types of offences. Guidance would be necessary, he said, to ensure consistency and transparency so that defendants are made aware of the potential benefits of an early plea. However, the Home Secretary said he believed the guideline should include separate recommendations for considering guilty pleas in murder cases to reflect both the special nature of mandatory life tariffs and the heinous and unique nature of the crime.
Mr Blunkett said:
"We agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that by making express provisions for murder tariffs in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Parliament sent a clear signal that murder is to be treated as significantly different from other offences.
"We believe the draft in its present form does not fully reflect the will of Parliament and the public to ensure that those convicted of murder should receive a punishment which matches the heinous nature of the crime."
Mr Blunkett today also gave the Government's formal response to a second set of draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) dealing with the concept of "seriousness" and the new sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
He broadly welcomed these guidelines as promoting the Government's objective of ensuring consistent and effective sentencing.
In particular, the Home Secretary welcomed the inclusion of offences committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs under the list of "aggravating factors". He said offenders should not be able to cite the fact they were drunk or on drugs as a mitigating factor in their defence.
Mr Blunkett said:
"Our recent Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign highlighted the anomaly of those convicted of anti-social behaviour offences being able to seek a reduced sentence on the basis they were inebriated. I do not believe inebriation should ever be accepted as an excuse for criminal behaviour, rather it is about taking responsibility for our actions."
The Government's response also comments on proposals by the SGC relating to the new "12 month plus" determinate prison sentence, due to come into effect next year under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
While accepting these new sentences will be more demanding for offenders who will in future be supervised under licence right to the end of the sentence and subject to recall to prison for any breaches, Mr Blunkett said the reduction in sentence length should be fixed and at a level less than that proposed by the SGC.
He said:
"This will maintain consistency while recognising the significantly more onerous overall impact of the total sentence imposed."