It has now been 11 months since the Minimum Sentencing Bill was first tabled before the House of Commons by the now President of the Liberal Democrats, CDocwra. It’s a bill that the Official Opposition strongly supports as a way of reshaping our criminal justice system to be more rehabilitative and allowing judges to set a minimum sentence for a criminal based on their specific case and what length of punishment will best help them. It is no good for somebody for whom a 6 month sentence would be detrimental to receive that sentence and undermines the mission of our justice system. The bill would be a positive development for British justice and it is taking far too long to get through Parliament.

It is because of our commitment to rehabilitative, sensible justice, and to seeing this bill become law, that we are profoundly disturbed by the amendment to the bill introduced by LPUK Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Friedmanite19 that would seek to abolish all maximum sentence guidelines in British law. In effect, what that means, is that there would be absolutely no limit on how long a person could be sent to jail for, what level of fine they have to pay, or any upper limit on any other form of punishment, for any offence. This is typical of the worst excesses of “tough on crime” rhetoric that seeksto turn criminal justice into a populist weapon. Being tough on crime doesn’t work - it simply fills our prisons with those who could be reformed and contributing positively to society and costs huge amounts of public money for little gain. That should be something the Libertarians oppose.

Whilst minimum sentences are a barrier to a rehabilitative justice system, maximum sentences are a vital part of ensuring that. It’s common sense to have an upper limit, and not a lower limit. Lengthy prison sentences should be handed out where appropriate, not where officially mandated, but equally there should be guidelines on what the maximum sentence for an offence will be. Maximum sentences help prevent wildly excessive and inconsistent sentences in emotive and highly publicised cases compared to those cases of similar offences that are not so widely known and where public pressure is not applied. They also limit the effect of unconscious or conscious biases like racism which might lead to harsh sentences by applying a fair, reasonable and, most importantly, universal maximum.

Whilst the abolition of minimum sentences and the greater empowerment of judges is a positive thing, it is positive because it gives them the chance to explore alternatives that might be better for a defendant, and society as a whole, than locking them up for a mandated period. Abolishing maximum sentences helps nobody, and cases where you’d want the maximum possible sentence of life to be applied already have such a maximum tariff. All this amendment will do is allow shoplifters to be locked away for several years if a judge feels like it. While we believe more independence for judges is a good thing, there is a difference between abolishing unhelpful, punitive, punishment-for-the-sake-of-it minimums, and universal safeguards.

This is either an attempt by the LPUK to derail a good bill, or it is a policy in which they genuinely believe. Either way, they are once again showing a preference for policy based on soundbites rather than evidence based and productive law making. Whilst the LPUK claim to be Libertarians, this is a move that feels distinctly authoritarian. The abolition of maximum sentences for all offences will be extremely dangerous for our justice system and any MP who believes in sensible law and order policies, and a criminal justice system that promotes rehabilitation and reasonable punishment, should dedicate their energy to opposing this amendment, and to making sure the LPUK are never in a position where they are able to command a majority in the House for policies like these.

Hon. TheOWOTrongle MP Shadow Secretary of State for Justice