Of all the various parties involved in the criminal justice system, ‘the victim’ has always had a pretty raw deal.

Not only was he or she unfortunate enough to have a crime committed against them in the first place, but they then become entangled in a lengthy, often distressing criminal trial in which they must re-live and re-tell events, and encounter the perpetrator once more.

They find themselves with no control and very little say over the process.

So it is understandable that the previous and current government have both sought to give the victim a more powerful voice in the criminal justice system.

A government consultation published last month proposed extending the use of victim impact statements (VIS), so that they are offered more routinely, and making greater use of restorative justice (which requires the victim’s co-operation in meeting the defendant and making them aware of the effect of their crime).

But it has the judges worried.

Responding to the consultation (entitled ‘Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders’), Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Goldring say:

‘There has been a move in recent years towards a more victim-led approach to criminal justice.

'This approach, taken still further in the green paper, proposes that the victim (assuming there is one) is best placed to decide on the punishment of the offender either by deciding whether an offender can be dealt with in a particular way (community resolution) or by being able to set out the impact a crime has had on them (victim personal statements).

'We have a number of concerns with this approach.'

The judges point out that every trial engages the public interest, not just the interests of one particular victim; and sometimes an offence (such as fraud) may in fact have no direct impact on the victim, who may not even be aware of it.

What comes through strongly is that the bench is clearly frustrated by the way government has managed the introduction of ‘victim personal statements’ (VPS), written by victims for the judge to read before giving sentence.

The judges say: ‘We welcome the desire to look again at the use of VPS. However, the expectations of the alleged victim must be managed.

‘The court can of course take the VPS into account, but must not be bound by it.

‘The court needs to take a consistent approach to sentencing and cannot increase a sentence because one victim reacts differently to another.

‘If victims do not understand this it will inevitably lead to disappointment if the court chooses not to act on the potentially emotive VPS.’

And they don’t pull any punches on the question of whether it is right for victims to influence sentencing.

The judges say: ‘The sentencing decision cannot depend on the view taken by the victim about how it should be dealt with. Some victims are inclined to be merciful, and others are concerned with what they regard as "justice", which may take the form of vengeance.

‘Very few of them have any direct knowledge of the framework on which the court will endeavour to approach the sentencing decision.

‘In the end, although the impact of a crime on a victim is always relevant to the sentencing decision, the views of the victim him/herself about the sentence to be imposed cannot affect the nature and severity of the sentence.’

Of course judges are bound to resist any new regime that would see them obliged to bow to the whims of ordinary folk, instead of using their own learned judgment on how long a defendant should serve in prison.

'hey are never likely to welcome such interference.

But this is more than mere snobbery on the part of the judiciary. Fundamentally, they must be right.

Victims must be treated sensitively and with respect.

They should be kept informed of what is happening, and any potential distress they may suffer due to a trial must be minimised.

But they cannot be given the right to decide, or even influence, a sentence.

To do so would place an unfair burden of responsibility on the victims themselves – for example, a victim who found forgiveness years later might regret having pushed for, and obtained, a longer sentence.

It could even expose victims to the risk of further harm – if a particularly unpleasant defendant’s associates sought to intimidate the victim into pressing for a lighter sentence, for example.

And what would happen where a defendant sought to appeal a sentence, and the victim had changed their mind by the time the appeal was heard – would the court have to take the change of heart into account?

Sentences must only be determined by a professional and objective judge, in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

It is commendable that the government is seeking to promote the engagement of victims in the criminal justice system.

But allowing victims a say in punishment smacks of vengeance rather than justice.