Another year, another change in the criminal law.

No sooner had the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill arrived in committee in the Commons than the government began proposing to publish its white paper on sentencing.

In such times it is not easy to plan but it seems likely that the end result will be an increase in the volume of business for criminal law solicitors.Already carefully publicised, the white paper seems likely to contain three primary proposals.

The first is honesty in sentencing: that a person's sentence should mean what it says -- three years' imprisonment meaning three years actual custody from the date of sentence.

There would be no automatic or conditional release.The government has recognised two immediate difficulties.

The first is one of prison discipline.

Without anything to offer a prisoner there is no incentive to encourage good behaviour.

The management of prisons will become significantly more problematic.

Serious crime in prison must now come before the courts and means more work for the profession.

It seems a concession will now result in a 17.5% reduction in sentencing being available.The second difficulty with this proposal is the dramatic effect it is likely to have on the prison population, far greater than anything the existing building programme could handle.

The home secretary plays down such fears.

The actual term served, he says, should not change.

Nominal lengths would be reduced so that they represented the real term.

Yet in agreeing to this the home secretary would bring about the earlier release of many regular offenders, ignoring the effects of s.40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (CJA) introduced by his own government.

It is not politic, it seems, to emphasise the strength of that legislation.

Under its terms, if any person is convicted of a further offence committed during the whole term of his or her sentence, he or she can, in addition to any other penalty, be sentenced for the balance of the term remaining at the date of the offence.

Thus, in announcing a three-year sentence, a court is currently telling any defendant that he or she will serve 18 months and will be at risk for a further 18 months in the event of re-offending: a three-year risk of imprisonment.

Clients may have less to fear under the new proposals.Rumours are now also circulating that as part of the policy of honesty in sentencing, periods on remand will not in future automatically count towards sentence.

If this proves to be the case, the opportunities for injustice are obvious.

Clients coming before efficient courts will be at a strange advantage.

The pressure to grant bail in courts subject to delay, even at the risk of some re-offending, will be considerable.

Indeed, the courts will be required to hear bail applications and appeals at a significantly increased rate.

There will be strong and lengthy objections -- all requiring full hearings -- to applications for adjournments and cases will almost certainly have to proceed when the full prosecution case may not be available.

Every sentencing hearing of a person in custody will be lengthened as the time on remand is calculated and submissions are made that sentence lengths should be reduced as a result.The government's second main proposal is to require a court to pass a life sentence on any person convicted for the second time of one of a group of serious offences.

The detail in the white paper will be important.

Although obligatory, it is proposed that the resulting life sentence would work in the same way as the existing discretionary life term.

In announcing the life sentence, the judge would fix a tariff term before the expiry of which the prisoner might not be released.

Thereafter, the continued imprisonment would come up for regular review before a judicial body such as the discretionary life panel.Solic itors not already undertaking that work (for which ABWOR is available) will be looking for opportunities to gain experience.

To comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, regular reviews of detention would be necessary.However, clients may view the sentences differently and -- advised of the effects of a second conviction -- are unlikely to be willing to make any admission as to that offence or indeed to such an offence charged for the first time.

A substantial increase in the number of not-guilty trials can safely be predicted.The same problem arises for the final proposal expected in the white paper.

This is likely to propose the introduction of minimum sentences for offenders committing a second or third defined offence, such as domestic burglary or the supply of class A drugs.

Solicitors will have to advise of the dangers of a conviction on first arrest for such an offence.

Contests will abound, as will definitional arguments.

The precise way in which an offence is committed will become of extreme importance.

Newton hearings, already plentiful, will increase.The government seems to have little regard for the judiciary -- which has ample sentencing powers already available to it -- and sentences on drugs suppliers are not light.

Furthermore, the government is again ignoring its own legislation.

Under s.2(2)(b) of the CJA 1991, a custodial sentence for a violent or sexual offence shall be for such longer term as in the opinion of the court is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender.

The government will argue that the deterrent effect of these proposals will be great.

Criminal lawyers, who know just how small a proportion of crime actually reaches the court, may not be persuaded.

The statistics do not suggest there is any shortage of clients for the police to arrest.

Lawyers are criticised for spending too much of the law and order budget in the courts.

The fault lies elsewhere.

These are political proposals brought forward for political ends and will produce more, not less, work for criminal lawyers.