Politicians must ensure public commentary on the criminal justice system does not contribute to misunderstandings that can damage public confidence, a Commons justice committee report has found.

The report, ‘Public’s opinion and understanding of sentencing’, which polled and interviewed members of the public, found that justice for the victim was considered ‘one of the most important purposes of sentencing’.

Of those asked, 56% ranked ‘ensuring the victim had secured justice’ as one of their top three factors that should influence a sentence. Almost half placed it second in order of priority behind protecting the public.

The committee says the government ‘should review the statutory purposes of sentencing to consider whether greater emphasis should be placed on achieving justice for the victims of crime and their families’.

An overall conclusion is the need for national debate on sentencing, describing current policy as ‘stuck in a dysfunctional and reactive cycle’. The report adds: ‘There needs to be greater public knowledge and understanding of current sentencing practice, of evidence on the effectiveness of different sentencing options, and the resource implications of sentences in order to improve the quality of public discourse.’

Launched in 2022, the inquiry, which polled 2,057 adults in England and Wales and interviewed 25 individuals over three half-day sessions, found that 74% of respondents knew the courts were responsible for imposing sentences, but only 22% identified parliament as being responsible for setting the maximum sentences in law.

The committee said it was ‘concerned’ that participants were unsure which institutions were responsible for deciding the framework that sentencers apply in individual cases, leading to an ‘accountability gap’.

Committee chair Sir Bob Neill MP said: ‘Everyone involved in, or responsible for, the criminal justice system needs to take the duty to ensure public confidence extremely seriously. Improvements to open justice, such as the broadcasting of sentencing remarks, need to be built upon, including through some of the recommendations outlined in this report.

‘Instead of simply adopting a reactive approach to sentencing policy, the government should develop a structured mechanism for engaging the public on sentencing policy. We agree with Bishop James Jones’s view that there is a need for a new national debate on sentencing.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.