From time to time, one reads in The Argus letters complaining about the length of sentences handed down by the courts for various offences. The most recent example concerned the killer drink-driver Michael Uren.
Often the sentence is related to the offence charged and it has been explained many times that, for example, just because someone is killed in a traffic crash it does not mean the driver is guilty of any offence, let alone causing death.
That said, there are many cases, such as Uren's, when the sentence is very clearly inadequate. The Attorney General (I believe) has powers to appeal against such sentences, yet how often does one read of that happening? Would "practically never" be a fair answer?
Has not the time arrived when such appeals should happen much more frequently because, clearly, the courts are totally inept when it comes to sentencing? And maybe Parliament could have a look also at giving the Attorney General powers to appeal against "not guilty" verdicts in appropriate cases, in just the same way as those convicted can appeal (and frequently do, often on the most flimsy grounds)?
-J E Bartlett, Upper Shoreham Road, Shoreham-by-Sea
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article