Whenever the attorney general sticks a political oar into judicial waters, constitutionalists start to get a little bit edgy. Perhaps, then, they were thankful that Baroness Scotland chose not to intervene in the Baby P sentencing earlier this week, thereby preventing the old arguments being reheated.

Scotland had to decide whether to ask the Court of Appeal to increase the sentences of Baby P’s mother and her lodger. Both pleaded guilty to causing or allowing the death of a child, and received minimum prison terms of five years and three years respectively. The mother’s boyfriend was imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years for the rape of a child under the age of 13, and received 12 years’ imprisonment for the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child.

‘I take my role in protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in our system of justice very seriously,’ said Scotland, the government’s chief legal adviser, agreeing fully with the sentences imposed by the trial judge. In 2007, the attorney general considered 342 sentences and sent 106 to the appeal court, with the result that 75 sentences were increased.

In August last year, the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill ignored the advice of the Justice Committee to split the political and judicial role of the attorney general. Michael Foster MP, chairman of the committee, which agreed the report unanimously, did admit that there had been ‘disagreements’ among members.

But perhaps the resentencing aspect of the AG’s role is one that should be dispensed with. Aside from worries over constitutional boundaries, it can only serve to undermine the authority of judges who watch their sentences bounced back to the courts by a politician.