Why does Anne Tyson feel she is qualified to pass comment on the sentence imposed on Craig Sweeney?

She is described, in 'Lawyer in the news' (see [2006] Gazette, 22 June, 5) as an independent consultant for a virtual personal injury law firm who represented the family of the victim. She would like to see the sentence increased, she says, and found the case dreadful.


The judge imposed a life sentence with a minimum term to be served before the defendant is entitled to apply for parole. Unless he can satisfy the Parole Board that it is safe to release him, he will never be released. If he is released (and the judge made it clear he did not expect that will be in the short term) then he would be on licence for life. The judge applied sentencing principles laid down in case law and statute, and was obliged to give the defendant a discount for his guilty plea in calculating the tariff. In leaving the decision as to the ultimate release of Sweeney in the hands of the Parole Board, he did the only thing any sentencing judge could have done.


In the current climate, it is unhelpful and misleading to say that such a sentence should be increased. It simply plays into the hands of the tabloid paedophile-obsessed press and their uninformed readers.

John Pendlebury, Atkins Hope, Horley, Surrey