Since the U-turn of 1993 on the Criminal Justice Act 1991, criminal justice has increasingly been to the fore of the political agenda.What began as a volte-face over unit fines and previous convictions has turned to freefall, with the opposition as keen as the government to raise the stakes.

Michael Howard is a home secretary in a hurry, for whom law and order means a constant menu of new pronouncements.

Key developments include:-- the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which eliminated the 'two offence rule' in relation to the seriousness of offences, replaced unit fines and made previous convictions and responses to sentences admissible when sentencing and make committing an offence whilst on bail a compulsory aggravating factor;-- the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 which conferred a right of appeal on the prosecutor in certain instances;-- a Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which contains further sentencing changes - escalatory in nature and counter to the philosophy behind the 1991 legislation as promulgated in the government's white paper, 'Crime, justice and protecting the public' (1990, Cm 965) and the Home Office's general guide to the Act (HMSO, 1990).One feature has been the handing back of discretion.

In the charged atmosphere created by dubious tags such as 'prison works', 'young thugs' and 'bail bandits', many courts could see this as a licence to 'get tough', even if the facts about crime fall short of the media hype.A politically convenient target has been the 'persistent young offender', yet a recent report by the Policy Studies Institute commissioned by the Home Office defeats this main plank of current strategy by showing that even if all such offenders were locked up this would have only a marginal effect on the crime rate (PSI research report No.764, 1994).

What then of the integrity of other, less visible or emotive, issues?A tough law and order atmosphere has ridden on the back of high profile cases, particularly directed towards young offenders.There has also been extensive work to toughen national standards for the enforcement of community sentences, parole, and early release from prison.Two Home Office circulars have been issued, one on 'The cautioning of offenders' (HOC 18/94), the import of which was summed up by the home secretary as 'your first chance is your last chance'; and also on 'Compensation to victims of crime', (HOC 53/1993), reminding courts of their powers.

Such advice is indicative of the executive's shifting view of the separation of powers - something which has given cause for concern on several occasions during the present government's term of office.Also, tough new sentencing guidelines were issued by the Magistrates Association, precipitated by the 1993 Act.Forward-looking, mature policies made following wide consultation and leading to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have been eroded without proper scrutiny.Every government has the right to legislate, but criminal justice issues are too important to be rushed through Parliament, propelled by power politics.Criminal justice has become heavily politicised and there has been a denial of true democracy - a diminution of open government, with experts forced to respond by fax or telephone to what has become a truncated - sometimes 24-hour - consultation process in which, on occasions, even government officials have been in the dark.The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill - like the rushed 1993 Act - contains significant reversals of policy.

These include proposals for secure training centres for juveniles and the doubling of maximum sentences in young offender institutions, as well as some fundamental changes to the Bail Act 1976 and the right to silence.Of more concern, a number of changes have been added to the Bill during its passage, often at a few days' notice.

These have not been minor adjustments, but items central to the work of the criminal courts, tagged onto an existing Bill to suit the political moment.

This 'legislation by amendment' includes:-- powers to bind over parents to ensure compliance with a community sentence by their child, even though present parental binding-over powers are unpopular with youth court magistrates being divisive between parent and child;-- a diminution of the legal requirement for pre-sentence reports before custody or community sentences are used, thereby placing at risk the information base for proper decision making - a 'minor amendment' tucked into a schedule!-- the extension of secure remand powers for ten to 14 year olds;-- a statutory arrangement for discounts for guilty pleas - reflecting existing practice but seemingly not discussed with the courts at all;-- wide new powers to stop and search suspects;-- the replacement of committal for trial proceedings by a system of transfer to the Crown Court, including 'paper' submissions to challenge the evidence.

This will relieve witnesses from giving evidence twice, but one effect will be to deny represented defendants the right to address the court verbally on whether there is a prima facie case.The Criminal Justice Act 1991 set out a comprehensive sentencing framework and was accompanied by a philosophy, well documented by Home Office publications.

There is now a lack of any clear strategy, other than that the post-1991 Act shifts are in a different direction.

To say the least, there is tension and confusion.

And one effect has been to undermine what is left of that 1991 Act.No one has articulated the change of thinking, which seems to be driven by the determination of ministers.

Practitioners, faced with courts exercising their new-found discretion in the light of daily political pronouncements, may find themselves somewhat perplexed.In May 1993, a motion by the Justices Clerks Society viewed 'with deep concern developments in the government's criminal justice policies which have undermined public confidence in the courts'.

The debate will continue at the society's annual conference in May.Criminal justice legislation should not be used for short term ends.

Sound government demands measured strategies, developed over time, and which are acknowledged, understood and broadly supported by those on the ground.What now seems to unite practitioners is their disdain for the way the government has ignored or rejected the advice of seasoned practitioners in favour of pursuing largely political ends.