Woolf slammed for plagued prisons and tariff call

It was a bad week for Lord Woolf, as the Lord Chief Justice was blamed for the country's spiralling prison population and also attacked by the Prime Minister in a row over setting tariffs.

He was criticised by the head of the Youth Justice Board, Lord Warner, for 'fuelling a rise in the youth jail population by demanding longer sentences for mobile phone robbers' (The Times, 10 July).

The increased number of jailed juveniles, Lord Warner argued, meant that 'efforts to tackle the root causes of youth crime had suffered a setback' (The Telegraph, 10 July).

While claiming that 'it is not for me to tell sentencers how to do their jobs', Lord Warner proceeded to do just that, saying that 'short custodial sentences are not the answer...

the police must tackle the problem of "untouchable" offenders in crime-plagued housing estates'.

The tabloids were also baying for Lord Woolf's blood, after his comments last week calling for the removal of the home secretary's power to decide tariffs for criminals sentenced to life (see [2002] Gazette, 11 July, 4).

The Sun reported Prime Minister Tony Blair disagreeing strongly, and he found in the paper a staunch supporter.

It wheeled out the usual 'Who is Gazza?' examples of judicial buffoonery, then turned its guns on Lord Woolf (9 July), asking readers how often judges have passed sentences 'you thought were too tough'.

'The Lord Chief Justice is wrong,' it boomed.

'Judges do not make the laws - they just administer them.

And they should do that according to the wishes of the people.

'If Lord Woolf thinks Myra Hindley should be freed,' it concluded, happily ignoring the fact that he had said no such thing, 'let him stand for election on it.

He'd get only two votes.

His and Myra Hindley's.'

Criminal justice was the flavour of the week, with reactions to leaks of the White Paper scheduled for release this week focusing on plans to scale back trial by jury.

The Independent claimed in an editorial that 'some of it [the White Paper] represents a dangerous erosion of the principles of justice' (13 July).

Describing it variously as 'chilling', 'uninformed' and 'breathtakingly ignorant', the paper claims that the eventual bill will lead to 'more miscarriages of justice'.

With sentiments rarely seen in the media, the editorial concluded by wishing that 'if only Cherie Blair, who gave a thoughtful speech on these subjects this week, could be home secretary instead.'

And finally, The Times profiled Sir Stephen Lander, outgoing director-general of MI5 and the Law Society's first independent commissioner with responsibility for complaints-handling (9 July).

The 'quietly spoken' and 'reserved' superspy claimed to be 'undaunted' at the public profile his new post brings, and although he admitted that 'it would be to stretch credulity to say I am a consumer champion'.

Nonetheless, he said he hopes to be 'an objective observer, objective validator' working in the public interest.

Victoria MacCallum