Report comment

‘’..... fault lies . . . the surprisingly short (many would think) minimum sentence . . . “.

Warboys got a potential “life” sentence. The law stated that the judge must also fix a tariff sentence for the wrong doing for which he was convicted. Parliament had set a release date on license of half of any tariff. The judge had to follow parliament’s lead in his sentence. That term set the earliest date for parole.

The the AG did not review the sentence, maybe because a public protection sentence is rare on, here I assume, a first conviction for this sort of offending at least?

The judge set 16 years as the tariff, parliament halved it, the judge obeyed parliament and gave its 8 year discount and the PB then had to deal with it. For the actual offenses for which he was convicted the 16 year tariff was, I believe, at the time a top of the range one - let alone a potential life stretch.

The tariff sentence might be longer now, I don’t know. The principles set out above still apply as far as I know.

The issue here is whether the law and practice of the PB should be reviewed about which I get the impression many, if not most, of us are agreed.