Clarity needed

IT is now six years since the Law Commission called for a new system of first- and second-degree murder charges, a call now echoed by theDirector of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer. And it is nearly 400 years since much of the framework of Britain's homicide laws was first put in place. Hardly surprising, then, that there is growing support for a review of the system.

Yet, while the Government says it is considering the calls for change, there is every chance that it will yet follow its Labour predecessor and kick the Law Commission's proposals into the long grass. This is because any change would necessitate so great a legislative upheaval, and take up so much parliamentary time, that any government, let alone one that has already set itself a list of ambitious goals, would be loath to go ahead.

If this is indeed the case, however, the Government should think again. The idea of ending the mandatory life sentence for murder, which the reforms would entail, may sound like a further weakening of the criminal-justice system. Yet, in truth, when there is already a situation in which, in many cases, life does not mean life, and when an opaque and inflexible system is riddled with anomalies, there is likely to be much public support for change.

It is clearly not sensible, for example, to have a mandatory life sentence for all cases of homicide, from vicious murder to mercy killing, while the law as it stands is struggling to cope with the number of murders perpetrated by gangs of youths in which there are often multiple killers.

Yet, to be effective, it is crucial that any change does not repeat the mistakes of the past and merely add further layers of complexity. For what is needed is a fundamental review of criminal law and sentencing policy which will bring much needed flexibility and transparency to a system that all too frequently leaves the public baffled.