Tougher sentences are needed but Rishi Sunak’s promises of a review smack of desperation - Jayne Dowle

This would draw a distinction between those who plan to murder and other killings, such as those that result from a street fight. Interestingly, it’s reported that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was also in favour of such a reform as far back as 2010, when he was Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Conservative Party manifesto also promises to increase from 15 to 25 years the minimum sentence for murders that take place in the home – this would be especially relevant in case of domestic abuse. Of the 590 recorded homicides in England and Wales in 2022-23, 174 of these were women – with a significant proportion murdered by their partners in their homes, typically by knives.

The loophole in existing law which allows for harsher sentences for murderers who pre-meditate a killing, rather than grabbing what is to hand in the heat of a terrifying domestic argument has long needed addressing.

There would also be a wider review to ensure tougher sentences are given to killers such as Valdo Calocane, who fatally stabbed three people - students Barnaby Webber and Grace O'Malley-Kumar, both 19, and 65-year-old school caretaker Ian Coates – in Nottingham, a year ago this week.

The outcry when schizophrenic Calocane, charged with murder but allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility, was sentenced not to life in prison, but an indefinite stay in a secure hospital because of his mental illness, is thought to have influenced Sunak’s voter-appealing move. He is said to have been convinced that change was due after meeting devastated family members of Calocane’s victims.

The Nottingham murder spree was a hugely emotive case that may well eventually prove a turning point in the law; the judge declined to hand down what’s known as a ‘hybrid sentence’ which would have seen Calocane sent to prison after treatment. Despite an appeal, the sentence was upheld, leading to further controversy that the criminal justice system is out of step with public sentiment.

My heart goes out to the families left bereaved by such senseless loss; they will feel at least that someone is listening to them. And a manifesto has to set out a stall, although as we know to our cost, the Conservatives have a strong track record for conveniently forgetting their pledges.

However, I find Sunak’s move now cynical at best, opportunistic at worst. Whilst no-one would argue that all legislation has to evolve, surely such fundamental changes should be set in motion as part of a considered and thoughtful approach, not a populist manifesto herald.

The legal fraternity is not known for making sudden changes; such proposals would likely take years to instigate, should they go through successful review and the parliamentary process. It almost seems a cheap shot to call for it now, in the interests of regaining the Conservatives’ reputation as the party of law and order.

Because let’s face it, recent performance hardly underlines this, does it? These calls to add possibly more and certainly longer prison sentences come as our prisons are full to bursting, violent and dangerous criminals are being released 70 days before fully serving their sentences and the probation service reports it is overwhelmed, meaning – inevitably – that the public are being put at risk.

It's all very well proposing tougher sentences as a tough soundbite, what’s needed is a thorough root and branch re-think of the way the criminal justice system deals with the heinous crime of murder and other violent offences, which often escalate in horrific ways.

This doesn’t only mean the precise form of words used when charging a suspect, or even the sentence meted out by the judge. It should also involve looking at the prison population before piling even more disturbed individuals into the cells.

Is everyone locked up in the right place? Can alternative avenues be made available for those who have committed crimes which don’t pose a danger to the public?

Are there enough resources – and the answer is already a resounding no – available to rehabilitate individuals who have committed serious crimes.