CrimeLine

At the end of the trial, the judge praised how the two convicted rapists had conducted themselves: ‘You have done very well…’ He then let them off with a ‘rehabilitation order’. It was a disgrace. It wasn’t justice for the victims and their families. If you rape girls, brandish a knife, film it for sport - premeditated - you should go to prison. For a very long time. What message does this send to rapists? This insulting lenient ‘sentence’ must be overturned. The suitability of the judge who made this perverse decision must be reviewed by the Lady Chief Justice. It shows the rot that’s set in our criminal justice system. The Justice Secretary’s plan to create a softer route through the criminal justice system for those under 25 is mistaken. It will only encourage more of this. And David Lammy proposes raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14. That would have meant, for example, the killers of Jamie Bulger escaping prison altogether. No. Those who commit the most despicable - evil - crimes must go to jail. For punishment. For public protection. For justice. It’s as simple as that.

What I find hard to understand about our justice system is this: isn’t the need for law officers to intervene to review the sentences the judge has given an indication they have seriously erred and made a grave misjudgment in applying the law? And, if so, why is intervention by the attorney general not accompanied by proper accountability and professional consequences for the judge in question?

Is it possible to sentence the judge to life imprisonment after the review?

That judge should genuinely lose his license