Craig Sweeney

[ewx]

Sentencing him to life in jail at Cardiff Crown Court, Judge John Griffith Williams QC said he would not be considered for parole for five years - and only then if he did not pose a significant risk of re-offending

So the minimum possible time inside is five years. Given that he's a repeat offender anyway, one might reasonable imagine that whoever is in charge of determining whether he poses a "significant risk" will take a rather skeptical view. The judge seems to be of similar view. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the view that five years is kind of short for kidnap and rape, even in the face of positively angelic behaviour for the duration. So how was that number reached?

"The judge has to determine first of all the notional sentence, which in this case was 18 years," he said.
"Then that is cut by half to reach the actual sentence. Then the judge is obliged to cut a third off in view of the guilty plea."

The arithmetic seems a bit off there. However assuming that the reporting is basically right, and the journalist involved merely too innumerate to notice the discrepancy, isn't the government ultimately attacking its own sentencing policy here?

Comments

[pm215]

It looks to me as if the 'headline' sentence figures should be looked at more from the offender's viewpoint -- so a '10 year' sentence means "after 10 years you will be out of the clutches of the criminal justice system completely, parole and all", and 'life' means "potentially we may never let you go". They don't seem to be intended to specify the minimum or average jail term.