Back in mid-2006 a nasty scrap of humanity was sentenced for abducting and sexually assaulting a toddler. Craig Sweeney was sentenced to 18 years but told he could possibly walk free after 5 years. Understandably, everyone outside the judiciary was angry at this, but the judge was – in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor – exactly right with the judgement. (This means that Lord Falconer agrees that a known predator of young children will be free to start all over again in less than 5 years from now.) At the time, the media reacted with the indignation felt by everyone other than Lord Falconer and his wig-wearing cronies.

Today there was a judgement about the way that other judgement was handled.

The media, particularly the tabloid press, was also criticised and was asked to restrain from attacking judges.

What? The media is meant to just agree? How can you attack a sentence and not attack the idiot who used his own judgement to arrive at it? Maybe the media should just be quiet and in doing so be seen to be in total agreement.
Judges are phenomenally well paid and are meant to be intelligent. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into and with the trappings of their career come the barbs. Cope with it.

In that same link above:

The constitution committee also looked at the creation of the Ministry of Justice when Mr Reid split the Home Office in May.
It said it had “significant constitutional implications” but that ministers had tried to dismiss it as simply a machinery of government change.
The government was criticised for “failing satisfactorily to consult the judiciary on the proposed changes”.

What this means is “Damn! More work!”. It also means “Politicians should not interfere with the judges but the judges can interfere with the politicians” (unless Cynthia Payne was in charge of course). So the judges want to have complete control and be protected from anyone saying anything bad, but in the meantime they will allow people out of jail who are known to harm children and can be absolutely guaranteed to do it again.

Does anyone not a judge agree with this? I seriously doubt it.

So we had the uncaring Judge John Griffith Williams who was joined by the incompetent Judge Francis Gilbert and this particular diabolic trinity was completed with the bleeding heart Judge Julian Hall. And if the Lord Chancellor had his way then the media would not report the public feelings on the matter, then the politicians would not try to enact new laws (which is NOT the remit of the judges) and the judges could continue in their strange world where they are the sole arbiters of good and bad.

But…… go back to 2005 and decisions were taken to increase the sentences handed out to men who kill their wives. Would this have happened if the media had been quiet? No, of course not.

There were more sentencing guidelines issued in 2006. Here are a few words from that report:

The guideline which was drawn up after a major consultation

Feeling let down / angry / sad or many other emotions is difficult to do in isolation. Ideas about what else could be done are also difficult to express as you only have your own experiences to go on. Which is where the media comes in. Parts of the media can and do accurately reflect the feelings people have over many things and if a judge thinks it’s okay for someone else to be attacked then they should expect equal treatment. But the media also functions as a megaphone and of course that will cause a louder and harsher voice – people like me saying that the likes of Sweeney should be executed. Does that mean it will happen? No – just like Sweeney’s mother probably thinking of her son as someone who would not harm anyone and should be freed will not happen (for 5 yrs anyway). So the media magnifies but in magnifying it also communicates other ways of dealing, other voices that can be more objective, other voices that urge change by process. Do not judges praise the media for their help in solving crimes? (so should they not be criticised for also causing it?). The media are a vital part of the judicial process. Without the media we have no review, no feedback, no change, no presentation of the people.

Judges, by their actions and inactions have a direct and profound impact on society. For that their every ruling should be put under public scrutiny and society has every right to praise, criticise and castigate as the public and media see fit.