Now burglars will not be jailed

Hundreds of thousands of crooks could escape jail every year under the proposals by advisers to the Lord Chief Justice.[>

[>

Those sentenced to short, sharp shock jail terms of less than 12 months for “less serious offences” – including burglary – should be handed community penalties instead, they said.[>

[>

Even those who are likely to reoffend could walk free from court if it is believed they will go on to commit “non-serious offences”.[>

[>

And in a further blow, while courts must not be swayed by victims demanding harsher punishments for offenders, the advisers said that judges should listen if they call for leniency.[>

[>

Critics said the proposals would do nothing to calm the fears of law-abiding members of the public who have lost their faith in the criminal justice system, and would not deter those intent on crime.[>

[>

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said burglary is “deeply upsetting for its victims and should not be dealt with lightly”. He added: “People rightly expect that offenders who invade their home will be dealt with severely, and they have little confidence in weak community sentences which too often aren’t even properly enforced.”[>

[>

Retired judge Keith Matthewman QC called the proposals “an absolute disgrace”. He said: “Criminals laugh at community sentences. The only thing they are frightened of is prison. Many years ago when I was defending people they would say, ‘Can you get me off with a community sentence?’.[>

[>

“It is entirely the wrong way to go and I hope judges take no notice of it. The law-abiding public has lost all faith in the criminal justice system and so have I.”[>

[>

More than 292,000 burglaries were reported to police last year. Burglars are locked up for an average of six months – but the Sentencing Advisory Panel said unpaid work or a curfew could be a better way of punishing them.[>

[>

The panel – which advises the Sentencing Guidelines Council, chaired by the Lord Chief Justice – said short custodial sentences are not as effective at rehabilitating offenders.[>

[>

But it stressed that, rather than suggesting longer jail terms, it was saying that “there may be better alternatives to short custodial sentences”.[>

[>

The panel’s review said: “A presumption in favour of a community order is most likely to be appropriate in relation to the less serious offences of theft and dishonesty, burglary and motoring offences, where there may be clear advantages in a sentence in the community.”[>

[>

It added: “The risk that an offender may commit further offences of a non-serious nature should not automatically indicate that custody is necessary.”[>

[>

And after saying victims’ views should only affect a judge if they are calling for leniency rather than harsher sentencing, it admitted the move would “create a certain level of inconsistency”.[>

[>

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the advice looked like a way of avoiding further prison overcrowding. “Punishments should fit the crime and not the availability of prison places,” he said.[>

[>

Mr Matthewman added: “Panels like this think more about the criminals than the victims – and yet it is the victims who spend the rest of their lives suffering.”[>

[>

The panel also suggested  cases where criminals could get lesser sentences. They include pregnant women and carers.[>

[>

It also said those in gainful employment should get community orders so they can keep their jobs – but then said this would “work against those disadvantaged by being unemployed”.[>

[>

SAP chairman Andrew Ashworth said: “In what circumstances should an offender be given a custodial sentence? We need to make sure we have an up-to-date understanding of public opinion.”[>