THE LAW ON MURDER IS MOST FOUL, AND NEED REFORMING

The public and the legal profession want change. It would be a tragedy if the justice minister is thwarted by his peers

When Clarke put forward sentencing reforms this year they were rubbished by the prime minister and home secretary. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, should beware of a report published this week advising a change to the law on murder. He has been mugged four times already in the dark alley that passes for law reform. He gets no support from his leader, his colleagues, his party, the opposition or the media. They hurl at him the hobgoblins of prejudice, fear, conservatism, vindictiveness and xenophobia, supported by the ghouls of Fleet Street. In reply, Clarke can deploy only common sense and public opinion, and in penal policy they hardly raise a squeak.

The judges and academics of the Homicide Review Advisory Group point out, for the umpteenth time, that the British law on murder is shockingly out of date. It requires a "mandatory" life sentence of at least 15 years for a crime that lumps together premeditated killing, mercy killing, killing under extreme provocation and gang violence that results in death. Attempted murder, where death may have been averted only by assiduous medical care, is treated quite differently. In the case of murder, sentencing does not match the circumstance or the perpetrator. There is no scope for plea-bargaining. Judges have no discretion to take into account the likelihood of rehabilitation or the lack of risk of reoffending. It is all primitive.

Any violent death is awful, and murder especially so. It is also rare, and each one is peculiar. Those who have studied murder rates in different countries see them as reflecting many social and economic factors. They tend to be highest in the drug economies of Central and South America. They vary with the availability of weapons, with migrant cultures and with the efficiency of emergency services. New York murders fell dramatically when hospitals were compelled to admit critical cases irrespective of insurance cover, cutting the lag before treatment and thus the chance of survival by a crucial 20 to 23 minutes.

When capital punishment in Britain was abolished in 1965, a notional pact was reached between parliament and public that life sentences "should mean life". This was interpreted as at least 15 years followed by the possibility of release on a "life licence". Ever since, parliament has treated this pact as a sacred icon of retributive justice. While other states, even the US, updated their laws, Britain remained intransigent. If you kill someone, even if you did not really mean to do so, you go to prison for 15 years and are never fully "released".

Time and again the judicial establishment has pleaded with parliament for a more sophisticated approach to homicide. In 2004 the Law Commission called the law on murder "a mess". A year later it was "a rickety structure set on shaky foundations". A further year passed, and three sorts of homicide were identified for different treatment, with a fixed tariff only for the most serious premeditated killings.

Two directors of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald and Kier Starmer, have added their voices to pleas for reform. According to Starmer, many juries "instinctively kick against the idea that someone should be convicted of murder with a mandatory life sentence" when there was no intention to kill. This replicates the pre-1965 situation, where juries refused to convict people if it meant they would hang – a phenomenon thought to have created Britain's then "low" murder rate.

The left used to wear with pride a liberal reputation on law reform. Past Labour governments oversaw the end of capital punishment and reforms to divorce, homosexuality and abortion. This ended abruptly in the 1990s, with Tony Blair's cynical soundbite, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The prison population soared to 85,000 under Labour, and home secretaries lived in terror of the tabloids. The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, said he was "not convinced of the need for a change", and that was that.

True, in the Dutch auction for penal retribution, the Tories gave not an inch. No peep of progressive thought on sentencing came from them in decades. This was the more puzzling in that public opinion, as opposed to knee-jerk newspaper editorials, was relatively open-minded. Surveys showed a readiness to reform cannabis law. Polls indicated an acceptance of non-custodial sentences where appropriate. A Nuffield survey last year found widespread agreement that murder embraced complex crimes and that punishment should reflect this. Only 20% thought a gang member who did not actually kill should be liable for a murder.

On coming to office last year Clarke proved himself a pragmatic reformer. He seemed determined to rescue his party and the justice system generally from its reputation for reactionary inertia. This was not, he declared, because he regarded most punishment as excessive, but because it was wasteful, inefficient and counterproductive. It created criminality rather than reduced it.

Spurred by a curb on prison spending, Clarke proposed to cut remand in custody and permit a 50% cut in sentences for early guilty pleas. He hinted that violent rape might be treated differently from date rape. He wanted to end the growth in indeterminate sentences that had 3,000 people still in prison beyond their indicative tariff. The only word for most of this was commonsensical.

The response was grimly familiar. Clarke was shouted down in his plea that too many people were in jail for too long and for trivial reasons, and that remission for guilty pleas would save court time. His proposals were rubbished by the prime minister and home secretary, and he was forced to accept the primitivism of mandatory prison for knife crime and mandatory life for "two strikes" serious offenders. There is no way he'll cut the prison population.

David Miliband and Labour's justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, played to the gallery with demands that Clarke was setting 2,500 "dangerous offenders free" and should be sacked. The days are clearly not over when Labour front benches bayed in cringing unison with the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Clarke affair has seen Britain's political community at its most depressing.

Justice requires that punishment fit the crime and its perpetrator. In the case of murder, this is what judges, prosecutors, the legal profession, the Law Commission and public opinion now regard as the way forward. For once there is a progressive justice minister in place with radical intent. It would be a tragedy if he is thwarted by the bovine tendency in British politics.

By: Simon Jenkins

Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard

RIOTERS SAY ANGER WITH POLICE FUELLED SUMMER UNREST

Guardian-LSE study of riots – involving hundreds of interviews with participants – reveals deep antipathy towards officers

Our team collected more than 1.3m words of first-person accounts of the
English riots. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters

Widespread anger and frustration at the way police engage with communities was a significant cause of the summer riots in every major city where disorder took place, the biggest study into their cause has found.

Hundreds of interviews with people who took part in the disturbances which spread across England in August revealed deep-seated and sometimes visceral antipathy towards police.

In a unique collaboration, the Guardian and London School of Economics (LSE) interviewed 270 people who rioted in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Manchester and Salford.

The project collected more than 1.3m words of first-person accounts from rioters, giving an unprecedented insight into what drove people to participate in England's most serious bout of civil unrest in a generation. Rioters revealed that a complex mix of grievances brought them on to the streets but analysts appointed by the LSE identified distrust and antipathy toward police as a key driving force.

Details of the research findings, which are also based on an analysis of an exclusive database of more than 2.5m riot-related tweets, will be unveiled in a series of reports over the next five days. Monday's findings include:

• Many rioters conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that a perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.

• Despite David Cameron saying gangs were "at the heart" of the disturbances, evidence shows they temporarily suspended hostilities. The effective four-day truce – which many said was unprecedented – applied to towns and cities across England. However, on the whole, the research found gang members played only a marginal role in the riots.

• Contrary to widespread speculation that rioters used social media to organise themselves and share "viral" information, sites such as Facebook and Twitter were not used in any significant way. However, BlackBerry phones – and the free messaging service known as "BBM" – were used extensively to communicate, share information and plan riots in advance.

• Although mainly young and male, those involved in the riots came from a cross-section of local communities. Just under half of those interviewed in the study were students. Of those who were not in education and were of working age, 59% were unemployed. Although half of those interviewed were black, people who took part in the disorder did not consider these "race riots".

• Rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice. For some this was economic: the lack of money, jobs or opportunity. For others it was more broadly social: how they felt they were treated compared with others. Many mentioned the increase in student tuition fees and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance.

Although rioters expressed a mix of opinions about the disorder, many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots. They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London.

For the research, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Open Society Foundations, a team of more than 60 academics, researchers and journalists spent three months interviewing people rioters and analysing their accounts. 

The most common complaints related to people's everyday experience of policing, with many expressing deep frustration at the way people in their communities were subjected to stop and search. An independent panel set up by the government in the aftermath of the riots identified stop and search as a possible "motivation factor" for black and Asian rioters.

In findings released last week, the panel – which took evidence from riot-hit communities and victims, but did not speak to rioters – concluded there was no single cause for the riots, but urged police to improve the way stop and search is conducted. "Where young law-abiding people are repeatedly targeted there is a very real danger that stop and search will have a corrosive effect on their relationship with the police," it said.Of those interviewed in the Reading the Riots study, 73% said they had been stopped and searched in the previous 12 months. They were more than eight times more likely to have been stopped and searched in the previous year than the general population in London.

The Metropolitan police's internal report on the riots, also released last week, appeared to identify simmering tensions with police. Citing community feedback about the riots, the report concluded: "Either the violence was spontaneous without any degree of forethought or … a level of tension existed among sections of the community that was not identified through the community engagement."

The Met said it welcomed the research that provides an insight into why the riots occured "so that police and society can do everything possible to prevent a recurrence".

"We will consider this research alongside the detailed operational review that we are conducting." The force said its own research showed 66% of Londoners believed the MPS does a good job in their area, and that stop and search "can be a highly effective and essential tactic" against knife crime.

It added: "Stop and search will continue to be necessary but we want to ensure that it is only used in an intelligent, professional, objective and courteous way."

The second phase of Reading the Riots, to be completed next year, will draw on interviews with communities, police and judges about their experience of the disturbances and their aftermath.

By: Paul Lewis, Tim Newburn and Matthew Taylor

Paul Lewis is Special Projects Editor for the Guardian. He was named Reporter of the Year at the British Press Awards 2010 and won the 2009 Bevins Prize for outstanding investigative journalism. He previously worked at the Washington Post as the Stern Fellow. Professor Tim Newburn is head of social policy at the London School of Economics and works on the Guardian's reading the riots special project. Matthew Taylor is a reporter for the Guardian

“A BUSY, BUSY MAN”

The attitude exhibited by the Honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hughes since taking office, that he is fighting an “undeclared war with the British” has incited constant “outrage” with the Governor and FCO and to some degree has created an impediment to a progressive approach to the business of governing on the island and has apparently resulted in a brutal reception in London. This is according to the Chief Minister’s own reports of hostile treatment. Clearly, the Chief Minister was extremely disappointed and blamed it on negative reports reaching Britain. No doubt much of what is been said here at home is reported back to London. The Chief Minister felt appeased by the other delegates and Dependent Territories heads seeming to have better relationships with Britain than Anguilla and Mr. Hughes does; It brings into focus the consistent feud with the Governor over matters that seem unclear to the population and is causing Mr. Hughes difficulty and embarrassment with his diplomatic business. Business with Britain is all about the interest of the country and should not be about personal feuds or the raging of personal battles. There have been many calls for the Chief Minister to control his rhetoric and conduct business on better terms with the Governor which would reflect a better functioning government. It is possible though that much of this conflict is staged just for local consumption to appease party supporters. Hearing Mr. Hughes report of hostile treatment in London make us believe that he was expecting royal treatment there amidst a lingering dislike for the British and revved up anger on the island, giving the impression that the island is being deprived of its constitutional rights and privileges and is somehow oppressed, Mr. Hughes wants us to believe that he has the will to change the constitutional framework with Britain and change the political direction of the country; but had “No Outrage in Britain.” even though he acts like the big bad dog here at home there was no bark in London and in the end he subdue himself truly, as a “loyal British Subject.”

A door was swung wide open for the Chief Minister to openly address his fury and issues with Britain, when Anguilla became the subject matter in the British parliament recently and questions were asked to the Minister of State and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Minister was asked to give an assessment of at least one of the many disparaging statements by Chief Minister Hughes of the British, stating that “Anguilla’s biggest dilemma is Britain which is not our friend ….. They are no asset to us.” “They are our liability”. The Minister replied in writing, and stated that he was not aware of such a statement by Mr. Hughes. Curious! Such statements are common by the Chief Minister, so it is unbelievable that the Minister has not heard. Mr. Hughes should now take the opportunity and set the record straight which would give him a direct link to the British Parliament and perhaps he’ll have a friend in Lord Ashcroft the Parliamentarian who asked the questions.

If one follows the approach of the British Government, they have been extremely clear on their policy towards the Dependent Territories, which have been reiterated consistently. The question is whether our government has a good grasp of the undertaking and the process of governing according to the British order? Leading up to these bilateral meetings the Secretary of State Mr. Hague again outlined the UK Government’s fundamental responsibility and objective to its Dependent Territories, which is to “ensure security and good governance of its people.” Britain is willing to shape policy to the specific needs and circumstances of each Territory. It goes to say that “the strategy is to design a framework in which these policies can be developed and implemented consistently and effectively.” The word developed would indicate a process of putting together, clearly meaning that they expect input from the Territories. It can only mean that, because no one knows the special needs of these Territories than they who live there. The fact that the Minister is indicating in advance that in February of 2012 a White paper would be issued is in effect giving those Territories time to make an input. Our government has to stop politicking and get busy structuring a serious frame work that would shape the future of the country after 2012.

The honorable Chief Minister summarized his trip by declaring that he and his delegation came out on top, but very little was brought back in terms of real substance. He has distinguished the hard work and effort of the Permanent Secretary who made the case to the British that monies received from Voice Roy’s sale in effect brought our budgetary chaos into positive territory with excesses, but the British maintained that the island is not a massive real estate scheme and they would rather see a methodical approach to governing that would result in a more strategic process of solving the island’s fiscal problems. What was interesting was the direct exchange the Chief Minister had with his counterpart in one of his meetings where Mr. Hughes apparently stuck to his local theme and language, indicating to the British that their approach to our problems is not workable, declaring that people on Anguilla are hungry! This perhaps was a little too local and could have been dressed up in better diplomatic language, I must reiterate that it appears that while the delegation emphasized a strong will, this trip pretty much reinforces the fact that with all the rage and disgusts with the British here at home, when Mr. Hughes touches down on British soil he is pretty much “A British Subject” "with no outrage in Britain!!!

By Elliot J. Harrigan