Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Life will mean life - Howard

Paul Routledge,Political Correspondent
Saturday 26 March 1994 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

THE Home Secretary, Michael Howard, is proposing to change the law so that 'life means life' for the killers of policemen and prison officers.

Cabinet ministers have been canvassed for their opinion on an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, now going through Parliament, that would compel literal life sentences for those who murder the agents of law and order.

Mr Howard's proposal, which will dismay prison reformers but is already delighting police organisations, was circulated a week ago in the wake of a defeat in the Commons last month of moves to reintroduce capital punishment for such offences.

He wants to address the fears and anxieties of the public and MPs as violent and armed attacks on the police become more common, and he has told ministers there is still time to table a Government amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in April.

The proposal was warmly welcomed last night by the Police Federation, which insisted: 'We have always said that for people who are convicted of the murder of a police officer, a life sentence should mean what it says. We would certainly be very pleased with such a change in the law.'

But reformist opinion was outraged. Paul Cavadino, spokesman for the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro), said the idea was wrong in principle and would create 'great difficulties' in the prison service.

'It would mean that prison officers would be catering for a number of prisoners who had absolutely no hope whatever of being released. They would have to care for people who had nothing to lose, and that is a very sombre prospect.'

At present, all murders carry a mandatory life sentence, and the trial judge makes a secret recommendation on the length of time a killer should serve. The Home Secretary is then free to vary it. Since the mid-Eighties, the murder of a police officer has invariably attracted a minimum sentence of 20 years.

The number of policemen killed in the line of duty fluctuates annually from low single figures to 15 or more. Since 1965, 54 police officers have been murdered. Two have died in the last five months. London remains the most dangerous beat.

Despite the common public perception that 'life doesn't really mean life', in fact the Home Secretary has powers to order the continuing imprisonment of any murderer whom he judges to be a threat to the public.

Nacro believes that public opinion, while superficially attracted to a 'life means life' policy, would find a rigid policy of mandatory term-of-natural- life sentences 'indefensibly harsh' in practice because it would not distinguish ringleaders and followers.

'It would mean that however much their attitudes changed and reformed, however much they matured, however much remorse they expressed, whatever happened to their health, they could never be released,' said Mr Cavadino.

The Opposition had mixed feelings about the proposal. Alun Michael, Labour's front- bench spokesman on law and order, said: 'We would have to see the precise terms.'

The biggest problem leading to violence against the police was the easy availability of guns, and the growing willingness of criminals to use them, he added.

Yet during the committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, the Home Secretary had rejected tough new measures against illegal possession and trading in firearms that Labour had tabled.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in