Twenty years ago, the Law Commission described the law on murder in England and Wales as “a mess”.
Two years later, the Commission’s weighty 2006 review of homicide was no less sparing in its criticisms:
The law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have remained unaltered since the seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform. Other rules are of uncertain content, often because they have been constantly changed to the point that they can no longer be stated with any certainty or clarity
Last week’s news that the Lord Chancellor has asked the Commission to review the homicide laws and sentencing framework for murder has therefore been widely welcomed. Campaigners against joint enterprise prosecutions were also pleased to see a specific reference to those particular rules.
The Law Commission’s 2006 report recommended a US-style three-tier structure for homicide: first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter. Only first degree murder would attract a mandatory life sentence.
This proposal was controversial and was never implemented. The smart money is on the Commission making much the same recommendation this time round. Given the state of crisis in the justice system, there will likely be more appetite to implement it this time round.
The Law Commission review is just one of a number of significant reviews the Lord Chancellor has initiated.
First, there is the Independent Sentencing Review, under former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke.
While Gauke and the panel of experts working with him have been asked to undertake a “comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework”, the Lord Chancellor has specifically excluded the murder sentencing framework and the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence from Gauke’s remit.
While murder will be covered by the Law Commission review, those under the IPP sentence are, yet again, being short-changed by ministers. That shameful sentence sits outside the scope of both the Law Commission and Gauke reviews.
The Lord Chancellor has also announced a “once in a generation” review of the criminal courts, under the former High Court Judge, Sir Brian Leveson. Leveson’s review will, among other things, look at the case for “intermediate courts”, covering cases deemed too serious for magistrates’ courts, but not serious enough for a full jury trial at the Crown Court.
Taken together, these various reviews suggest a clear direction of travel towards some form of ‘big bang’ sentencing and court reform over the coming few years.
