Baku, May 18 (AZERTAC). Alasdair Palmer proposed a reform for the criminal justice system. In a wildly arrogant 700 words, Palmer seems to think he has solved the problems that have long plagued the courts, the prison service, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Not only is it ill-thought out, but his suggestion flies in the face of all common sense and the principles of sentencing.

I was astounded when I read this. To suggest that not just an appropriate way, but that the best way to deal with an offender, is to ignore what the judge has learned about him or her is preposterous. The incontrovertible fact is that the judge is highly likely to be the best placed person to make a judgement about the offender`s character, culpability and so on.

The judge is likely to have observed the offender give evidence at trial, read a report by the probation service, heard mitigation advanced by his advocate, viewed details of his criminal record. What Palmer advocates, with no detectable hint of sarcasm, irony or humour, is to ignore, essentially, the facts of the offence, and the characteristics of the offender. Instead, he proposes that the sentencing process focusses on the likelihood of reoffending (which, incidentally, is a feature of the pre-sentence report produced at the instruction of the judge) by reference to the statistics relating to his `age and history`. Therefore, the sentence bears little or no relation to the offence and the offender, and is marked by which age category the offender falls into.

It is unclear as to whether history means antecedent history (i.e. convictions and cautions etc.) or personal history, such as family background. However, I would counter with the fact that reference only to age would provide little by way of an `improvement`. In fact it would provide for an inconsistent approach, exactly, what Palmer appears to believe his mechanistic approach would achieve. The reason for this is that sentencing is necessarily a fact-specific exercise. For example, should a 19-year old mother of two, and a 19-year old drug-addict with a depressive illness receive the same sentence for the same offence? The answer is of course no. There are different factors which require one offender to be treated differently to the other.

Incidentally, Palmer may wish to read R v Martin 2006 EWCA Crim 1035, where the Court of Appeal remarked that `The sentencing decision does not represent a mathematical exercise, nor does it result from an arithmetical calculation.`