The law of murder would be redrawn with only the most ruthless, premeditated crimes carrying a mandatory life sentence, under radical new proposals published today.

In the first fundamental reform of the law of homicide for 50 years, the Law Commission recommended today that Britain should adopt a three-tier scale of killing offences, to reflect a greater variety of crimes and give judges more flexibility over sentencing.

Currently, the law of murder applies to all killings where there is a reckless disregard for life and imposes a mandatory life sentence on all convicted offenders.

Judges have criticised the law as too inflexible, and say that the complex rules surrounding provocation and diminished responsibility are confusing for juries.

Under today's proposals, the law would show three offences of increasing severity to replace the current crimes of murder and manslaughter.

In the top tier, prosecutors would have to show that the offender had the intention to kill. The Law Commission recommended that only these offences retain the mandatory life sentence.

In the second tier, there "would be cases of killing through reckless indifference... and intention to do serious harm but not to kill", according to the Law Commission.

These cases would be likely to include the many killings currently prosecuted as murders in which the defendant claims provocation and diminished responsibility. Many domestic killings and deaths that result from fights and robberies would fall into this category. As many as half the cases currently treated as murders could be reclassified as second-degree homicide offences under the proposed reform.

The third tier would broadly reflect the current law for manslaughter. The Law Commission says the offence would cover "killing by gross negligence or intention to cause harm but not serious harm". Judges would have wide discretion over sentencing for both of the bottom two tiers.

Announcing the proposals, Dr Jeremy Horder, the Law Commissioner in charge of the review, said the law of murder must be changed to reflect the complexity of cases that judges and juries hear. Last August, the Law Commission described the law governing homicide as a "mess".

"The law is not what the public thinks it is," Dr Horder said. "It is confusing and unfair, and the judiciary have to adapt it to meet the needs of the 21st century on a case-by-case basis.

"We have recognised the need to re-structure the nature of murder offences, and our provisional proposals offer a ladder of offences, reflecting different degrees of culpability. I hope that people from all walks of life will take the time to read our proposals, and respond to the questions in the consultation paper."

The Law Commission will collate responses to today's 61-page consultation paper - there is a 349-page version for legal professionals - before submitting a final proposal to the Home Office in the autumn. Any new homicide legislation is unlikely to come into force before 2010.

According to Frances Gibb, the legal editor of The Times, if the proposals come into force they are likely to have two effects, with some cases currently prosecuted as manslaughters being upgraded to become second degree murders, and some murders which now draw a mandatory life sentence being downgraded to the second tier.

Sir Roger Toulson, chairman of the Law Commission, pointed out that those prosecuted for the second-tier offence would not necessarily receive lighter sentences than those found guilty of first-degree murder. The only difference would be that sentencing would not be automatic.

"The question is if somebody does not intend to kill, should they get an automatic life sentence, which is different from should they get a life sentence?" he said. "If he does an act which he could not foresee and nobody else could foresee would lead to a death, the question is should there be an automatic life sentence in that case?"

The murder review was ordered by David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, last October after a Law Commission showed 64 respondents out of 146 - including 21 judges - believed a mandatory life sentence for every case of murder was "indefensible and should cease". Lord Woolf, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, has also expressed his opposition to mandatory sentences for any crime.

The intention to redefine murder or create a range of offences has attracted criticism from politicians and victims' groups, who claim that the mandatory life sentence poses a powerful deterrent.

Norman Brennan, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, which represents families of murder victims, characterised today's proposals as a "watering down" of murder.

"These proposals will result in shorter sentences and it will be seen by a number of criminals as a licence to murder, as a long term of imprisonment seems less likely," said Mr Brennan. "This will do nothing to reassure the British public at a time when murder and violent crime are at their highest since the Second World War."

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'