OPPOSITION from judges is threatening to derail plans to give relatives of murder or manslaughter victims a say in court before sentencing.

Ministers are determined to pilot the reforms in six regional courts from April, giving relatives a chance to spell out the impact of the death. But the change, a key Labour manifesto pledge at the last election, is strongly opposed across the judiciary. Government law officers, too, are privately believed to have reservations.

The reforms would allow relatives to address the court either in person, or through a lawyer or other representative such as a police officer or a friend, acting as a “victim’s advocate”. They could be questioned on or guided through what they say.

But judges, including Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Igor Judge, the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, have expressed concerns. They say that the courtroom would become an emotional arena; that it would falsely raise victims’ expectations of being able to influence the sentence; and that it would extend rights of audience in the courts beyond the legal profession.

They are concerned that the plan would alter the adversarial basis of the trial and potentially interfere with the outcome of the case, although the address would be after the verdict.

A response by Judge John Samuels, chairman of the criminal committee of the Council of Circuit Judges, which represents more than 600 judges, said: “Our primary concern is that the proposals will conceptually encourage such relatives to believe that they can, through their own advocate, influence the judge’s sentencing.”

The judges recognise that that is not the intention, but say that they are “sure this is how they will be understood”. In the common law jurisdiction, it would be “alien” to that tradition for a prosecutor to seek to influence a court in relation to sentence. A non- lawyer advocate might not be aware of the limitations of an advocate’s role, the judges say.

They also raise a practical objection: “Would all the relatives of victims of Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe or Fred West be afforded individual advocates?” And if those reponsible for the terrorism attacks of July 7 are brought to court, would only the families of the deceased have a voice “while those who had merely been maimed . . . have none?”.

Without judicial support, ministers face having to legislate to set up a pilot project.

Harriet Harman, QC, minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, said: “Relatives of the victim are the only people who don’t have this chance to speak about the crime. Everyone else does, including the prosecution and defence, the judge and witnesses. But the people who know the victim best and on whom the crime had the biggest impact are denied this opportunity. I say — let them have this chance.”

The statement by the mother of Anthony Walker, the man who was killed with an axe in an unprovoked attack, was the kind that could be made under the reforms, Ms Harman said.

The statement, read after Mr Walker’s killers were convicted, said: “Anthony was a wonderful young man who had everything to live for. His murder has subjected my family to a living nightmare. The world is a worse place without my son.”

Victims' rights

The Netherlands Victims of serious crimes and relatives of homicide victims can make a statement during the trial, describing the crime’s consequences

Canada Since 1998 victims and relatives can make an “impact statement” in court, to be considered at the sentencing stage

US Most states allow a victim statement during the sentencing phase

Australia The state of South Australia began “victim impact statements” in 1988 and others followed suit. In Victoria victims may give a written statement, be questioned about it and call evidence

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• He stole my son, now I’m alone in hell
• Back on the air, but don’t mention Mugabe
• Ten kitchen gadget gift ideas