THE controversy surrounding the sentencing of Craig Sweeney will renew pressure for an overhaul of guidelines that give offenders hefty discounts when they plead guilty.

Judge Griffith Williams, who imposed a life sentence Sweeney, was adhering to guidelines when he told the convicted paedophile that his sentence would be cut by one third to 12 years. But he will undoubtedly become the latest target of a campaign against judges who appear lenient — even though sometimes their hands are tied by the “straitjacket” of the current rules on guilty pleas.

The sentence the judge imposed yesterday was actually a discretionary life sentence and could result in Sweeney never being released. But the minimum the judge deemed that he will serve — five years — means that in theory he could become eligible for release at that point if he was no longer regarded a danger to the public.

Because prisoners are eligible for parole after half their sentence, and taking into account time spent on remand, he could in principle be freed in five years.

Last week the Lord Chief Justice increased a minimum sentence from six to eight years on Alan Webster, the babysittter who repeatedly raped a three-month-old baby girl. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers also said that because Webster was steeped in the “utmost depravity”, it was likely that he would never be released.

But Britain’s most senior judge could do nothing about Webster’s one-third discount for a guilty plea as this was the current advice from the Sentencing Guidelines Council. That guidance, he said, should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Beyond the discount, the Attorney-General does have discretion to challenge “unduly lenient” sentences and in the past three years has done so in 339 cases — with increased jail terms resulting in 75 per cent of cases.

Yet despite the current furore over “soft” judges, sentencing experts last night rejected claims that judges were failing to mete out adequate punishment.

David Thomas, the leading sentencing expert and author of the judges’ sentencing text book, said: “These 339 challenges by the Attorney are only a fraction of some 240,000 crown court cases over that time — so about one in 500 have been considered unduly lenient.”

But when it came to the discount for guilty pleas, he said that judges should not have to comply with “over-rigid” guidance and be given greater discretion as to the discount, particularly where offenders have little option but to plead guilty because they have been caught “red-handed” or the evidence is overwhelming.

Judge Griffith Williams, a circuit judge since 2000, is a senior circuit judge and Recorder of Cardiff. A former leader of the Wales and Chester Circuit, he does not have a reputation for leniency and is not a judge whose sentences have been challenged by the Attorney-General.

Lord Phillips said last week that judges must not bow to public pressure when they impose sentence, but they did have a role to play in taking account of public opinion. Treading that line is becoming an increasingly fine judgment.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth