THE Attorney-General and the Home Secretary tried to defuse an escalating row over “soft” sentences last night by agreeing to draw up demarcation lines on sentencing policy.

The move came as police hunted 23 life sentence prisoners who had gone on the run after being freed on licence, and the Home Office disclosed that 53 offenders given life since 2000 had already been freed.

The pact came after John Reid, the Home Secretary, was criticised for interfering in legal affairs by denouncing as too lenient the jail term imposed on a man who abducted and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl.

Craig Sweeney was jailed for life by Cardiff Crown Court on Monday, but Judge John Griffith Williams said that he would be eligible for parole after five years. The victim’s family called the sentence an insult.

Sweeney, 24, had pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting the girl in January, only weeks after he was released early from prison for indecently assaulting a girl aged 6.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, is to review the case and has 28 days to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. His office said last night that there would be a meeting with Mr Reid to “draw up a protocol”.

Lord Goldsmith let it be known that Mr Reid’s remarks were “not helpful” and insisted that he would not be swayed by “political or public pressure”.

There was also concern that the Home Secretary’s remarks could prejudice any appeal he might bring over the sentence.

However, Tony Blair backed Mr Reid’s remarks. The Prime Minister’s spokesman said that it was important that the judiciary remained free from political pressure. But he added: “When there appears to be a disconnect between the public’s commonsense view of right and wrong and how it sees that reflected in judicial decisions, then it is right and proper for the Home Secretary to articulate that concern.”

Several British newspapers yesterday accused judges of fuelling rising crime by being too soft on offenders.

The Sun began a campaign to “name and shame” judges who allegedly dispensed soft sentences. It called for such judges to be dismissed. Colleagues of the judges named have urged them to take legal action.

Judges feel increasingly embattled. One said: “The Lord Chancellor has failed to defend judges; the Home Secretary is attacking sentences; and the Attorney-General is publishing material about lenient sentences. These are the criminal justice ministers with whom we are meant to be working. If you damage public confidence in judiciary in this way, by saying, in effect that judges are incompetent, the next step is vigilantism. It is very dangerous.”

The Home Office refused to say whether the 23 lifers declared missing were murderers or rapists. Gerry Sutcliffe, a Home Office minister, told MPs that the life licences had been revoked and the offenders were “unlawfully at large pending their arrest and return to custody”.

Separate figures showed that 53 offenders given life sentences since 2000 had already been freed on licence. In one case an offender was released, recalled to jail and freed again.

The Home Office was unable to say how many had been given mandatory life sentences for murder, discretionary sentences for offences such as manslaughter or automatic life sentences, which are imposed when someone is convicted of a second serious violent offence.

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?