Reform sentencing

Britain’s sentencing regime is a mess: confusing, contradictory and often too soft. In May 2019, Thomas Griffiths murdered Ellie Gould, both 17, in a vicious knife attack. He was given just 12 and a half years minimum. This was because the starting point for killers under 18 is 12 years in jail, rather than the 15 faced by adults. As his victim’s mother pointed out, this is madness: Griffiths was shown the same leniency open to a 10-year-old, even though the emotional difference between childhood and late adolescence is enormous.

To correct this iniquity, the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, will propose raising the starting point for determining sentences for 15- to 17-year-olds who commit murder, a change likely to be referred to as Ellie’s Law. Also expected in a forthcoming white paper are reforms to ensure that child murderers face life imprisonment without parole.

A wide-ranging, radical rethink of sentencing is welcome. Last week, Hashem Abedi received 55 years minimum for the Manchester Arena bombing – but escaped the whole life tariff because he was under 21 at the time. And the killers of Pc Andrew Harper have been referred to the Court of Appeal after the Attorney General found their sentences to be “unduly lenient”. Suella Braverman QC added that those who harm emergency workers should be “punished with the greatest severity”.

Handing out tough sentences is about ensuring appropriate punishment, keeping us safe and restoring public confidence in the system – and law and order ought to be the natural priority of a Conservative government. The Red Wall voters in particular will reward substantive change.