He told the Today programme this morning: “The existence of these mandatory sentences means there is less chance of people coming forward – it makes it a lot more difficult to catch people.”
His logic seems to be that members of the community will only consider giving information to the police if they’re confident that the sentence will be less harsh than is currently mandatory. But I wonder what evidence he has for that?
In other words, he reckons judges should have the discretion to give people carrying handguns a sharply-worded ticking off and a referral to a conflict-mediation therapist.
I see the depressingly familiar hand of the aggrieved legal profession behind this nonsense; judges and lawyers hate it when politicians reduce their scope for handing down inappropriately lenient sentences. Funnily enough, people who carry handguns agree with them, and with Chris Huhne.