Is there a case for harsher sentences for stalking?

News the government is looking into new protection for the victims of stalking leads to questions such as why has this taken such a long time and whether new laws will encourage the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take it more seriously as a serious crime.

There are estimated to be around 120,000 cases of stalking annually, though, of that number, only about 50,000 are recorded as crimes by the police and just one in 50 results in an offender being sent to custody.

However, the government hopes to change the mindset with the Home Office having conducted a survey into how to better protect victims of stalking, while an all-party parliamentary group has conducted a separate six-month investigation into this matter. It is thought that this group will call for increased prison sentences to be handed out to stalkers and for there to be a more commonly held view this is a serious offence which causes great distress and fear to victims.

The government is believed to be sympathetic to a possible change in the law while the opposition has also voiced its support for such action, as has Napo, the probation union, which says that perpetrators have generally not been dealt with seriously enough by the criminal justice system. It seems that there is a desire for tougher action to be taken on stalkers. Is it warranted? Tell us what you think.

legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news

Joy for women prisoners as Clarke defeated

It is not too often the justice secretary Ken Clarke is criticised as being too authoritarian, however this was the case at a recent High Court hearing where it was decided that Clarke was wrong in trying to stop women being allowed time out of jail to see their children.

The ruling came about because two female prisoners challenged decisions made by Clarke who had said they should be unable to take "child care resettlement leave". Mrs Justice Lang ruled the justice secretary had misinterpreted policy in a way which was incompatible with human rights legislation and which did not consider individual prisoners and their individual needs.

The child care resettlement leave is available to those prisoners who have sole caring responsibility for any child under the age of 16. It enables them to spend up to three days and nights at home as long as certain conditions are met.

Was the judge right to overrule Ken Clarke on this? It's a contentious subject, but anything which introduces the term human rights at the moment is guaranteed to divide opinion. Which side of this particular fence are you on? Tell me what your views are.

legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news

Feelings on Abu Qatada

Anyone out there who wants to see Abu Qatada staying in the UK? That's most likely not many of you since the individual in the case attracts little sympathy, indeed widespread condemnation for his opinions. Most would agree that Britain would be a better place without him here, and deportation to Jordan, if it ever happens, will be widely welcomed. Yet, there's an argument to say that his release from prison is the right thing to do.

For example, and playing devil's advocate to a large extent, Abu Qatada has been detained without trial for a long time, totalling eight years apart from a six-month gap when he was on bail. Detention without trial, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the individual concerned is surely wrong. Why has he not been charged with any offence during that time? And, if there is not a charge to be levelled at him, what was he doing still in custody.

One doesn't need to be an apologist for terrorism to observe something uncomfortable in that. Even today, though technically out on bail, he's been made the subject of such strict controls that he is effectively on house arrest, only allowed out of the house for an hour a time twice a day.

Also, in terms of his extradition, is it right to fly in the face of human rights legislation and deport him, exposing him to the threat of torture or perhaps a trial where evidence obtained through torture is made use of? It's at least arguable that Britain, if it wanted to be rid of him, ought to have worked harder with Jordan to obtain assurances that no torture would take place on his return there.

It's a tough subject, but it is certainly feasible for someone to be desperate to remove Abu Qatada, while recognising that the situation thus far, detention without trial and effective house arrest is far from ideal. Hopefully the right solution to a long-standing problem will soon be realised. Your opinions would be very welcome.

legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news, legal blog,law blog,legal news,criminal news,legally blogged,is that legal,criminal injury blog,criminal injuries blog,criminal injury news,criminal injuries news