Was prison the only way to make an example of Huhne and Pryce?

There are several issues arising from the case of ex-MP Chris Huhne and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, which require further consideration, but one in particular is the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the judge at Southwark Crown Court on the 11 March.

It is of course easy to be critical and one must have some sympathy for Mr Justice Sweeney who was in an invidious position. The judge had before him two people of previous good character, each having what was described in sentencing remarks as a “stellar” career and each enjoying success and the accompanying financial rewards.

However, both had committed an offence of perverting the course of justice, something which goes to the very heart of the administration of the criminal process and clearly, as such, needs to be discouraged. In sentencing, the judge mentioned on more than one occasion that the sentence must serve as a deterrent to others. Hence, to deter those, custodial sentence followed.

Perhaps not entirely in conflict or indeed in contradiction of the deterrent effect of sentence, the Judge also remarked that it was incumbent upon him to keep the sentence as short as he could. So eight months, to serve four, was the level he hit upon.

If ever there was a case which could be used to redress the attitude within the system that custody is the only deterrent, then this was one. There was authority available to the judge which indicates that custody simply does not work and, beyond that, there is little value in short sentences.

Albeit the judge would have had to withstand the inevitable criticism of bowing to privilege or wealth or those who formally held high-ranking positions, a blow could have been struck to reverse the process of imprisoning where custody is simply not necessary.

In addition to the question as to the effectiveness of short sentences, it is the case that far too many people are sent to custody in this country and that that has little effect in the overall picture of reducing crime. There are few in the western world who statistically impose custodial sentences more frequently than we do. It has almost become an expectation and, when one reads of victims or families of victims speaking in the press, all too frequently the cry is that custody is what they were seeking, or indeed custody was not imposed for long enough.

Custody should be reserved for those who cannot be punished or rehabilitated in society; for those who are too violent or for whose offences are so reprehensible that it is the only sentence that can sensibly be passed. For others, and indeed one would submit for Huhne and Pryce, custody would not be necessary.

There is nothing to suggest in their antecedents, character or physical makeup that the two could not have been ordered to pay back for the wrong that they have done, not only financially in respect of costs, and this may undoubtedly come, but also physically in respect of working within the community. If the judge thought the sentence warranted a 10 per cent reduction for Mr Huhne’s guilty plea, then could that not have been reflected, with the result being 270 hours of unpaid work? Would the sight of an ex-MP sweeping the streets of Westminster or picking up litter in Battersea Park not have satiated the need to punish and also served as a deterrent for those who might be tempted to take or swop points with another?

There seems an ingrained and almost intransigent view that custody is the only deterrent. It has become virtually institutionalised yet it is, or at least it should be, as outmoded as other erroneously long-held views which are hopefully now, as time moves on, becoming eroded. This could have been a case which struck a blow at the almost Victorian traditionalists and moved sentencing policy forwards.