Judges criticised as too lenient

The figures were supplied by the attorney general's office

One in 10 judges have given "unduly lenient" sentences to criminals guilty of serious crimes, according to data released by the attorney general.

Figures given to the Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act show Lord Goldsmith has referred 339 cases to the Court of Appeal since 2003.

In 230 cases the sentences were increased as a result, involving rulings by more than 200 judges.

This represents a tenth of the senior judiciary in England and Wales.

The attorney general can refer a case for reconsideration if he feels a judge has made an error when passing sentence.

Cases can be drawn to his attention by various parties after a trial including the Crown Prosecution Service, a victim, a member of the public, an MP or lobby group.

Concern

Many of the cases referred involved areas where Lord Goldsmith was said to be concerned that the courts were consistently being too lenient such as child sex abuse, manslaughter and street robbery.

Sentences were increased for a range of offences, including indecent assault, rape, manslaughter, drug supplying, fraud and burglary, according to the data supplied by Lord Goldsmith's office.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said cases referred to the Appeal Court needed to be selected carefully.

If a sentence was to be increased, judges needed to be satisfied that the original term was not just too lenient, but that it was "unreasonably" so, she said.

"It is a statutory power that has to be used very carefully," the spokeswoman added.