Politically Correct Justice

The Court of Appeal has thrown out an attempt by the Government to increase the sentence of a man convicted of child cruelty last April.

I still find it very wrong that anyone should be taken back to court for the prosecution to have a go at setting the sentence.

It seems to me to infringe the double jeopardy rule, in the sense that the convicted person is unable simply to accept the punishment and get on with their life (but then this is the government which is open to retrying acquittals).

It also puts the prosecution in a position which they are not ordinarily in - demanding a particular sentence - which is really a matter for the judge's discretion, after hearing all the evidence and legal submissions. We will see the development of case law, with less latitude for judicial discretion, and more pressure, I suspect, for politically correct sentences.

Another question arises in my mind. This case predates the change in the law which previously allowed "reasonable chastisement" of children by their parents. The man was convicted of child cruelty and was said to have a "distorted view" of how to discipline children.

The methods described in the Telegraph report do not seem to me in themselves outlandish, just to hark back to different times, and the Court accepted they had not caused injury, presumably including psychological injury.

Is administering a slipper beyond the pale? It is not so long ago it was common. Or lightly caning backsides with bamboo? This was a school punishment. Dipping boys in cold baths for 20 seconds? A recent television programme putting volunteers through a school regime of 40 years ago used cold showers and cold swims as punishment (feeling unable to use a cane).

What then is the undistorted, acceptable view of how to discipline children, given the legitimacy of "reasonable chastisement"?