THE independence of the judiciary is enshrined in our system of government. The concept is vital to check the powers of an over-zealous executive.

Because of that all-important role, a great deal of trust and faith is placed in judges.

On occasions, sadly, that faith in our legal system is betrayed. Either by woeful miscarriages of justice or by inadequate sentencing by the courts.

These rare instances are a matter of concern to the public and have prompted the Home Secretary's proposals to tighten guidelines on sentencing.

In doing so he is pandering to the typical public complaint that life should mean life, and, as such, can expect little popular opposition.

Things must be put into perspective. Adjustments to full-life tariffs will involve only a few dozen prisoners. David Blunkett's reforms will not amount to wholesale reform.

There is a danger, however, that a precedent of political interference in sentencing will be set.

It is right that Parliament, reflecting the wishes of the electorate, establishes a framework by which the judiciary will determine sentences.

But that framework must not be too rigid. Judges must be given the flexibility to pass sentences according to the individuals cases before them.

Take away that degree of judicial independence and a central plank of our democracy is removed.

Sentences should not be decided by politicians, tempted as they may be to seek good headlines rather than good justice.

Mr Blunkett must also take into account the impact his proposals will have on the prison service.

Proportionately, Britain has more prisoners than any other nation in western Europe. Without building more prisons it is difficult to know how the service will cope with even more prisoners and even longer sentences.

And also, it will be difficult for the service to cater for long-term prisoners who have the incentive for early release for good behaviour snatched from their grasp.

Switching the emphasis from rehabilitation to punishment may be popular, but it is not necessarily wise.