IT is unfortunate when people mistake the exception for the rule.

The vast majority of sentences handed down by our courts are reported without comment. Only a small minority are greeted with disbelief and derision.

Because of these few, the public perception of the judiciary is one of a remote privileged class, sheltered from the real world and out of touch with public opinion.

This is an over-generalisation of the situation, and still no justification to put more powers of sentencing into the hands of politicians.

Lord Justice Woolf is entitled to question the wisdom of the Home Secretary's power to set minimum jail terms for adult murderers.

Politicians may be accountable to the public, but they are also prone slavishly to follow the latest results from opinion polls and focus groups, with the next General Election uppermost in their minds.

Such people, sorely tempted to succumb to influences, are not best equipped to decide how long a person should be incarcerated.

The independence of the judiciary remains one of the great strengths of our democracy. The separation between politicians and the criminal justice system is to be cherished.

In theory at least, judges are not tempted to put electoral advantage before the principles of natural justice.

With this privilege, however, goes responsibility, a responsibility for the judiciary to listen to and reflect public opinion.

But the judiciary must be allowed the flexibility to determine sentences according to individual circumstances.

It is frustrating that, in a minority of cases, judges can be out of kilter with public opinion.

But this problem is better addressed by improving the recruitment procedures to ensure all judges are up to the job, than by conferring draconian powers into the hands of the Home Secretary.

Diluting the role of the judiciary and adding to the powers of the executive is not in the best interests of our democratic system of government, and must be resisted.