So, the government are considering removing “credit” for a guilty plea in cases where offenders are “bang to rights”. Buckle up.

Credit for a guilty plea incentivises those who are guilty of a crime to say so. It’s a carrot If you admit guilt at the earliest opportunity then - ordinarily - you will get 33.33% off your sentence.

If you risk your chances at a trial then you could lose that trial. In those circumstances, your sentence would be longer.

It’s a stick.

But the focus on defendants here misses the point. Credit for a guilty plea helps the police, the prosecution, complainants of crime and the taxpayer.

If the debate is to be had then we must be honest. Sometimes it is incredibly difficult and unbearably sad for those impacted by criminality to see that system in action. It must be heartbreaking to see a benefit that someone has neither earned nor deserved. But it has a purpose.

It helps the police and prosecution because we see people admitting their offences in interview in the spirit of credit for a plea. That doesn’t increase credit per se - but it’s a mitigating factor. Where it is appropriate, we shouldn’t discourage cooperation with the police.

If someone in a multi handed case pleads guilty early then it can help the prosecution.

If Jim and Tony are accused of burgling a house and Jim’s defence is that they were in Burger King together but Tony pleads guilty then - if admissible - that makes life harder for Jim.

A defendant pleading not guilty can be tough on witnesses and complainants. Trials can take years to happen. Re-living things is not always easy. The process can be difficult and it can be disruptive. If someone is guilty and we can avoid that process - we should encourage it.

Trials take up resources. Firstly, the police. Preparing a Crown Court trial takes officer time and effort. They have to gather new evidence, respond to defence requests, often secure the attendance of officers at court. If someone is guilty and we can avoid that - we should.

Trials are expensive. You may have missed it but we are in a right pickle with waiting times. Complainants and witnesses are waiting too long. The system has been neglected. It’s at breaking point. An influx of “have-a-go” trials with precisely nothing to lose will be disastrous.

If I advise a defendant that he will receive 5 years in prison if he pleads guilty, that he has a low (but not impossible) chance of winning a trial on his Not Guilty instructions - but if he loses that trial he will get 5 years anyway - what do you think he will do?

The government appears to think that those in the dock will always make reasoned, measured decisions regardless of an incentive. I’m afraid that - sometimes - the courts deal with the very young, the very stubborn, the very addicted, the very scared and the very cowardly.

If you give people accused of crime *nothing to lose* then many more will have a trial. It will cost us police resources, court resources, taxpayer resources and - most importantly - the emotional resources of those who set off on the long and difficult road to a trial.

In a very crowded field, it’s the most short-sighted criminal justice proposal of the year.

But at least they’re engaging with it