Sir – When I sat as a magistrate in this city we were often given “sentencing guidelines” by (in those days) the Lord Chancellor’s office. The main purpose of these guidelines, other than to bring us up to date with changes in the law, was to encourage national uniformity in sentencing while seeking to preserve that historic element characteristic of magistrates’ sentencing, “local knowledge and experience”.

Looking at your reporting of three Crown Court cases, I find an extraordinary inconsistency in the judges’ sentences. Following a horrific attack on a woman, involving attempted rape, a man was given a three-year prison sentence, and few would take exception to that. A burglar who stole from student rooms was given a total of two-and-a-half years for thefts and other offences. Both defendants were guilty of serious crimes. No one would deny that.

Then a lorry driver on the A34, who admitted killing a cyclist in an accident on the road, was only given 200 hours’ community work and a two-year community order (200 hours is not even the maximum number of hours a court can give)!

Perhaps the charge in the last case was not at a high enough level. In that case the CPS have a lot to answer for, but perhaps also some of our judges need some appropriate sentencing guidelines!

Michael Wright, Headington