In a sweeping rejection of 14 of the 16 proposals made by John Reid and the Lord Chancellor last year, they say that no thought is being given to the longer-term consequences of the planned changes, and criticise the Government’s “change for the sake of change” approach to criminal justice.

The judges say that plans to limit the use of community punishments in favour of fines appear to be a kneejerk reaction, with no thought to longer-term consequences.

In their response to the proposals, seen by The Times, they also express fears that extending the range of offences that can be dealt with by fixed-penalty notices would create an impression among the public that such crimes were not being taken seriously. Many proposals in the consultation paper, Making Sentencing Clearer, appear to make sentencing more complex, they say.

The judges’ strong opposition means that the more controversial ideas are unlikely to go ahead. The Home Secretary and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, are likely instead to press judges to be much clearer about what a sentence means when punishing an offender.

The response of The Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Court Judges exposes the outrage of the judiciary at their treatment by ministers in the soft-sentence row over the five-year minimum jail term given to Craig Sweeney, a paedophile.

The row prompted the consultation paper in November, in which Mr Reid and colleagues outlined proposals to simplify sentencing and give judges more powers to deal with dangerous offenders. But the judges have responded by dismissing almost all the proposals and in their paper deliver a broadside against the Home Office’s and Department for Constitutional Affairs’ approach to policymaking. “There is the perception of ‘change for the sake of change’ in much current policy. This often appears to be kneejerk reaction to particular situations. It gives the impression of crisis management. Frequently, no thought is given to the longer-term consequences of the proposals,” the response by circuit judges said.

The paper said that a plan to force courts to use fines by limiting offences for which community punishment could be given sent the wrong signal to the public. It said: “Less serious offending is usually the breeding ground for more serious offending.” The document added: “To create the impression such offending is not to be treated as significant is to encourage the belief that crime may not result in retribution, hastening and substantially increasing the risk of more serious offending taking place.”

In a swipe at government plans for a huge extension of fixed-penalty fines, the paper said that the view appeared to be that some criminal activity did not merit proper process or consequence.

The judges also gave warning of increasing alcohol-fuelled violence and a rise in the seriousness of some crime being committed.” We have been expressing concerns about that for some time,” they say. The paper said there was no “quick fix” to the level of offending and that many of the Government’s proposals either did not address the root causes or “represent nothing more than a thumb in the dyke”.

The paper from the council, which represents 600 judges who work in the Crown Courts, also attacked ministers who criticised the sentence given to Sweeney, even though the judge was following the law. It said the fact that two senior ministers appeared to endorse misreporting of the sentence was to be regretted.

“Clarity in sentencing cannot be guaranteed so long as those who should understand and explain the situation choose not to do so,” the judge said.

Mr Reid described the sentence given to Sweeney as “unduly lenient”, and Vera Baird, a junior Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, was forced to withdraw remarks in which she criticised the trial judge.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure