Criminal lawyers sprang to the defence of the judiciary today after a police chief criticised the courts for being soft on gun crime.

Tan Ikram, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association, said that judges were merely doing their jobs in applying the sentencing laws laid down by Parliament and that it was "harsh" to criticise them.

Mr Ikram was responding to claims by Bernard Hogan-Howe, Chief Constable of Merseyside, that the mandatory five-year minimum sentence for possession of a firearm set by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was being ignored by some members of the judiciary.

The law states that a judge may hand down a smaller sentence only in cases in which there are "exceptional circumstances". The Home Office has accused some judges of applying such exemptions too liberally.

However, Mr Ikram said that judges were merely following the law and were acting responsibly in deciding each case on its merits. He said: "They are exercising their discretion where appropriate to do so and within the framework created by Parliament."

Mr Ikram's views were echoed by other criminal lawyers who said that judges were mostly effective in dealing with gun crime and were being used as political scapegoats.

Simon Myerson, QC, a barrister based in Leeds and a member of The Times Law Panel, said that many people caught in possession of a firearm were either forced to carry it or were protecting a family member out of "misguided loyalty". He said that many judges found the idea of automatically imposing sentences on those people without considering their circumstances "repugnant".

Mr Myerson instead blamed the Government for not providing a clear enough distinction between merely possessing a weapon and the intent to use it.

Some criminal lawyers are opposed to any mandatory minimum sentences. Kirsty Brimelow, a criminal barrister and member of The Times Law Panel, said that there are varying degrees of criminality covered by the offence of firearm possession which should be the sole right of a judge to evaluate based on the evidence before them.

Ms Brimelow said there had been cases in which antique gun collectors had been unknowingly caught out by the legislation. "No member of the public would argue that they deserve a five-year imprisonment," she said.

Ian Kelcey, a criminal solicitor and member of The Times Law Panel, said that any attempt to remove judges' discretion to judge each case on its merits would lead to more unjust sentences. "Some will be sentenced too heavily, and some may be sentenced too leniently."

Mr Myerson said that the Government should find a political solution to tackle gun crime rather than blame the judiciary. "Gun crime is a social problem which demands the involvement of local communities, the support of the police for that involvement and a proper programme of planned rehabilitation for young men who are thoughtless rather than dangerous.

"We are a million miles away from even identifying such a programme, let alone running it."

Mr Kelcey questioned whether the five-year minimum sentence was an effective deterrent. "Have murders decreased in the US with the death penalty? I fear not. What will influence any criminal is the certainty of getting caught."

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over