More than 60 judges have imposed “unduly lenient” sentences on offenders convicted of some of the most serious crimes, according to figures published yesterday.

The Court of Appeal ruled in 86 cases across England and Wales last year that judges had given criminals — including terrorists, murderers and rapists — a sentence that was too light. The appeal judges increased sentences overall in 70 per cent of cases that were referred for reconsideration — with the biggest single category of increases, 83 per cent, being for violent offences.

In total Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, the Attorney-General, referred 106 offenders' sentences to the appeal judges last year out of more than 300 cases that were sent to her office.

The Attorney-General has power to refer serious offences to the Court of Appeal where judges are thought to have imposed too lenient a sentence.

Among the cases she referred were high-profile cases in involving robbery gangs, drug smugglers, paedophiles and terrorists linked to al-Qaeda.

Of these, 86 individuals were ruled to have been given “unduly lenient” punishments, although only 75 were handed harsher terms because the court gives the offender a discount as compensation for being put through the sentencing process a second time.

Sentences were increased in 12 sex cases, 15 violence cases, 17 robbery cases, 11 drugs cases and one murder.

The cases and number of judges involved form a tiny proportion of the 120,000 offenders dealt with in the Crown Court last year by some 2,000 recorders and circuit judges.

The number of referrals to the Court of Appeal fell by 38 and the number declared unduly lenient fell by 27 when compared with 2006.

The figures, released by the Attorney-General's department, show that the law officers looked at 320 cases referred to them as being possibly too lenient. Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen's Bench Division who takes over as Lord Chief Justice in October, said the statistics showed that the “system is working as intended” and did not necessarily amount to criticism of any particular judge.

He said: “This information shows that, from time to time, sentencing decisions are made which the Court of Appeal considers are wrong. Accordingly they are corrected.”

Sir Igor said that judges must balance “different, complex factors” alongside the law when arriving at their decisions.

Among the cases referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration last year was that of Younes Tsouli, from West London, the internet terrorist whose ten-year jail sentence for inciting murder overseas was increased to 16 years. Two other men also had their sentences increased. In another case Rohail Spall, the Essex businessman who spiked a woman's drink at a restaurant and planned to sexually attack her, had his sentence increased by 18 months to 3.5 years.

The power to challenge a judge's sentence was introduced in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. Prosecutors, victims, MPs, pressure groups or members of the public can ask the Attorney-General to refer a case within 28 days of sentence.

The Court of Appeal said that a sentence is “unduly lenient” when it “falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”.

A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: “Referring a sentence as unduly lenient should not be interpreted as a public criticism of the judge in the case.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones