Victims get a poor deal from the criminal justice system. That was the clear message from Sara Payne last week — the mother of Sarah, who was murdered aged eight by a paedophile.

In her role as the Government’s “victims’ champion” Mrs Payne has just published the findings of a nine-month study, Redefining Justice, in which she calls for a series of reforms to improve the victim’s lot.

In an address to the annual Bar Conference last Saturday Mrs Payne said that often the victim was the only one in court who did not understand what was going on. Sentences bore no reflection to the time served; victims could find themselves sitting with relatives of defendants; and in general, victims needed to be given far more information about their case.

But to what extent should the voice of the victim be heard? Or how much influence should victims have in the criminal justice system?

There is an evident backlash among quarters of the Criminal Bar — and not just from defence lawyers. Paul Mendelle, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, and Mark Ellison, QC, senior Treasury counsel, spoke in the same vein at the conference: they were sympathetic to the complaint that for too long victims’ needs had been ignored. Nor would anyone presume to know the pain that a victim such as Mrs Payne had suffered. Yet there was a danger, both warned, of tipping the scales too far in the other direction.

Mendelle put it like this: “Is there a danger that we are creating a far more vengeful and intolerant view of criminal justice in which all of the finer qualities are buried under a desire to exact retribution?” He went on: “The criminal justice system is not designed to act as a sort of institutionalised private revenge system.” As well as imposing a punishment that fitted the crime, it was supposed to reflect other values and achieve other aims such as due process, respect for human rights, rehabilitation, understanding, forgiveness and redemption.

“The whole point of the state prosecuting is that it lifts the prosecution of crime out of the realm of personalised revenge. The state prosecutes the crime because it is a crime against society, not against the person.”

Few victims can emulate Gee Walker, mother of the teenager killed with an ice axe in Liverpool in 2005, who said: “I’ve got to forgive them. My family and I still stand by what we believe, forgiveness. Why live a life sentence? Hate killed my son so why should I be a victim, too?”

Such sentiments, Mendelle said, are understandably rare, however desirable. In general, though, the view is that the sentence is not long enough. He agrees that prison is the only remedy with serious offenders. But many people inside have mental problems and need not be there, while 25,000 are there for minor offences, many fuelled by drugs or alcohol. “Society is not made better or safer by imprisoning too many of the wrong people or too many of the right people for too long.”

He also took Mrs Payne to task over offenders having to serve their full sentences. Time off for good behaviour, remission of sentence and so on were a “vital part of prison management” and the already overcrowded prisons would become “hell holes” without a system of early release.

Ellison made similar points. There was a danger that victims’ expectations were being falsely raised. The criminal justice system was not there primarily to serve victims — it was there to serve society. The victims’ voice should be heard, and it is an important voice, but not an overriding one.

Ten years ago victims had an even rawer deal than now. At least the Crown Prosecution Service has made strides in its efforts to keep them informed; there are victim and witness liaison officers and victim impact statements so that the effect of the crime is heard in court. The system is better — even if not always good — at being more sympathetic to their needs. Too often, though, they are still kept waiting for hours or days because police, lawyers or the court fail to organise themselves.

But such delays fail everyone, not just victims. And in any case, how far should courts go towards being user-friendly to the victim?

In the end it is a forum where a person may lose his or her liberty. “The court should not be such an easy experience for a witness that giving evidence is no more difficult than a chat in the pub to a mate,” Mendelle told the Bar conference. “If it is too easy to give evidence, it may be too easy to tell lies, easier still if the defendant is not visible in court. If it is harder to feel at ease when confronted with the forbidding atmosphere at court and faced with the accused, then there is a proper pressure on the accuser to tell the truth.”

Both lawyers agreed that victims should not suffer needlessly from avoidable failings of the system. But cases are delayed for a variety of reasons and many outside the control of a lawyer: why then financially penalise them for such delays, as Mrs Payne demands, Mendelle asked.

He insists — pre-empting critics — that he is not a “bleeding heart liberal”; this is, rather, about “hard-headed practicality”. “Evidence shows that recidivism rates are lower with less repressive punishments” even if they do not “slake the desire for revenge”.

“The clang of the prison gates may be a satisfying sound for victims of crime but all too often, for society, is it the sound of failure.”

Victims can be glad to have a loud voice in the debate through the likes of Sara Payne. But Mendelle and Ellison have a point: in an effort to redress the traditional imbalance, victims must not be deceived into thinking that they are in the driving seat.

Times Recommends

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