John Denham: If you want better justice, listen to the victims

Last year, I caught a young heroin addict stealing money at a local swimming pool

On Monday, the Prime Minister said the criminal justice system is out of touch with the public. He is right. We don't need to scrap the Human Rights Act, but we do need to bring the justice system much closer to the victims it serves. Earlier this year, Mrs Frances Lawrence, the wife of the headteacher stabbed to death outside his West London school in 1995, was understandably upset she wasn't told her husband's killer was to be given day release.

Insensitivity to murder victims is just part of a much wider failing in the criminal justice system. Once a sentence has been passed, the offender disappears from the victim's sight. The victim - who may have confronted personal demons and real fear to give evidence - is expected to go away happy that justice has been done.

Last year, I caught a young heroin addict stealing money at a local swimming pool. For this and other more violent crimes, he got 18 months. What he obviously needed was drug treatment: without it, prison will just be a short interlude from reoffending and an early death. To me, the test of the criminal justice system was not the jail sentence but whether he got the treatment he needed. But I will never know whether it happened, or how long he actually served.

Twice as many people believe the criminal justice system respects the rights of offenders as believe it meets the needs of victims. Only one in five reported crimes ever get brought to justice. For those that do, the follow-up for victims is inadequate. Since April, victims now get statutory rights for the first time. They are able to complain to an independent commissioner if minimum standards are not met. It's a useful start, but a lot more will be needed to bridge the confidence gap between victims and the justice system. The new Victims Commissioner could be asked to oversee a radical extension of the new rights.

Sentencers already have a "duty to give reasons for, and explain effect of, sentencing", but it is very much at the discretion of the judge or magistrate to say how they have struck the balance between the different considerations: protecting the public, punishing offenders, reducing crime, rehabilitating offenders, and reparation. The victim may have no real idea why the judge or magistrate passed sentence or what assumptions they made about what would happen as result.

Victims must be given the clearest possible explanation of what the sentence will involve. And they must be given the right to track what actually happens. They need to know if the fine was paid, or the drug treatment completed. They must be told if the community sentence was not completed and what the court did next. Victims should know, too, if a sentence was ended early and whether parole conditions were adhered to.

This change would do far more than improve the flow of information. If it is clear to victims that sentencers expected a prison sentence to include alcohol treatment or work-related education, the National Offender Management System will have to deliver at every point. Short cuts will be exposed for the victims to see. For the first time, victims will be able to hold the criminal justice system accountable.

Historically the criminal justice has prided itself on its remoteness, majesty and lack of transparency. An unholy alliance of traditionalists, who want justice at one remove from society at large, and liberals, who fear the prejudices of the mob, have resisted making this key part of the system more accountable. But unless we do we will never overcome the gulf between the public and criminal justice.

Giving victims rights to monitor sentences should be part of a wider fundamental change to bring justice closer to communities. Most courts deal with the poorest and most excluded sections of the same poor communities who suffer their crimes. They are the very communities who have least confidence that the criminal justice system works for them. We need to start from what they need - to be safe; for crime to reduce in the area; to benefit directly from any community payback undertaken by offenders; and to be confident offenders are dealt with appropriately.

This means giving local communities a clear say in how different types of offences should be dealt with in their area. Citizens juries or elected representative groups could be asked how community punishments and reparations should be developed. Their advice should complement and extend the national guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines Council. As we do so, we should push ahead with a rapid and radical development of community courts. So that justice is delivered in the communities that suffer the highest crimes by people who are clearly seen to represent those communities.

The writer is chair of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee