Yard chief Sir Paul Stephenson denounces 'soft' justice

Any impatience on his part is understandable: there is a lot of substance he wants to get off his chest that goes to the heart of the debate on law and order - and is bound to play a big part in next year's general election campaign.

Stephenson is deeply worried about the way efforts to unblock the courts and reduce prison overcrowding have led to the police being expected to act as a substitute justice system, handing out cautions and fixed penalties on an ever growing scale.

"The outcome of that has been an almost uncontrollable increase in cautions and the introduction of the fixed penalty ticket, which in the public's mind equates to a parking ticket, which should not be [the case] with theft and thuggery.It's put the police in the correctional business, instead of what we should be in, the law and order business, preventing and detecting crime. We've ended up cautioning far too many people. We've all come across examples - I'm personally aware of a recent case where a thug hit a smaller lad, from behind, without provocation, shifting his teeth. The shock felt by the victim and a number of people present was palpable. What was the outcome? [The assailant] received a police caution. I cannot imagine anyone would see this as justice."

It's cases such as this, says Stephenson, multiplied across the country, which result in the fact that "nationally the figures show that only 38% of citizens have confidence in the criminal justice system . . . If a huge thug comes and hits someone in the face for no reason and that person then gets off with a caution the following day because he's expressed remorse when he's sobered up, it's fundamentally not right. It's not right in the public's mind. It's not right in my mind . . . that someone [like that] is going to get away with what is basically a parking ticket."

I point out that the public is also aware of how, even when persistent violent offenders are given custodial sentences, they are kept in jail for a much shorter period than the term stipulated by the courts, as prison governors attempt to ease the pressure on space in their cells.

"Prison governors have a difficult job, but I share the public disquiet that a victim thinks there is a certain sanction given, the court believes that the sanction is going to be carried out - and then it turns out to be something different. It's hardly surprising that the victim becomes disappointed with the [justice] system."

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice admitted that only 22% of those convicted of burglary for the first time received a prison term, or even a suspended custodial sentence. The government now claims to be adopting a tougher line with third-time offenders, but in practice only 20% are given even the so-called "minimum sentence" of three years.

In his gentle Lancastrian burr, Stephenson expresses his incredulity at such figures: "I happen to think that if you burgle a house there should be a clear expectation that you're going to prison for doing it. Never mind third time; you should be there first time."

So, after 12 years, has the Labour government failed to match up to its promise to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? Stephenson's face contorts into a slightly forced grin: "No comment."

This was not an attempt at irony: the nation's most senior policeman is determined, if nothing else, to avoid the pratfalls of his predecessor, Sir Ian Blair, an Oxford-educated would-be thespian who seemed to relish plunging into the political debates over such issues as compulsory identity cards and extending detention without charge to 90 days - on both of which he explicitly sided with the government, to the fury of the Tories.

Indeed, Blair's instant self-

vindicating memoir, tellingly entitled Policing Controversy, has recently been serialised. Has Stephenson read it?

"I've read about half of the newspaper extracts . . . but I don't think it's particularly helpful for any senior public official to go to print shortly after leaving office. It's not helpful for the people who are still here. I know I will not be writing any memoirs shortly after leaving office."

When I ask Stephenson if he thinks his predecessor was a good commissioner of the Met, he refuses to answer the question directly, which speaks volumes about the managerial chaos he inherited on his appointment in January.

"Ian Blair is a friend . . . I served him loyally during his time. But we did end up looking dysfunctional. It's my job to ensure we don't become a soap opera and instead be an organisation determined to make sense to the public who pay its wages, as opposed to looking . . . odd. We should be trying to promote the message of what we do, not the individual . . . On occasions senior police officers have looked as though they are trying to promote themselves. And when you get to this level I don't think it's necessary."

Unfortunately for Stephenson's aspiration to avoid personal controversy, the media storm will inevitably envelop him as his officers investigate the extraordinary expenses arrangements of a number of members of parliament. Questioned about this, Stephenson becomes visibly uncomfortable, his right foot furiously jigging up and down - although he breaks the tension, as I push him on details, by saying at one point: "Would anyone here like a cup of tea? If this was an interview under Pace \ I could demand rights."

Refreshed, Stephenson is prepared to admit: "There are a handful of investigations of [members or parliament]; less than 10."

What about the House of Lords? Some of them seem to have been outrageously imaginative, if not fraudulent, in their expenses claims, too.

"They're in that handful; but I'm nervous about saying there's so many from this [house], or that [house], because [the numbers] might reduce or expand."

How many officers have you got on these cases?

"Not a huge number, but the right people."

I point out that the general public is suspicious that the law has treated MPs much less roughly than it would the rest of us, and would like to be reassured that Britain's top cop understands its desire to see the guilty parliamentarians speedily brought to book.

"Of course I'm aware of the huge public anger around what has been reported about the behaviour of certain people; I'd have to be blind, deaf and daft not to be aware of it. My job is to investigate it professionally, not be swayed one way or the other . . . but when I read the extraordinary revelations in the papers, having a coffee in the morning, I'm like the rest of the members of the public, thinking, 'That one I can understand, but, gosh, that one looks very, very unwise to dodgy - and this small group here, there's inevitably going to be some [police] investigations'."

I try one last time: does Stephenson think that some of that "small group" will eventually be prosecuted with the full force of the law?

"I think it would be foolish for me to anticipate anything. But I know the people doing [the investigation] are doing it absolutely thoroughly. We are doing this as quickly as possible, but I want to make sure that, when we come to the end of the inquiries, we are in the right place."

I don't know if the public as a whole will be convinced by that, but I came away from my meeting with Sir Paul Stephenson reassured that at the top of the police service is a man in touch with the concerns of the people he serves: us.