THE view that Aaron Campbell’s sentence should not have been cut on appeal by three years probably reflects that of most of the public ("Alesha’s uncle blasts justice system as her killer’s sentence cut by three years", The Herald, September 11).

But what seems illogical about the decision, sends the wrong message to teenagers and possibly sets a grave legal precedent, is the court’s “justification” that the abductor, rapist and murderer was aged “only” 16 at the time.

At 16, Scottish teenagers are deemed fit, inter alia, to indulge in sexual activity lawfully, to get married irrespective of parental disapproval, and to vote in all legislative elections. After years of debate, the age of criminal responsibility was recently increased from eight to 12, not to 17 or more.

Why therefore should Campbell, who knew exactly what he was doing, be treated more leniently, by implication, than a similar criminal aged say 17-19?

Or are the noble lords signalling that the age of responsibility and entitlement to marry and to vote should all be standardised at somewhere above 16?

John Birkett, St Andrews.

Taxing sums

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, September 12) has failed to understand the problem faced by doctors and others with a defined benefit pension scheme. There is an annual contribution limit of £40,000. Few people will exceed this. However, HMRC insists that "any annual increase in the defined benefit scheme must also be less than £40,000". The lifetime allowance for such a scheme is calculated as 25 times the anticipated annual pension. So an annual pension contribution of £10,000 which might give a pension raise of £2,000 will equate to a notional gain of £50,000, thus breaching the £40,000 limit. it is this interpretation of a notional future gain that is causing the problem.

Sam Craig, Glasgow G11.