Justice could be reduced to a "measurement of metrics" under an Opposition plan to publish the sentencing records of judges and magistrates online, Victorian lawyers warn.

Key points: The Coalition said the public would be able to compare judges' records

The Coalition said the public would be able to compare judges' records Labor said it was not opposed to the principle of greater scrutiny

Labor said it was not opposed to the principle of greater scrutiny A criminal lawyer warned against releasing data without context

Under the Coalition's election pledge, Victorians would be able to access judges' and magistrates' sentencing decisions, rate of decisions overturned on appeal, and the time taken to deliver decisions.

Quarterly "performance data" for individual courts would also be published.

Victorian Bar Association president Matt Collins QC said how the information was presented could result an overly simplistic understanding of judgements through "mere arithmetical metrics".

"We expect our cases to be decided on their merits and according to law, not by a statistical analysis or how those statistics are going to look on the front of a tabloid newspaper," he told ABC Radio Melbourne.

"The experience of Victoria's barristers … is that the vast majority of judges are very hard-working in very difficult circumstances."

Shadow attorney-general John Pesutto argued the move would allow the public to compare the sentencing records of Victorian judges against one another and their interstate counterparts more easily.

"It will ensure that the public is able to scrutinise the performance of courts more closely and more easily," Mr Pesutto said.

"But it will also give the courts a really good opportunity to communicate to the public things like context and other matters.

"We've all seen in the last year or two some very high-profile decisions where sentences are being handed down and the community has greeted [them] with outrage, because it just hasn't reflected the depth of feeling about the particular crime concerned that the community feels."

Attorney-General Martin Pakula said opportunities for scrutiny had already improved because of an increase in online streaming of decisions and the establishment of a Judicial Commission to manage allegations of misconduct by judges.

But he said he had "no issue" with the principle of more measures being put in place to hold judges to account.

"We'll talk to the courts about this," he told ABC Radio Melbourne. "We're absolutely open to any idea which is about providing greater scrutiny and accountability."

Sorry, this video has expired Who can win the Victorian election?

'Lynch-mob mentality'

Criminal lawyer Rob Melasecca said court reporting by the media played a much more important role in shaping the public's understanding of sentencing.

"I don't think data is going to help anybody, it's too vacuumous, it's not going to lead to any conclusions," said Mr Melasecca, who chairs the Victorian Custody Reference Group.

"I think what is important is to understand the decisions that are made and why they're made and that would require a much more realistic appraisal of the decisions and better [media] reporting."

Mr Melasecca said he disagreed with the Opposition's claim that some recent judicial decisions had been at odds with the Victorian community's expectations.

"I'm aware of the decisions that [Mr Pesutto] is referring to, and the reason that they didn't match the community expectations is that the community wasn't given the full details of the reasons for the sentence," he said.

"When they're just given the offence committed and the result, with no justification in the middle, it's just an empty sandwich in the end."

Mr Melasecca said the jail system was under pressure because of a "knee-jerk reaction by a lynch-mob mentality".

"We are creating situations where people are being sent to jail who ought not be sent to jail," he said.

"We have a real, real custody problem at the moment."