
Amid all the noise about the UK's ‘two-tier' justice system, there is silence on class
As so often in such debates, the controversy over new guidelines for courts from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales has obscured as much as it has illuminated. Critics have condemned them as presaging a 'two-tier' justice system, a jibe aimed for months at Labour and Keir Starmer, but which has now crossed the parliamentary aisle to be wielded by Labour ministers, too. The lord chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, to 'make clear my displeasure' at the guidelines, insisting that access to justice 'should not be determined by an offender's ethnicity, culture or religion'. The shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, claimed that 'Christian and straight white men… will be treated differently to the rest of society'.
The spit and fury is both overdone and insufficient. The new guidelines are more nuanced than many critics allow, but more profound problems with them are ignored in much of the discussion.
The controversial part of the proposals, due to come into effect on 1 April, lies with changes in the use of pre-sentence reports (PSRs). These provide courts with information about an offender's background and may lead to more lenient sentences.
Under the new guidelines, courts must consider a PSR when the defendant comes from certain cohorts, such as being a young adult, female, 'from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community', pregnant or postnatal, or a primary carer for dependent relatives. PSRs should be considered, too, when the offender may be transgender, has addiction issues, or is at risk of domestic abuse or modern slavery or trafficking, and so on.
It's quite a list, comprising people from specific identity groups or facing certain circumstances. Much of the rage, though, has been directed at the inclusion of just one group – those 'from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community'.
The possibility of differential sentences based on race or ethnicity is certainly troubling. A burglary or a rape committed by a white person, a black person or an Asian person should, all else being equal, receive the same punishment. Nevertheless, the focus of critics on this category as opposed to any other suggests politicised hostility.
The list provides a snapshot of how the judiciary understands which people may be vulnerable, have extra needs or face social disadvantage. Davis, defending the guidelines, suggested that one key issue had been 'evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes'.
There are certainly disparities in the sentencing of different ethnic groups, and evidence that those from minority groups are more likely to receive higher custodial sentences for equivalent offences. Does this suggest, as supporters of the new guidelines argue, that a two-tier justice system already exists and that the changes seek to make it fairer?
Racism and discrimination certainly play a role in creating these disparities, but so do other factors. Minority defendants, for instance, are less likely to plead guilty than white defendants, and so, if convicted, more likely to face harsher sentences, with those who admit guilt usually afforded leniency. Disparities in themselves are not evidence of racism. Nor is treating individuals from different groups unequally an equitable solution to social discrimination against particular groups.
The most striking aspect of the new guidelines is the missing subject: class. The word 'class' does not appear once in the document. Nor does 'poverty'. Yet, few issues are more pertinent in evaluating offenders' social background.
A wealth of research has revealed connections between class, poverty, inequality and crime. Periods in which there have been relative falls in the wages of poorly paid workers are associated with increased crime rates, as is greater inequality.
A 2012 Ministry of Justice report unsurprisingly found that a significant proportion of prisoners had grown up in poverty and with a history of social exclusion. A prisons inspectorate report the previous year had shown that more than half of young women in custody and a quarter of young men had been in local authority care.
Other research indicated that more than a third of prisoners had not been in paid employment in the year before. Almost one in eight had never had a paid job. A 2022 report by Cardiff University academics revealed that the imprisonment rate for the 10 most deprived local authorities in England was 10 times greater than that of the 10 least deprived local authorities in England.
Sign up to Observed
Analysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writers
after newsletter promotion
Despite such evidence, there is, as the Prisoners' Education Trust told a parliamentary inquiry in 2020, 'no consistent national data collected about social class, income and poverty in relation to the backgrounds of people in prison'. A report last year for the House of Commons Library shows demographic breakdowns of the prison population by sex, gender, ethnicity, nationality, age and religion – but not class. As with the sentencing guidelines, neither class nor poverty is mentioned once in the report.
There is a major blind spot in the way policymakers and state authorities understand social disadvantage and inequality. Categories such as race, ethnicity, sex or gender readily spring to mind. Class too often disappears into a demographic black hole. That perhaps the most important factor in shaping an offender's experience is often ignored reflects the way that discussions of social disadvantage are warped. Not only is it taken for granted that poor and working-class people will commit crime, and so their disproportionate presence in the justice system can be ignored, but society also treats crimes committed by working-class offenders more harshly than 'middle-class' crimes. There is a long history of criminalising poverty and of demonising the working class.
Even when class comes into consideration, it is often racialised. In much discussion of the 'white working class', for instance, the whiteness seems to matter more than the class location. Yet, as the Prisoners' Education Trust told the 2020 parliamentary inquiry, while class is critically important, 'what the data does not evidence is that being white… contributes to experiences of disadvantage'.
At the same time, part of the reason that certain minorities are disproportionately incarcerated is likely to be that such groups are disproportionately working class and poor. Again, there is insufficient research about this.
The new sentencing guidelines are the latest demonstration of distorted thinking about social disadvantage, and of the invisibility of class in many discussions. It is one expression of 'two-tier' justice too rarely discussed.
Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
30 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in
ED Miliband was accused of 'rewriting history' yesterday after he claimed scrapping winter fuel was about stopping millionaires getting payments. The bungling Net Zero Secretary tried to justify Labour's original decision to strip the handout by suggesting the pensioners who would've missed out were all rich. 2 2 But some of them earned as little as £12,000 per year. Mr Miliband said: 'The principal question was, the richest in our society, should they get the winter fuel payment, should millionaires, should the richest get the winter fuel payment? 'I think the answer for most people to that is no.' The Net Zero Secretary's desperate bid to explain scrapping winter fuel payments – before the decision was partially reversed – was blasted by senior Tories, who accused him of spouting a 'pack of lies'. Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie told The Sun: 'Red Ed is even more out of touch than we thought if he thinks people will believe this pack of lies. 'The economy is worse off than when they found it - taxes higher, unemployment higher and living standards lower. 'He is just trying to rewrite history to try and cover up Labour's embarrassing U-turn.' Meanwhile, a flagship Net Zero plan has been spared ahead of next week's spending review — to opponents' dismay. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has ensured his £13billion warm homes scheme will not be downgraded after negotiations with the Treasury. Chancellor Rachel Reeves decided not to cut the cash which allows heating upgrades through better insulation, solar panels and heat pumps.


Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's Reeves to make $2.7 trillion bet on 'Britain's renewal'
LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) - British finance minister Rachel Reeves will divide up more than 2 trillion pounds ($2.7 trillion) of public spending on Wednesday in a speech she hopes will foster a sense of national renewal and make clear the year-old Labour government's political priorities. In an address to parliament due after 1130 GMT, Reeves will set out day-to-day budgets for government departments from 2026 to 2029 and investment plans out to 2030. Reeves set the overall total for spending in an October budget, financing her plan with the biggest tax rise in a generation and looser fiscal rules that make it easier for her to borrow to cover long-term investment. The choices she announces on Wednesday must start paying off quickly if Labour is to achieve its goals of boosting Britain's growth rate and improving the quality of overstretched public services. "This government is renewing Britain. But I know too many people in too many parts of the country are yet to feel it," Reeves is expected to tell parliament, according to speech extracts released by the finance ministry. Reeves said the government would "invest in our country's security, health and economy so working people all over our country are better off." Among the projects announced on Wednesday was likely to be a 39 billion-pound 10-year programme to build lower-cost housing - almost doubling the annual amount spent on this compared with existing support, the finance ministry said. Since its sweeping election victory last July, Labour has seen its popularity slide. The right-wing Reform Party led by former Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage is now ahead of it in the polls and outperformed it in English local elections last month. While Britain's economy recorded the fastest growth of the Group of Seven advanced economies in the first quarter of this year, the International Monetary Fund has forecast that in coming years it will lag behind the United States and Canada and barely outperform the euro zone. Official data on Tuesday showed the jobless rate had hit its highest in nearly four years - which the opposition Conservatives blamed on Reeves' October decision to place the main burden of tax rises on employers and boost workers' rights. Discussions between Reeves and government ministers have continued into this week over how big a slice their departments will receive of a pie whose size was set last year. Plans announced so far include 86 billion pounds on research and development, 16 billion pounds on public transport, 4 billion pounds on a new nuclear power station, 6 billion pounds on nuclear submarines and 4 billion on prisons. The final spending increases are unlikely to be shared out equally. Capital-intensive plans to raise defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product, announced by Starmer in February, mean other departments will see no real-terms increase in the pace of investment after this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank estimates. Day-to-day spending on public services is due to rise by an average of 1.2% a year on top of inflation between 2026-27 and 2028-29, while capital budgets will increase by an average of 1.3% in real terms through to 2029-30, according to the IFS. Both rates of growth are much slower than in the current financial year, when investment spending is set to jump by 11.6% and current spending rises by 2.5%. For day-to-day spending, increasing the health budget by 2 percentage points more than the average - as was typical when Labour was last in power before 2010 - would mean real-terms cuts of 1% a year for other departments, the IFS said. Chris Jeffery, head of macro strategy at Legal & General, Britain's largest asset manager, said the fact that the overall spending total was known limited the impact for investors. Instead, financial markets would be most focused on whether any proposed cuts looked realistic for the departments affected. "If they're imposing really large real-terms cuts in spending, then I think the market will come to the conclusion that these are less likely to be delivered than if they are less aggressive," he said. ($1 = 0.7409 pounds) ($1 = 0.7410 pounds)


Times
44 minutes ago
- Times
NHS ‘won't hit waiting list target' despite budget boost
The NHS will not come close to hitting Sir Keir Starmer's waiting list target despite receiving a budget boost of about £30 billion on Wednesday, official modelling shows. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will promise the health service an annual real terms increase of 2.8 per cent as she uses her spending review to stake Labour's re-election pledge on improving the NHS and growing the economy. Starmer's central promise on the NHS is to hit a routine operations target of treating 92 per cent of patients within 18 weeks, a goal that has not been met for a decade. But The Times understands that internal Department of Health modelling shows that the NHS is on course to hit only about 80 per cent by the end of the parliament. Officials say the figures can only come close to 92 per cent by using 'implausible' and 'over-optimistic' assumptions. Reeves will promise to 'invest [in] our country's security, health and economy' as she uses looser fiscal rules to channel £113 billion in extra infrastructure spending towards projects to spur growth. This will include a promise of £3.9 billion a year on a decade-long programme to double council house-building, as well as more than £16 billion on nuclear power and more than £20 billion for local road, rail and tram projects. Insisting that she is 'renewing Britain', Reeves will acknowledge: 'I know too many people in too many parts of the country are yet to feel it. This government's task — my task — and the purpose of this spending review — is to change that.' Her promise comes as official figures showed employment in the UK fell last month at the quickest pace since the pandemic. Data from HM Revenue & Customs showed that the number of payroll employees fell by just over 109,000 in May, the largest monthly decline since May 2020. After Starmer set out plans last week to spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence, the centrepiece of Labour's promise on public services will be annual increases to health spending that will total a budget boost of about £30 billion a year by the end of the parliament. The decision will force some real term cuts to other departments but a lower increase for health than some were expecting has allowed Reeves to avoid deeper cuts in politically sensitive areas such as the police. A 2.8 per cent annual increase is below the 3.6 per cent rises the NHS has averaged over decades and which formed the basis for the health service's workforce plan, leading to widespread unease among health chiefs about whether it is enough to deliver key pledges. The health service will also have to find the lion's share of a £1 billion-a-year rise in drug prices ministers have promised to the pharmaceutical industry, raising fears that much of the increase will be swallowed up in higher costs and staff pay, as unions threaten another campaign of strikes. Currently the NHS is treating only 60 per cent of routine conditions within 18 weeks and many health chiefs believe they are off track even to hit an interim target of 65 per cent by March. The waiting list is 7.4 million and NHS England says it it will need to fall below 4 million to hit Starmer's target. This will require average monthly falls of more than 70,000, almost tripling the rate achieved since Labour took power. Officials say modelling can only show performance reaching 92 per cent by March 2029 through making a series of assumptions that are not internally seen as credible. As well as more efficient care, models show the waiting list falling faster if fewer patients are referred for treatment, there are more straightforward cases, follow-up appointments are discouraged and patients are removed from waiting lists where they are deemed no longer to need care. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, argues that a ten-year plan due next month will improve efficiency and allow the NHS to intensify efforts to cut waiting lists, and has insisted the target is feasible. 'Despite everything Wes has said, there are still people who haven't got the message: it is neither affordable nor desirable to turn the NHS around through money alone,' a government source said. 'It is the combination of the investment Rachel is making, and the reform Wes has embarked on, that will deliver on the government's plan for change to cut waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks. We have never said that this will be achieved by just spending more money.' Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, will warn ministers not to 'demand the impossible' of the health service as he hosts Streeting at his annual conference on Thursday. While welcoming a 2.8 per cent increase, Taylor said: 'There are fears that this uplift will not be enough to achieve all the government's manifesto pledges, including hitting the stretching 92 per cent 18 weeks elective waiting time target by March 2029.' While insisting hospitals and other services were prioritising waiting lists, Taylor said: 'Many of our members have voiced concerns about hitting the interim target, with only 50 per cent confident they will achieve the 65 per cent elective care target by March 2026.' Sally Gainsbury, of the Nuffield Trust think tank, said that 'an extra 2.8 per cent in real terms will not fully cover the new demands the health service can expect each year, let alone eliminate previous problems like the waiting list backlog'. She warned that while 'the increase expected in the spending review is a lot of money by anyone's standards', the NHS was already struggling with deficits and the extra cost of medicines. 'Even if it outstrips the most optimistic assumptions, the health service won't hit the 92 per cent waiting times target unless it cuts back on other goals we have been promised,' she said. The Department of Health said: 'We continue to make strong progress towards delivering the 18-week standard, and are confident we will hit it by the end of the parliament through our Plan for Change. We have exceeded our pledge to deliver two million extra operations, scans and appointments, with 3.6 million additional appointments delivered, cutting waiting lists by 200,000 already.'