logo
Amid all the noise about the UK's ‘two-tier' justice system, there is silence on class

Amid all the noise about the UK's ‘two-tier' justice system, there is silence on class

The Guardian16-03-2025

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed
MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed

Powys County Times

time26 minutes ago

  • Powys County Times

MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed

A Labour MP has called on the Government to address the 'chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. Mary Kelly Foy said planning decisions on these sites 'have frequently been underpinned by prejudice', with just 30 created over the past 30 years. The MP for City of Durham tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which proposes that Gypsy and Traveller sites are included in spatial development strategies. Speaking in the Commons, she said: 'Today I rise to speak to amendment 134, in my name, that works towards addressing a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system, the chronic under-supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. 'And my amendment seeks to increase fairness into the system to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. 'For too long, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system.' She added: 'The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029, if that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone, and that means by making space, literally and politically, for communities who have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten.' Ms Foy said just 30 sites have been created over the past 30 years, adding: 'Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. 'Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that's not met with political will or leadership. 'Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. And this absence isn't an accident, it's a result of years of structural marginalisation that this Bill must now correct.' Ms Foy said the UK is 'seeing a troubling trend' with the number of socially rented pitches declining. She argued that leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites from future strategies would be 'repeating mistakes of the past'.

Nigel Farage says Brits have ‘every right to be angry' about cost of hotels for migrants
Nigel Farage says Brits have ‘every right to be angry' about cost of hotels for migrants

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Nigel Farage says Brits have ‘every right to be angry' about cost of hotels for migrants

BRITS struggling to live have 'every right to be angry' about illegal migrants getting cushy hotel rooms, Nigel Farage said yesterday. The Reform leader hailed The Sun's front page for laying bare the crippling cost of asylum accommodation. 1 We told the case of Stuart Whittaker - a former factory worker from Hull who is now homeless - feeling he had been 'shoved to the back of the queue'. Downing Street yesterday admitted it was 'absolutely not' fair that locals like him are sofa-surfing while taxpayers fork out for migrant hotels. Also addressing the story in Port Talbot, Mr Farage said: 'What I tell your man from Hull, is he has every right to be upset. 'Every right to be angry. 'Just don't say anything on social media or Keir Starmer will put you in prison.' He said that while legal migration has a bigger strain on public services, it is the 'sheer unfairness of these young men' coming across the Channel illegally that rubs people up. The cost of paying for asylum support has ballooned to around £4.7billion annually, and around 15,000 migrants have arrived from France this year already. Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman said: 'It's not fair that tens of thousands of people are stuck in an asylum backlog that's wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers money, and that's why we're focused on taking the action needed to reduce the number of asylum seekers and hotels.' Minister Chris Bryant yesterday insisted that the 'best deterrent' against small boats was processing asylum claims quicker. He was slammed by Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, who said: 'This is dangerous nonsense from a weak Labour Government. 'Giving illegal immigrants asylum faster is no deterrent - it will just attract even more to come here. 'A real deterrent would be removing every single illegal immigrant who arrives in the UK to somewhere like Rwanda.'

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Glasgow Times

timean hour ago

  • Glasgow Times

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store