logo
Government accused of ‘running scared' over bid to block sentencing guidelines

Government accused of ‘running scared' over bid to block sentencing guidelines

New guidance from the independent Sentencing Council would have recommended a pre-sentence report (PSR) be sought before sentencing offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities.
Pre-sentence reports provide information about the offender's background, circumstances of their offence, the risk they pose and suitability for certain types of sentence.
The use of these reports has been linked to higher rate of community, rather than prison sentences.
The Government brought forward the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reporters) Bill to block the new guidelines, arguing that it would lead to a differential treatment under the law and a 'two-tier' justice system.
The implementation of the updated rulebook has been put on hold to allow Parliament to consider this legislation.
However, supporters of the guidance argued that the UK already has a 'two-tier' justice system, due to entrenched racial bias.
The Lammy Review, published in 2017, found disparities in outcome across the justice system for those from minority backgrounds compared to their white counterparts, including in sentencing.
As the House of Lords debated the Government's Bill during its second reading, Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb argued that politicians were trying to 'interfere' with the workings of an independent body.
She said: 'The Sentencing Council is an independent body that saw a problem and tried to do something about it.
'It has done what it was designed to do and now the Labour Government is running scared of these rather nasty right-wingers who are trying to interfere.
'I think it was Elon Musk, perhaps amongst others, who first said that Britain had a two-tier justice system.
'And he was right, that is exactly what we have, because some groups are worse treated than others.
'We do not have equality under the law.
'We've known about women being less fairly treated for decades, with women being imprisoned for things that men would not be.
'The Sentencing Council came up with the mildest of changes to address that issue and has been slammed for it….
'When the Government says it wants equality under the law, everybody wants that.
'But the difference is that I accept the evidence that we currently have a two-tier system of justice where you can end up receiving worse treatment because you're a woman or because of the colour of your skin.'
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Anglican bishop for prisons, branded the Bill 'theatrical' and unnecessary, brought on by 'am-dram politics'.
The Rt Rev Rachel Treweek said: 'In a world of sufficient resources, there would be comprehensive pre-sentencing reports for everyone to which careful attention was paid in court.
'But if we have to prioritise PSRs, then it makes sense to prioritise those that we know are especially vulnerable or where there is evidence of disproportionate outcomes from the justice system.'
Referring to the Lammy Review, she asked: 'Does the Government believe the issues raised in the landmark report by the current Foreign Secretary almost eight years ago are now a thing of the past?
'Is there no role for judges in mitigating the issues raised in that report?
'The use of the Sentencing Council guidelines to apparently feed a culture war is distressing, and the allegation of two-tier sentencing based around race, religion, belief or cultural background is so damaging to public understanding…
'We cannot pretend that circumstances and characteristics do not matter.'
However, unaffiliated peer Baroness Fox of Buckley hit back at the culture war argument, branding it a 'slur'.
She said: 'The popular critique of criminal justice as 'two-tier', that actually really resonated, particularly in relation to the sentencing post-last summer's riots, was sneeringly dismissed as a far-right conspiratorial myth by many ministers and politicians.
'It was written off as some culture wars trope, and we've heard similar slurs here today.'
She criticised the 'tendency to try and use criminal justice to compensate for perceived racial unfairness and alleged social injustices'.
Responding, prisons minister Lord Timpson said: 'Implementing a sentencing guideline, which could lead to differential treatment before the law, puts trust in the legal system at risk, which is why we acted quickly to address this…
'The Government's objective is to help ensure equality before the law. We are clear that an offender should be judged by a court on an individual basis according to the particular facts and circumstances of their case.
'It is not for the Sentencing Council to set in guidance that judgments should be made on the basis of personal characteristics like race or ethnicity.
'Any reference to preferential treatment for a particular cohort is unacceptable.'
He insisted that tackling disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system is 'a policy matter' to be determined by the Government, not judges.
However, he acknowledged the need to tackle inequalities and told peers that the Government has commissioned a review into data held by the Ministry of Justice on racial disparities and will 'carefully consider next steps'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Welsh Government funding of £19m will help protect ancient woodlands
Welsh Government funding of £19m will help protect ancient woodlands

South Wales Argus

time44 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

Welsh Government funding of £19m will help protect ancient woodlands

The funding aligns with the government's newly-outlined strategy to enhance the protection of Wales' ancient woodlands and trees. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister and cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, said: "Wales' ancient woodlands are of international importance and have an important place in the landscape and history, protecting carbon-rich soils and seed banks beneath them. "They take centuries to form and are an irreplaceable resource." As part of this new approach, the government will focus on improving the resilience of temperate rainforests, as pointed out by the Alliance for Wales' Rainforests. Mr Irranca-Davies said: "Planning Policy Wales has been strengthened to provide a stronger framework for local planning authorities to secure the protection of ancient trees and woodland. "We are revising our Tree Preservation Order regulations as part of the work on the Planning (Wales) Bill." The Welsh government also made recent amendments to forestry legislation, which now allows Natural Resources Wales to better protect veteran trees and ancient woodland during felling operations. Further initiatives include the implementation of recommendations from the four-year review of the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. These will introduce measures specifically designed to contribute to achieving statutory emission reduction commitments. Under the Sustainable Farming Scheme proposals, optional actions will be provided to manage existing woodlands, including ancient woodlands, to increase their condition and resilience. The government will engage with stakeholders and consider budget availability before implementing these actions. The strategy also includes initiatives to improve air quality and reduce air pollution's negative impact on ancient woodland sites. The National Forest for Wales programme has provided support to restore and maintain ancient woodland through various schemes. Mr Irranca-Davies said: "Our approach does not intend to be an exhaustive list of all the possible threats and interventions, but a focus on the strategic priorities. "It brings together work across government departments and their stakeholders which strengthen protection for our irreplaceable ancient woodlands."

The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about

Wales Online

time4 hours ago

  • Wales Online

The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about

Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.

Elon Musk backs down in Trump battle as Tesla stocks nosedive and MAGA threatens to kick him out the country
Elon Musk backs down in Trump battle as Tesla stocks nosedive and MAGA threatens to kick him out the country

Daily Mail​

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Elon Musk backs down in Trump battle as Tesla stocks nosedive and MAGA threatens to kick him out the country

What could happen next in the Trump - Musk feud? Following the bitter break up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, many are waiting in anticipation at what the two titans could do next. The world's richest man and the leader of the free world appear set to continue launching attacks at each other, and have already threatened to destroy each other's empires. For Musk, he has almost $400 billion to wield against the president, and could turn the fortune he used to get Trump elected toward his political opponents. Musk has already mounted an aggressive campaign to 'kill' Trump's Big Beautiful Bill in Congress, which holds the key to delivering much of Trump's domestic agenda. The businessman also owns arguably the world's most potent social media platform, X, which he used on Thursday to call for the end of America's two-party system. But while Musk has an array of weapons to turn on Trump, the president's power in the White House offers him several avenues to fight back. Trump threatened to slash Musk's government contracts on Thursday, which totalled over $3 billion last year. The White House's power to launch investigations and turn public opinion against Musk also holds significant potential, with Trump allies including Steve Bannon urging him to go as far as deporting Musk and revoking his security clearances. Trump also has options including turning his Justice Department on Musk's businesses, with Musk already having lost $27 billion of his net worth since he turned on Trump.

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