Latest news with #SentencingCouncilforEnglandandWales
The Guardian
06-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on sentencing guidelines: rightwing politicians must not call the tune
Courts knowing more about the people they are sentencing is a good thing. Last month's attack by the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, on guidelines recommending that individuals from ethnic and religious minorities, as well as women and young adults, should have pre-sentence reports written about them, typifies the corrosive cultural politics he specialises in. Mr Jenrick wants to undermine the independence of the judiciary by changing the law so that the secretary of state, and not the 14-member Sentencing Council for England and Wales, has the final say. The guidelines have now been paused, after the government introduced legislation that would make parts of them illegal. Mr Jenrick is playing with populist politics. In claiming that courts following the guidelines would be biased against Christians and 'straight white men', he was fomenting racial and religious divisions. Since there is nothing in the guidelines about sexual orientation, and 'faith minority community' could include many Christians (such as Catholics or Quakers), his claims were not only damaging but false. Inflammatory claims about 'two-tier justice' deliberately raised the temperature on what ought to be a calm, expert-led process. They also distract from important practical issues such as the high vacancy rate in the probation service. Without staff, the high-quality reports that courts need cannot be produced. Racial disparities in sentencing, as well as policing, are widely recognised, particularly in relation to black men convicted of drugs offences. The most recent research finds that, while overall disparities are not as wide as was claimed in the landmark Lammy report, and class bias in sentencing can also be identified, black offenders in England and Wales are 40% more likely to be jailed than white people convicted of equivalent crimes. It should not be controversial to propose the more frequent use of reports, as one means of addressing this problem and others – including the harm caused to children when their mothers are jailed. But presumably out of fear that rightwing attempts to stoke up a sense of grievance – particularly among white voters – would strike a chord, the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, took up the cause. Unless the government changes its mind, it will soon be illegal to give advice on pre-sentence reports that differentiates between defendants on the basis of 'personal characteristics' – although consideration of circumstances will still be allowed. Law and order has long been a favourite theme of authoritarian populists. A previous draft of the guidelines was rejected by Ms Mahmood's Tory predecessor, Alex Chalk. She should have seen trouble coming and held her nerve when it did. The relationship between the Sentencing Council and her ministry, as well as with parliament, appears underdeveloped. The last time its chair gave evidence to the justice committee was in 2022. Ms Mahmood's job is far from easy. Prisons are chronically overcrowded and the public accounts committee warned recently that delivering 20,000 more places will cost £4.2bn more than planned. Things were left in such bad shape by the Tories that Ms Mahmood released thousands of prisoners early last autumn. Ministers are waiting for a report from the former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke before deciding what to do next. It is impossible to see a way out of this crisis that does not involve the increased use of community sentences, supported by technology and a strengthened probation service. Ms Mahmood urgently needs to reclaim the initiative. Cynical attempts to portray white Christian men as the victims of equality-mad judges should be dismissed out of hand.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Did the U.K. Propose a ‘Two-Tier Justice System' for Criminal Sentencing?
A proposed sentencing guideline in England and Wales has Brits and social media users roiling over a policy they say would introduce a two-tier justice system that unfairly discriminates against white men. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales—established by the U.K. Parliament in 2010 to promote transparency and consistency in sentencing and made up of eight British judges and six experts on criminal law—in early March proposed a 'significantly revised' set of guidelines to take effect on April 1. Members in both major U.K. political parties quickly objected to the guidelines' changes to 'pre-assessment reports,' with critics calling the guidance discriminatory because it could bring information about an offender's gender, ethnicity, and religion into sentencing decisions. As members of Parliament from both parties committed publicly to passing a bill to block parts of the guidelines, the Sentencing Council announced March 31—one day before the new guidelines were to take effect—an indefinite delay on enacting the proposed guidance. While the United Kingdom is governed by its unitary parliament, the country splits its judiciary into three distinct legal systems. England and Wales share a legal system, while Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own. English and Welsh courts, in cases where a defendant pleads or is found guilty, may request a pre-assessment report that summarizes details of the criminal offense, general background information about the defendant (e.g., prior criminal history, age, educational attainment, etc.), a 'risk and needs assessment' of the defendant, and a recommended sentence. These reports are written by an official with England and Wales' Probation Service after meeting and interviewing the defendant. The reports 'provide the court with a greater understanding of the background and the context of the offending behaviour, rather than just the details of the offence,' the U.K. government states on its website. 'However, the Judiciary will form an independent view for the most appropriate sentence based on all the evidence they have heard.' Pre-assessment reports are not required when a court finds it unnecessary; for example, when the court believes it has enough information regarding the case and defendant to issue a sentence. In its proposed guidelines, the Sentencing Council laid out under what conditions a pre-assessment report 'will normally be considered necessary.' Included on this list was whether the defendant is a 'female;' part of an ethnic, cultural, or religious minority group identity; or identifies as transgender. However, social media users have conflated the guidance over pre-assessment reports with actual sentencing recommendations, falsely claiming that the guidance recommended longer sentences for individuals outside those categories. 'Communist Britain about to fully officially & formally embrace a Two Tier Justice System where White British Christian Men are prosecuted by the full force of the law vs any other group of people,' tweeted one X user, a self-described 'conspiracy realist/coincidence analyzer' with more than 900,000 followers on the platform. Similarly, another X account—'Radio Europe,' a European-based right-wing news aggregator that has no connection to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—tweeted, 'The British Sentencing Council has decided that starting Tuesday, white men will be sentenced to longer prison sentences than women and ethnic minorities.' Alex Jones also chimed in on X to repeat the claim, calling it 'irregular warfare.' Christopher Hope—a British journalist with the U.K.-based, right-of-center news network, GB News—said on-air on March 28, 'White men are going to be treated a lot tougher by judges from Tuesday, compared to other groups.' GB News' X account posted a segment of its show, including both Hope's remarks and separate comments made by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who does not support the proposed guidelines. In its caption, GB News quoted Hope's remark with no attribution. The same tweet mentioned Starmer and quoted a portion of the comment he himself gave the network. Many prominent users attributed Hope's remark to Starmer. GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams, Blaze Media television show writer and producer Kyle Becker, and Voz Media, a right-wing, Spanish-language news outlet based in Texas, all incorrectly claimed that Starmer himself had said white men would face more intense scrutiny under the guidance. The guidance does not state that white men will or should face tougher sentencing. Rather, it states specific instances where a pre-assessment report is necessary. Other provisions on the list were found to be rather uncontroversial—for example, if the defendant is a first-time offender, between the ages of 18 and 25 years old, is pregnant or postnatal, the primary caretaker for their children or other dependant relatives, has a chronic medical or mental health condition, or suffers from an addiction. Moreover, the guidelines state a report might be necessary if the court knows or suspects that the defendant is a victim of 1) 'domestic abuse, physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, coercive or controlling behaviour, economic, psychological, emotional or any other abuse,' 2) 'modern slavery or trafficking, or 3) 'coercion, grooming, intimidation or exploitation.' Still, a judge can use information cited in the pre-assessment report in considering the length of a sentence. 'The aim of the revised guideline is to make sure the courts have the most comprehensive information available about the circumstances of the offender and the offence, and the range of possible sentencing options,' the Sentencing Council wrote in a March 5 news release, 'so that they can impose a tailored sentence that is the most suitable and appropriate for the offender and offence before them.' The proposed guidance does not explicitly stipulate that lesser sentences should be handed down based on gender, ethnic origin, or religious identity. However, because the necessity of pre-assessment reports would be determined, at least partly, on the basis of gender, race, and religion, the proposed guidance could certainly lead to differential treatment in sentencing. As the proposed guidance itself states, pre-assessment reports include 'any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender's suitability for different sentences or requirements.' 'I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent differential treatment, under which someone's outcomes may be influenced by their race, culture or religion,' tweeted U.K. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmood, a Labour Party member. A week earlier on March 20, Mahmood requested that the Sentencing Council revise its proposed guidelines to remove the 'full list of cohorts for whom a pre-sentence report will 'normally be considered necessary.'' But the Sentencing Council—an independent body not directly answerable to the U.K.'s lord chancellor and secretary of state of justice—declined Mahmood's request on March 28. However, as U.K. parliamentary members prepped legislation to block the proposed guidance, the Sentencing Council reversed course. 'The [Sentencing Council] Chairman [Lord Justice William Davis] indicated that the Council would not introduce a guideline when there is a draft Bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful,' a March 31 press release from the judicial body stated. 'On that basis, the Council, an independent statutory body, has chosen to delay the in force date of the guideline pending such legislation taking effect.' If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
The Guardian
02-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Attorney general says MPs attacks on judges ‘a huge threat to the rule of law'
Political attacks on judges are 'dangerous' and 'a huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary', the attorney general has said in a direct rebuke to the shadow justice secretary. Richard Hermer said politics was entering a 'dangerous moment' where politicians were 'attacking judges on a personal basis' on the floor of the House of Commons. His intervention came after Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, criticised a senior judge in the Commons on Tuesday. Jenrick called for Lord Justice Davis, the head of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, to be sacked amid a row over new sentencing guidelines. Speaking to parliament's joint committee on human rights, Hermer said that 'we are entering a dangerous moment in which not simply on social media but indeed on the floor of the House of Commons, people are attacking judges on a personal basis. 'That is entirely unacceptable and creates a huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.' Hermer told the committee that 'we are at a juncture in history' where the rule of law faced 'a whole range of challenges' in the UK and overseas. There have been tensions between ministers and some senior judges in recent months. In response to Hermer's comments, Jenrick claimed that Hermer had 'turned on his friend, the prime minister, for voicing perfectly legitimate criticisms about activist judges'. In February, Keir Starmer expressed disagreement with a judge's ruling in an immigration case concerning a Palestinian family who had applied to live in the UK through a scheme designed for Ukrainians. Responding to Kemi Badenoch, who said this ruling was 'completely wrong', Starmer said he agreed and that 'it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration'. This triggered an intervention from Lady Chief Justice Lady Sue Carr, the most senior judge in England and Wales, who said that she was 'deeply troubled' by Starmer and Badenoch's 'unacceptable' remarks about the case. Separately, this week ministers announced legislation to overturn guidance from the sentencing council intended to tackle bias during sentencing. The guidelines would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic or religious minority, or a young adult, abuse survivor or pregnant woman. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, had strongly criticised the proposals and said there would 'never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch'. In the Commons on Wednesday, Jenrick called for Davis to be sacked after he defended the guidelines. During the debate, another Conservative MP, John Hayes, said that all members of the Sentencing Council should resign, and a third Tory MP, Desmond Swayne, said that Carr should be 'rebuked' for her 'impertinence'. Hermer himself has faced criticism from some inside government, who have accused him of slowing down progress and taking an overly legalistic approach. At the committee on Wednesday the attorney general defended changes he made to the way government lawyers provide advice to ministers, which are said to have caused tensions. He insisted that the revised guidance amounted to a 'change in tone' that would not delay government policy. 'I had a very real concern on entering government as attorney that a practice had developed in which lawyers were being asked to advise ministers as to whether there was a respectable legal argument to support the policy,' he said. 'But respectable legal argument means something is highly likely to be unlawful but not so bad you'd be struck off.' Hermer said the result was that 'ministers were thinking it was respectable without realising it was highly likely to be unlawful', and that the changes were intended to give ministers an 'unvarnished assessment' of the legal risks of their policies.
Reuters
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
England's Sentencing Council suspends plans to introduce 'two-tier' justice guidelines
LONDON, March 31 (Reuters) - The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which provides guidelines to judges on punishments, suspended on Monday plans that could have led to a reduced chance for some criminals of being sent to prison depending on their ethnicity, age or sex. The independent body announced it was delaying the plans hours before the changes were due to come into effect after the government threatened to introduce legislation that would overturn the guidelines. The proposed guidelines would have advised judges to produce a pre-sentence report, which provides background information on the offender, for specific groups such as ethnic, cultural and religious minorities and for transgender individuals, women and young offenders. There would have been no requirements for similar pre-sentence background reports for other groups. Some politicians claimed the plan would have introduced a "two-tier" justice system, while the Sentencing Council said the plans were needed to fix the "disparities in sentencing outcomes" given to different groups. The justice minister Shabana Mahmood told the chairman of the Sentencing Council at a meeting on Monday that the government planned to introduce the legislation to overturn the plan, the body said. "The chairman indicated that the council would not introduce a guideline when there is a draft bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful," the Sentencing Council said in a statement. In 2018, the government said, opens new tab that Black criminals were, on average, given sentences nearly twice as long as white offenders for violent attacks. Mahmood said in statement the changes proposed by the council could have undermined public confidence in the criminal justice system. "This differential treatment is unacceptable," she said. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was labelled "two-tier Keir" by some politicians last summer after claims during widespread rioting that there is a policy in Britain where some ethnic groups were policed more leniently than others. This followed a politically charged debate over the limits of free speech after some white Britons were jailed for posting information viewed as incendiary even though they did not take part directly in the riots.
The Guardian
16-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
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
