This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/mar/28/sentencing-council-england-wales-rejects-calls-review-two-tier-justice-rules

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Starmer ‘disappointed’ as Sentencing Council rejects calls to review ‘two-tier’ justice rules Starmer ‘disappointed’ as Sentencing Council rejects calls to review ‘two-tier’ justice rules
(about 4 hours later)
PM said ministers would consider next steps over guidance for judges in England and Wales aimed at tackling biasPM said ministers would consider next steps over guidance for judges in England and Wales aimed at tackling bias
The Sentencing Council’s refusal to agree to the government’s request to change its guidelines that have been deemed a “two-tier” system of justice is “disappointing”, Keir Starmer has said. The prime minister has signalled he is prepared to change the law to stop the introduction of “two-tier” sentencing guidelines, after an arms-length body resisted pressure to scrap them.
The prime minister said the government would “consider what we do as a result” and “all options are on the table”. Keir Starmer said “all options are on the table” after the Sentencing Council for England and Wales refused to back down despite pressure from ministers.
Downing Street rejected claims that the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had been humiliated by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales’s refusal to back down. She told the council this month there would “never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch”. The row concerns new guidance aimed at tackling bias and reducing reoffending, which puts more emphasis on pre-sentence reports which give details of the offender’s background, motives and personal life before sentencing.
Mahmood criticised rules drawn up by the independent body that devises judges’ sentencing guidelines after claims they discriminated against white men. Under the change, due to come into force on 1 April, magistrates and judges would be asked to consult the pre-sentence report before determining whether to imprison someone of an ethnic or religious minority, as well as young adults, abuse survivors and pregnant women.
But the Sentencing Council announced on Friday it had concluded “the guideline did not require revision” and blamed a “widespread misunderstanding” for the backlash. Critics including Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said the guidelines amounted to discrimination against white men.
Starmer said Mahmood was “obviously continuing to engage on this, and we’re considering our response. All options are on the table, but I’m disappointed at this outcome, and now we will have to consider what we do as a result.” Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said she was considering next steps after the Sentencing Council’s “unacceptable” response and would “legislate if necessary”.
The council’s changed guidance, aimed at tackling bias and reducing reoffending, puts more emphasis on the need for pre-sentence reports, which give details of the offender’s background, motives and personal life before sentencing. Mahmood wrote to the chair of the council, Lord Justice Davis, earlier this month calling for the change to be scrapped and saying there would “never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch”.
Under the change, which is due to come into force on 1 April, magistrates and judges would be asked to consult a pre-sentence report before determining whether to imprison someone of an ethnic or religious minority, as well as young adults, abuse survivors and pregnant women. But Davis responded on Friday that the council had concluded “the guideline did not require revision” and blamed a “widespread misunderstanding” for the backlash.
The changes drew strong criticism from Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who said they amounted to discrimination against white men. Downing Street rejected claims that Mahmood was humiliated by the council’s refusal to back down, Starmer telling broadcasters on Friday that Mahmood was “obviously continuing to engage on this, and we’re considering our response”.
The chair of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Davis, said in his response to Mahmood on Friday that a pre-sentence report did not make a prison sentence less likely. He added: “All options are on the table, but I’m disappointed at this outcome, and now we will have to consider what we do as a result.”
He wrote: “The rule of law requires that all offenders are treated fairly and justly by judges and magistrates who are fully informed about the offences, the effect on the victims and the offenders. The section of the guideline relating to pre-sentence reports is directed to the issue of information about offenders, no more and no less.” The disagreement throws into question the future role of the Sentencing Council at a time when a cross-government campaign to reduce the power of quangos is under way.
In his letter to Mahmood, Davis wrote: “The rule of law requires that all offenders are treated fairly and justly by judges and magistrates who are fully informed about the offences, the effect on the victims and the offenders. The section of the guideline relating to pre-sentence reports is directed to the issue of information about offenders, no more and no less.”
In response, Mahmood said: “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.In response, Mahmood said: “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.
“This is unacceptable and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week. I am extremely disappointed by the council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.”“This is unacceptable and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week. I am extremely disappointed by the council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.”
Sign up to Headlines UKSign up to Headlines UK
Get the day’s headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morningGet the day’s headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
The disagreement throws into question the future role of the arms-length sentencing body amid a cross-government campaign to reduce the power of quangos. Mahmood said last month she was considering laws to restrict the Sentencing Council’s powers after it recommended the changes. Earlier this month Mahmood had argued that access to a pre-sentence report “should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or religion”.
In her letter to Davis this month, Mahmood wrote that access to a pre-sentence report “should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or religion”. She asked the council to reconsider the rules as soon as possible and said she would “also be considering whether policy decisions of such import should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role ministers and parliament should play”.
She asked Davis to reconsider the rules as soon as possible and said she would “also be considering whether policy decisions of such import should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role ministers and parliament should play”. Black and minority ethnic communities are overrepresented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people.
Black and minority ethnic communities are over-represented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people.
The consultation process on the sentencing guidance concluded last February, when the Conservatives were still in government. An earlier version of the guidelines, published last spring, was criticised by the then justice secretary, Alex Chalk, as “patronising”.The consultation process on the sentencing guidance concluded last February, when the Conservatives were still in government. An earlier version of the guidelines, published last spring, was criticised by the then justice secretary, Alex Chalk, as “patronising”.
The government has launched a drive to reduce the number and influence of arms-length government bodies, with Starmer arguing that the state was becoming “passive”.