Prime Minister Starmer and officials express disappointment as Sentencing Council guidelines give preferential sentencing treatment to minority and transgender offenders.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Starting Tuesday, controversial sentencing guidelines issued by the UK’s Sentencing Council will take effect, drawing widespread criticism from lawmakers and justice officials over what they call the emergence of a “two-tier justice” system. The new measures instruct courts to treat ethnic minorities and transgender individuals convicted of crimes differently, prompting immediate political fallout and calls for legislative intervention.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, expressed dissatisfaction with the Sentencing Council’s independent decision to move forward with the measures, stating, “I’m disappointed at this outcome, and now we will have to consider what we do as a result.” When asked if Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood had been humiliated by the move, a No. 10 spokesperson denied the suggestion but confirmed, “All options remain on the table, and that includes legislating if necessary.”
According to the Daily Mail, the new sentencing rules instruct that a pre-sentence report “must normally be considered necessary” for criminals from “an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” The guidelines further extend to include women, transgender individuals, young adults, and those suffering from addiction. Such reports often highlight reasons incarceration could negatively impact an offender, which Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, warned could “make a custodial sentence less likely.”
Jenrick harshly criticized Mahmood’s handling of the issue, stating: “Shabana Mahmood has been humiliated by the Sentencing Council. In three days’ time we will have two-tier sentencing because of her and ‘Two-Tier Keir.’ It is shameful they sat on their hands and chose not to legislate to prevent two-tier justice.”
Mahmood herself previously expressed that the Council’s measures represented “differential treatment.” In a letter to Sentencing Council Chairman Lord Justice William Davis, she asked the body to “reconsider the imposition of this guideline as soon as possible.” Davis rejected her request, stating, “I do not accept the premise of your objection.” In a new letter to Mahmood, Davis confirmed the Council had decided that the guidelines “[did] not require revision” but would instead clarify the language used.
Mahmood responded: “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… I am extremely disappointed by the Council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.”
The Sentencing Council defended its position, asserting that the “list of cohorts” included in the guideline was designed to ensure judges and magistrates have “as much information as possible” and does not represent an expression of policy. Yet critics insist the effect is clear.
David Spencer, head of crime and justice at the think tank Policy Exchange, stated, “The Sentencing Council’s refusal to change their position is remarkable – and yet another example of how too many arm’s length bodies have been given the power to set policy and frustrate the will of the elected Government. By defending prioritising pre-sentence reports for ethnic minority criminals, the chairman of the Sentencing Council is entrenching two-tier justice within our court system.”
Meanwhile, Labour’s decision to block proposed legislation by Jenrick that would have granted ministers veto power over such guidelines has drawn further ire from conservative critics. Spencer urged swift legislative action, stating, “The Lord Chancellor has rightly said she will, if necessary, legislate to overturn this – she should do so without delay.”
Concerns have also mounted over additional guidelines recently issued by the Council that could reduce penalties for illegal immigration offenses, prompting further scrutiny over its policy direction and independence from government oversight.
Leave a Comment