UK Judicial Uproar Over Sentencing Council’s Guidelines, Judges Voice Strong Opposition

[Social Media]

 

---

Judicial Uproar Over Sentencing Council’s Controversial Guidelines

 

Judges have voiced strong opposition to new sentencing guidelines that they have branded as “cack-handed,” arguing that the rules could lead to a two-tier justice system by recommending more lenient sentences for certain offenders based on their backgrounds. In response to the growing backlash, ministers are set to fast-track emergency legislation aimed at blocking the new guidelines and are even considering restricting the powers of the Sentencing Council.

 

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that a new law will be introduced next week to override the controversial guidelines, which critics say could undermine the principle of equality before the law. The changes, due to take effect on Tuesday, instruct judges to consider an offender’s background when determining sentencing. Specifically, judges will be advised to request pre-sentencing reports for offenders who are women, pregnant, under 25, or from ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities.

 

 

The Sentencing Council has defended the guidelines as a way to address sentencing disparities between ethnic groups. A government study in 2017 revealed that, on average, violent Black offenders received nearly twice the length of prison sentences as violent white offenders. However, the move has sparked fierce opposition from both government officials and the judiciary.

 

Mahmood previously sent a letter to the Sentencing Council urging it to abandon or delay the implementation of the new rules, but the request was dismissed. Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the council, insisted that judges “must do all that they can to avoid a difference in outcome based on ethnicity.” In response, the government is rushing an emergency bill through Parliament to prevent the guidelines from taking effect, although it is unlikely to pass before the rules are enforced. “We are moving as fast as possible to kill this,” a senior government source said.

 

The controversy has infuriated Downing Street and could lead to broader legislative reforms that significantly curtail the Sentencing Council’s authority. Some Labour MPs have even called for the council’s complete abolition. “All options are on the table,” the senior government source added.

 

Judges themselves appear divided over the issue. While some recognize the need to address sentencing disparities, others believe the new approach is misguided. One judicial source suggested that the Sentencing Council had “completely lost the plot,” warning that the probation service was already overwhelmed and struggled to provide even the most basic pre-sentencing reports. “Never mind many more if this guidance ever gets going,” the source added.

 

Another source emphasized the importance of maintaining equality before the law rather than attempting to tailor sentences for different groups. “Judges aren’t daft and look at any offender in the round, taking into account many, many factors before the final sentence is arrived at,” they said.

 

The frustration among legal professionals is palpable, with some judges and magistrates reportedly “thoroughly pissed off at the way things are going.” While acknowledging the long-standing concerns over harsher sentences for ethnic minorities, one legal insider described the Sentencing Council’s approach as “totally cack-handed.” “Their policy statement was extremely tactless and gives the public a misleading impression,” they added.

 

However, some believe that the guidelines will have minimal real-world impact, as judges often disregard pre-sentencing reports, which they view as little more than advocacy pieces for the defendant. “Many judges think the pre-sentencing reports are a waste of time,” another source stated.

 

An analysis by the Conservative Party estimates that implementing the new guidelines could cost taxpayers £17.5 million annually due to the additional pre-sentencing reports required. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, accused the government of undermining the justice system, arguing that “the principle of equality before the law is being torn to shreds.” He added, “The taxpayer will be made to foot the bill for tens of millions of pounds for a justice system that is biased against white people and Christians.”

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-04-01

 

 

[mikeymike100]

"Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that a new law will be introduced next week to override the controversial guidelines,"

 

So at least a few people in the UK have some common sense, it appears!

[Baht Simpson]

According to their website the Sentencing Council have suspended implementation of the proposed new guidelines pending the new legislation. Equality under the law is paramount.

[Red Forever]

Hmm….in 2017 a (Tory) government study found that violent black offenders were sentenced to twice the length of jail time as violent white offenders. Two tier justice?

 I wonder who will be first to post “yeah but, no but, what about 2 tier Starmer?)

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, Red Forever said:

Hmm….in 2017 a (Tory) government study found that violent black offenders were sentenced to twice the length of jail time as violent white offenders. Two tier justice?

 I wonder who will be first to post “yeah but, no but, what about 2 tier Starmer?)

Maybe it depends on the amount of violence used. Not saying that this IS the reason, just that it could be. In the 2017 study, did it give a reason? Strange that I've never heard of this study previous to you posting about it. What was the source?

[SunnyinBangrak]

Glad this happened. Was so sick of being called a "conspiracy theorist" for accurately pointing out Britain has a 2 tier judicial system where punishment and guilt is determined by skin color. At least now it's codified in law, numpties can't deny it any longer.

[Stiddle Mump]

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Glad this happened. Was so sick of being called a "conspiracy theorist" for accurately pointing out Britain has a 2 tier judicial system where punishment and guilt is determined by skin color. At least now it's codified in law, numpties can't deny it any longer.

Alex Belfield got 5 and a half years for upsetting Jeremy Vine and a couple of BBC cry-babies.

 

Never hurt anyone. 2 tier for sure.

[SunnyinBangrak]

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Alex Belfield got 5 and a half years for upsetting Jeremy Vine and a couple of BBC cry-babies.

 

Never hurt anyone. 2 tier for sure.

I do miss his youtube vids. And whatever the court said I think he was right about Vine. Released in june if memory serves. 

[Stiddle Mump]

2 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I do miss his youtube vids. And whatever the court said I think he was right about Vine. Released in june if memory serves. 

Indeed!

 

The last I heard, there was a conspiracy between the Notts police, who raided his place, and the BBC

 

I'm sure he will get up and running later this year. As popular as ever.

[JAG]

15 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Alex Belfield got 5 and a half years for upsetting Jeremy Vine and a couple of BBC cry-babies.

Alex Belfield's sentence was a reflection of the fact that he attempted to use the trial as a platform to continue his campaign against Vine and the BBC. That is why the judge gave him a sentence at the top end of "the range".

[Stiddle Mump]

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

Alex Belfield's sentence was a reflection of the fact that he attempted to use the trial as a platform to continue his campaign against Vine and the BBC. That is why the judge gave him a sentence at the top end of "the range".

I followed the trial closely. The sentence was an absolute joke. Six months would have been quite enough.

 

Perhaps a warning; and a promise not to make Jeremy Vine cry again would have been better still.