Labour warns plans for 'two-tier' justice system must be ditched 'as soon as possible'
New guidelines which could lead to the creation of a two-tier justice system must be abandoned “as soon as possible”, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood declared.
Ms Mahmood hinted that ministers and MPs could be given a veto over future guidelines to prevent further scandals from shredding confidence in the justice system.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick had earlier vowed to take legal action after the Sentencing Council told judges to consider an offender’s ethnicity when deciding punishments.
Mr Jenrick accused the Sentencing Council of creating a “two-tier” justice system after new rules were sent to magistrates on Wednesday morning. It opened the door to white criminals being jailed for longer than offenders from an ethnic minority or faith-based community group.
He said: “I will be challenging this sentencing guidance in the courts on the grounds it enshrines anti-white and anti-Christian bias into our criminal justice system.
“And if Labour won’t amend the law to prevent this, the Conservatives will. There are few more important principles than equality under the law - we will fight tooth and nail to defend it.
“The Justice Secretary had a senior representative at the meeting this two-tier guidance was approved. She’s either completely clueless or she and two-tier Keir support the changes and are desperately trying to save face in response to public outrage.”
The hugely controversial new guidance said pre-sentence reports, which are designed to “tailor” sentences most appropriate to an offender’s history and background (such as dealing with drug addiction or homelessness), should be prepared if a criminal has declared they are “transgender”.
It tells judges that criminals “from an ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community” should be specifically considered for pre-sentence reports, meaning they could be considered differently from their white counterparts.
The Sentencing Council, explaining the changes to magistrates, said: “A pre-sentence report can be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial sentence or community order.”
But Ms Mahmood told Lord Justice William Davis: “A pre-sentence report can be instrumental in assisting courts in determining their sentence.
"But the access to one should not be determined by an offender's ethnicity, culture or religion.
"As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for differential treatment before the law like this.
"For that reason, I am requesting that you reconsider the imposition of this guideline as soon as possible.
"I will also be considering whether policy decisions of such import should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role Ministers and Parliament should play.
"For that reason, I will be reviewing the role and powers of the Sentencing Council alongside the work of the Independent Sentencing Review.
"If necessary, I will legislate in the Sentencing Bill that will follow that review.”
Defending the proposals, Lord Justice William Davis, Chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, said: “One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective.
“The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court.
“The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
“PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence.
“Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.”
