Sentencing Council Guidelines 2025-04-01

The Lord Chancellor's delay and indecision have led to chaos and confusion within the justice system. Magistrates and judges may have been unaware of last-minute changes to sentencing guidelines, undermining the Justice Secretary's authority. The situation was preventable if she had supported a previous Bill to restore accountability and empower her control over justice policy. The Lord Chancellor should follow the formula of the Conservative MPs' Bill to address the root cause of an activist legal quango diverging from public and Parliamentary views.

Critiques the proposed sentencing guidelines for immigration offences and questions parliamentary sovereignty. Discusses the Justice Secretary's responsibility regarding two-tier justice and judicial conduct.

Requests clarity on sentences under disputed guidelines, inquires about confidence in Sentencing Council members' conduct, and challenges the implementation of guidance affecting probation services.

Responds to criticism by highlighting past inaction on issues like parliamentary sovereignty. Announces a planned Bill to address problematic guidelines and outlines intentions to review Sentencing Council roles ahead of future legislation.

Acknowledges concerns about ministerial interference with sentencing and judicial independence but emphasises the importance of addressing disparities in the criminal justice system through policy debate in Parliament.

Raises questions on the perceived weakness of judges regarding racial fairness in sentencing. Expresses skepticism about government interference with Sentencing Council guidelines.

Defends against accusations of undermining judicial independence, asserting that addressing disparities is a matter for politicians and Parliament. Promises to work with Members on reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council.

Comments on past failures under previous governments in managing justice issues. Emphasises the importance of pre-sentence reports and calls for fair tackling of disparities in criminal justice to restore public confidence.

Responds to concerns about pre-sentence report availability, highlighting efforts to improve probation capacity. Acknowledges disparities but advocates for evidence-based policy solutions to address them effectively.

Asked the Lord Chancellor to reassure that the Sentencing Council's judicial leadership, independence, and democratic accountability will remain integral under proposed changes in legislation.

Defended the Lord Chancellor's stance on the Sentencing Council, disagreed with the council on matters of policy rather than judicial practice, and committed to a review of the council’s wider role and powers.

Questioned why the Lord Chancellor had not addressed the issue earlier when it was first raised in March. Accused her of having a belated response to an existing problem.

Defended the previous government's stance on the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and criticised Conservative Members for their inconsistent criticism.

Asked if the Lord Chancellor still retains faith in the Sentencing Council members after recent events. Suggested that they should resign due to their actions.

Complimented the Lord Chancellor for taking a step towards ensuring primacy remains with this House, questioned why no action was taken by the Conservatives during their 14 years in power.

Highlighted racial over-representation in prisons and asked for solutions to address evidenced inequality within the criminal justice system.

Congratulated the Lord Chancellor on her victory over the Sentencing Council on fundamental principles of equality before the law. Suggested that those members who strayed into policy should no longer hold their positions.

Asked why the Justice Secretary did not act immediately to stop the imposition of two-tier sentencing and questioned whether demographic changes reflect actual discrimination in the judiciary.

The Honorable Member discussed the importance of diversity in judiciary, reviewed the Sentencing Council’s decisions on pre-sentence reports for pregnant women and new mothers, and provided updates on the Bill to address these issues. She emphasised that courts should have confidence in pre-sentencing reports and highlighted the Government's commitment to reducing female incarceration.

Concerned about the risk pregnant women and new mothers face while in custody, she cited statistics showing they are seven times more likely to experience stillbirths. She welcomed the Lord Chancellor's commitment but pressed for quick implementation of Sentencing Council guidelines.

Welcomed the change in heart by the Sentencing Council regarding pre-sentence reports and questioned why it took efforts from the shadow Justice Secretary to get a response from the Lord Chancellor.

Emphasised that his constituents support equality under the law, regardless of ethnic background. He welcomed the measures introduced by the Justice Secretary and questioned whether pre-sentence reports should be available for all offenders without considering ethnicity.

Asked if the Lady Chief Justice had been rebuked for her letter to the Prime Minister after questioning an absurd judicial decision. He did not receive a direct answer but was assured of positive and constructive conversations with the Chief Justice.

Praised the decisive action taken by the Justice Secretary regarding pre-sentence reports, noting that this Government is taking responsibility rather than farming decisions out to quangos or blaming external factors as previous governments did.

Expressed concern about changes in sentencing guidelines affecting England impacting the UK justice system's consistency and fairness. Asked for reassurances on steps to ensure equity across all jurisdictions regardless of ethnicity, culture or faith.

Acknowledged the Lord Chancellor’s decisive leadership in addressing issues related to pre-sentence reports and emphasised the need for equality before the law. He noted the previous backlog of cases and hollowed-out neighbourhood policing under Tory government.

Questioned why the Lord Chancellor was taking a narrow power regarding pre-sentence reports rather than a general one, noting that other guidelines were below levels agreed upon by Parliament. Pressed for evidence and action.

Challenged the Conservatives about their inaction towards the Sentencing Council since 2010 when they came to power, questioning why they did not address what they now claim as a major issue.

Agreed with Jake Richards about the inaction of Conservatives towards the Sentencing Council since 2010 when they came to power, reinforcing that Parliament is sovereign and will address such issues.

Welcomed the backdown by the Sentencing Council on 'woke' proposals and sought assurances that there would be no dilution of robust principles regarding separation of powers and independence of judiciary.

Thanked the Lord Chancellor for her statement, emphasising the ideal of equality before the law. He attributed the cause of two-tier justice to the Conservative party's mess with the Probation Service.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.