Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill 2025-04-30

Supports a blanket approach where every case has a pre-sentence report for better understanding of individual circumstances, arguing that while it might create backlogs, it could ensure fair sentencing across different cohorts.

Defends the Sentencing Council's intention to provide comprehensive information for judges and magistrates before making sentencing decisions. Criticises the phrasing of the guidelines which Sir Jeremy Wright believes misses the mark.

The Member discussed the importance of pre-sentence reports for sentencers, highlighting concerns about the Sentencing Council's approach. They proposed Amendment 1 to refine the guidelines regarding personal characteristics and suggested that this amendment better aligns with the Government’s aims than the language in the Bill. The speaker also addressed Amendment 3 by another MP, expressing reservations about its scope and impact on judicial independence.

Mr Slaughter expressed regret over how the Bill has been used to undermine judicial independence. He noted that the Bill could have been avoided if the Sentencing Council had postponed implementation of its guideline in response to criticism. Mr Slaughter also mentioned a forthcoming independent sentencing review and subsequent sentencing Bill which may address some of the issues raised by this Bill.

Sir Ashley Fox defended the Government's approach, arguing that the debate was necessary due to an error in judgment by the Sentencing Council and that Amendment 3 offered greater protection from future errors. He questioned whether the Sentencing Council could have avoided the need for legislation if it had been more responsive.

Expressed support for the principle of the Bill, aimed at ensuring equal justice. He spoke in favour of amendments that would give the Justice Secretary power to secure ministerial consent before the Sentencing Council issues any sentencing guidelines concerning pre-sentence reports.

Argued that the Sentencing Council has not suggested treating defendants differently based on ethnicity or religion, but rather aimed to ensure judges and magistrates have maximum information. She disagreed with Sir Ashley Fox's interpretation of the guidelines.

Asked Sir Ashley Fox if he was aware that any defendant before the courts who has no previous convictions, despite the seriousness of the offence, is entitled to a pre-sentence report. He questioned whether this contradicts Sir Ashley's point about treating defendants equally.

Agreed with Sir Ashley Fox that making distinctions based on race and religion in sentencing guidance is problematic. He highlighted that the guidelines initially proposed considering these factors, which could lead to differential treatment of defendants.

Agrees with the need for equality before the law, citing statistics showing racial disparities in prison populations. Expresses concern about a rushed Bill undermining the Sentencing Council and judiciary independence. Emphasises institutional racism issues and supports guidelines put forward by the Sentencing Council.

Supports the notion of equality before the law being undermined by the Bill. Criticises the Bill's process, substance, and intent, arguing it interferes with independent judicial guidelines. Concerned about systemic racism and prejudice affecting the criminal justice system.

Concerned that the guidance entrenches racism by picking out identity of a religion or minority, contrary to the aim of not wanting to see this situation made worse. Supports the government position against such guidelines.

Supports concerns raised by Mother of the House, agrees guidelines should be trialled rather than rushed into. Cites Lord Justice William Davis's warning about disparities in sentencing and argues that pre-sentence reports are crucial for understanding background and circumstances of offenders to establish pathways to rehabilitation.

Acknowledges disparities but supports the Bill, arguing that political decisions should be made by politicians in Parliament. Believes amendment 3 would undermine judicial independence and equality before the law.

Supports universal use of pre-sentence reports to inform sentencing, citing under-investment in Probation Service as a reason for reduced number of reports. Welcomes Minister's agreement on moving towards universality.

Dr Evans questions the financial implications of universal pre-sentence reports, asking about costs and whether the Liberal Democrats have calculated them.

Mr Khan criticises the vilification of judges by Members of this House and suggests that Conservative members should also be held accountable for their conduct during consultations under the previous government.

Ms Berry expresses concerns about delays in implementing beneficial parts of new sentencing guidelines, questioning whether a delay would cause harm to victims and families.

Argues for amendments to prohibit sentencing guidelines from considering a defendant’s status as part of a group with historical trauma. He emphasises the need for individual accountability before the law, arguing against identity politics influencing judicial processes.

Questions the Minister about ensuring probation has capacity to complete pre-sentence reports when required, highlighting the importance of these reports in addressing offending behaviour and reducing reoffending rates. She expresses concern over current staffing shortages.

Questions whether there is a difference between current guidelines and proposed Bill provisions regarding pregnant women. Asks for clarification on how Thompson case applies to sentencers under the new Bill.

Clarifies that Thompson case remains applicable but Sentencing Council should not make recommendations after the passage of the Bill. Emphasises need for a thorough review of Sentencing Council's role and powers.

Argues that if there is a risk of democratic deficit, action should be taken immediately to address it.

The Labour MP criticised the Government's approach, stating that they missed an opportunity to restore democratic accountability through the private Member’s Bill. Dr Mullan emphasised the need for proper action and argued that the current legislation is inadequate as it does not fully address judicial activism issues. He cited Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture on the separation of law and politics to illustrate his point.