⚖️ Sentencing Council Guidelines

• The Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, announced a pause on new Sentencing Council guidelines on pre-sentence reports after discussions with the council due to widespread concerns. These guidelines, initially set to take effect, were criticized for considering an offender’s race, religion, or cultural background in sentencing decisions.

• The paused guidelines aimed to address systemic inequalities in the justice system but risked undermining public confidence by potentially treating offenders differently based on their personal characteristics. The Lord Chancellor stressed the importance of equality before the law.

• A new bill, the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill, is being introduced to clarify that pre-sentence reports should not be subject to guidelines based on an offender’s race, religion, or cultural background. This aims to maintain judicial discretion while ensuring equality.

• Critics, including opposition members, accused the government of mishandling the situation and losing control over the justice system. They demanded accountability and questioned the Lord Chancellor’s authority and confidence in the Sentencing Council leadership.

• Defenders of the guidelines, including some from the government benches, emphasized the need to tackle evidenced inequality within the justice system but suggested that the method proposed by the Sentencing Council was flawed.

• The discussion also highlighted broader issues like prison overcrowding, reoffending rates, and the impact of previous government policies on the justice system, including the privatization and subsequent renationalization of the Probation Service.

• There was a debate on judicial independence versus parliamentary sovereignty, with the Lord Chancellor asserting that policy decisions should remain within the realm of elected representatives, while the independence of the judiciary must be protected.

• The government committed to further review the role and powers of the Sentencing Council in upcoming legislation, aiming to address any democratic deficits and ensure that sentencing guidelines align with parliamentary intent and public confidence.

• There was also mention of specific groups, such as pregnant women and ethnic minorities, whose circumstances should be considered in sentencing but not through a lens that undermines equal treatment before the law.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, mainly centered around the policy and implementation of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines on pre-sentence reports, and the broader role of the Judiciary. The disagreements are evident from various perspectives and primarily between the ruling party and the opposition, as well as among different political groups. Here is a detailed explanation:

1. Disagreement between the Government and Opposition: The session opens with a clear disagreement between the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, and the Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick. Jenrick criticizes the handling of the situation, suggesting that the Lord Chancellor’s response was too late and ineffective, stating that ‘The Lord Chancellor must be living in a parallel universe if she is giving herself a pat on the back today.’ This highlights a direct clash on the timeliness and efficacy of governmental action.

2. Policy and Judicial Independence Debate: There is a significant debate over the balance between policy-making and judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor emphasizes that the new guidelines raise a policy question that Parliament should handle, not the judiciary. This contradicts views expressed by members like Ms. Diane Abbott and Andy Slaughter, who argue for the independence of the Sentencing Council and its judicial nature. This disagreement touches on fundamental principles of the separation of powers.

3. Critique of the Sentencing Council and its Members: The session also shows disagreements about the Sentencing Council itself. Sir John Hayes, from the opposition, calls for the resignation of Sentencing Council members, suggesting they overstep into policy domains, which contradicts the Lord Chancellor’s intent not to make it a personal debate.

4. Views on Equality Before the Law: There is a recurring contention about equality before the law, with the Lord Chancellor emphasizing that the principle should not be compromised, while members like Josh Babarinde argue for a more nuanced approach considering personal contexts in sentencing. This reflects differing views on how equality should be interpreted and applied in the criminal justice system.

5. Historical Accountability and Policy Positions: Additionally, there is clear disagreement about historical accountability and previous government policies. Various members from the ruling party criticize the previous Conservative government for inaction on issues related to the Sentencing Council over 14 years, while the opposition fails to address these criticisms directly, further illustrating policy disagreement over time.

Examples of the disagreements include: - Robert Jenrick’s accusation of the Lord Chancellor’s inaction and the resulting ‘two-tier justice.’ - Ms. Diane Abbott’s concerns about judicial independence being affected by the proposed Bill. - Josh Babarinde’s advocacy for greater consideration of individual contexts in sentencing decisions. - Sir John Hayes’ critique of the Sentencing Council and demand for resignations.

Overall, while the session does show significant disagreement, it is not characterized by extreme polarization or hostility, leading to a rating of 3.