Proposals by the Conservatives to scrap the judge-led Sentencing Council and to hand its powers in the hands of ministers have been described as ‘cynical gimmick’ and ‘bonkers’. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, fresh from accusations of ‘stoking divisions’ over comments about the lack of ‘white faces’ in Handsworth, is expected to say the 14-member Sentencing Council is ‘not fit for purpose’. He also is expected to publish a ‘dossier’ of some 30-plus so-called ‘activist’ judges who have volunteered for groups supporting refugees or posted supportive messages on social media.
The issue surfaced earlier in the year when the body, which sets out recommendations to courts in England and Wales, advised pre-sentence reports (PSR) would ‘normally be considered necessary’ before sentencing a criminal from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. Whilst the council is independent of government, the then Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood expressed her ‘displeasure’, saying: ‘I do not stand for differential treatment before the law like this.’ She called for the guidance to be reversed and changed the rules so new guidelines must be signed off by the justice secretary and the lady chief justice.
Jenrick, widely thought to be on manoeuvres to be Conservative party leader, told Sky News that the call was evidence of ‘two-tier justice’. ‘To me, this seems like blatant bias, particularly against Christians, and against straight white men,’ he said.
In a speech today at the Tory Party conference in Manchester, he is expected to accuse the Sentencing Council of watering down sentences. According to the BBC News: ‘All too frequently the law is not applied equally. No more – every single person in this country must be treated exactly the same, regardless of their background. The public are sick of voting for tougher sentences and getting the opposite.’
The shadow justice minister is also expected to target ‘activist’ judges with a ‘pro-migration bias’. According to the Express, Jenrick will claim there is a ‘hidden network’ of ‘activist judges subverting the independence of the judiciary’. He is expected to talk of ‘a dossier naming more than 30 full-time and part-time judges who he claims previously volunteered assistance or handed out free legal services for open-border organisations’. Apparently, ‘some have carried on posting comments backing open borders’ on social media since taking up their judicial positions.
Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, told the Guardian Jenrick’s proposals were ‘bonkers’. ‘Sentences have been rising in recent years and there is no prison capacity left. The Sentencing Council has done good work in providing consistency even if it may not be perfect.’ He called the plan ‘the cheapest form of politics as he must know it is unimplementable.’
Sir Bob Neill, the former chair of the House of Commons’ justice select committee , said the policy was ‘very unwise and potentially dangerous’.
A Labour spokesperson dismissed the proposal as ‘just another cynical gimmick from Jenrick, a man who constantly undermines the independence of the judiciary just to further his own career’.
