Sentencing Council Guidelines

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 1 April.

“With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, new guidelines from the Sentencing Council on pre-sentence reports have come under scrutiny in recent weeks, specifically on whether an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin should be a factor in their use. This is a question of huge import: whether we all stand equal before the law. That is an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries and an ancient right that each of us in this House has a responsibility to uphold. The new guidelines on the use of pre-sentence reports were due to come into force from today, but in recent weeks I have had constructive talks with the Sentencing Council and I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for that engagement. As a result, I am pleased to tell the House that the guidelines have been put on pause while Parliament rightly has its say.

It is important to first understand how we got into this position. Under the previous Government, the Sentencing Council proposed changes to its imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines, which are concerned with whether a judge should make a community or custodial order when sentencing an offender, and the thresholds for these disposals. When the courts are deciding whether the community order threshold is met, or the custody threshold is met, they are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary to do so. These reports provide more information to the court, helping to provide a greater understanding of the background and context of the offending behaviour. They are a tool at the disposal of judges. The guidelines provide further guidance to courts on how to approach the decision whether to request a pre-sentence report. In this instance, they help them to determine what sentence might best be handed down.

In general, I should be clear, I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports. In the last few months, I have created capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that it has more time for vital work such as this. But the new guidance, if it came into force, would encourage judges to request them for some cohorts of offenders and not others. Specifically, it notes that it would ‘normally be considered necessary’ to request pre-sentence reports for ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. It is important to be clear about the impact that a pre-sentence report is likely to have in this instance: it is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. It is this that creates the perception of differential treatment before the law and risks undermining public confidence in the justice system.

A repeated theme of my engagement with the Sentencing Council over the guidelines has been the intention behind them. It was attempting to address very real inequalities that exist in our justice system—inequalities that are evident in the sentences that offenders receive. It is unclear why this happens, as the Sentencing Council acknowledges. There is no doubt that more must be done to understand the problem we face and to address it. Some measures are already taking place across our justice system to make it more representative of the public that it serves, such that it can deliver outcomes in which we can all have confidence, and I note that the proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.

While change can feel slow and must accelerate, my view is that despite the noble intentions behind these guidelines, in attempting to address inequalities in our justice system they sacrifice too much. They raise a serious question of policy: in the pursuit of equality of outcome for different religions and races, should we treat them differently before the eyes of the law and move so far away from an ideal that has underpinned justice in this country for centuries? On this, I am clear: all must be equal before the law.

I know there will be disagreement in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue. There have been, as I have noted, differences of opinion among the Opposition. I expect that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right honourable Member for Newark, Robert Jenrick, who opposes these guidelines, and the now shadow Transport Secretary, the honourable Member for Orpington, Gareth Bacon, who welcomed them while in office, have been having some robust conversations in recent days.

I doubt, however, that there is any disagreement that this is a question of policy. How the state addresses a systemic and complex issue is clearly the domain of policymakers. It is right that questions like these are discussed and debated here. It is right that the public can hold us to account for the decisions we take and that they can ultimately reward or punish us at the ballot box.

The role of judges is entirely different. They are concerned not with how policy is made but how it is applied. The independence of our judges to make those determinations is fundamental to our justice system. Over centuries they have built a reputation for fairness, making them world-renowned and respected. They are the embodiment of the rule of law in our country. To play that role, they must be able to make decisions on the facts without any outside influence. They must know they have the Government behind them, protecting them as they do that vital work. When I swore my oath as Lord Chancellor, I made a solemn pledge to protect and defend the independence of the judiciary, and I always will. But to do so, it is essential that the boundaries between what is policy and what is judicial decision-making are clear. For that reason, the Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. It is a tightly focused Bill. It does not interfere with the vital work of the council providing guidance to judges on how to sentence offenders. It addresses the issue of when a pre-sentence report should be ordered.

The Bill adopts a targeted approach. It does not prevent council guidance from advising in general terms that pre-sentence reports should be requested when judges need more information about an offender’s personal circumstances. It will remain the case, for example, that where an offender is a victim of domestic abuse, a judge can consider it in deciding whether to order a pre-sentence report. But it prohibits the council from making guidelines about pre-sentence reports with specific reference to the offender’s personal characteristics, such as their race, religion or belief, or cultural background.

The Bill will not affect the court’s existing duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, nor does it change court precedent around them—like the recent case of Thompson, in which the Court of Appeal noted the importance of obtaining a pre-sentence report in cases involving pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; like the case of Meanley, where the court referred to the importance of pre-sentence reports in serious cases involving young defendants; or like the case of Kurmekaj, where the court emphasised the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery as reasons why a pre-sentence report should be ordered. Judges will continue to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would—for example, those involving pregnant women or young people.

I accept that the Bill will, however, raise wider questions about the role of the Sentencing Council. The council does important work bringing greater consistency to judicial decision-making, but we are here discussing a question of policy—a difficult, disputed and uncertain one at that. If the Government cannot determine national policy on the question of equality of treatment before the law, we have uncovered a democratic deficit. The Bill exposes that question but does not address it. The proper role of the Sentencing Council, and the process for making guidelines of this type, must be considered further, and I will do so in the coming months. It is right that this question is considered in greater depth, and should further legislation be required, I shall propose it as part of the upcoming sentencing Bill.

The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the firmament of our justice system, and any changes must be made carefully and with due consideration. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead. The Government will today introduce the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill. The issues it contains are of great consequence because the path to a more equal society can only be paved by equality before the law. Again, I thank the Sentencing Council for putting a pause on its guidelines while Parliament has its say. I believe that we must reverse them and reassert that no race or religion should receive preferential treatment before the law. The Bill we will introduce today will achieve that, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, two days ago, magistrates and judges across England and Wales were, in effect, blindsided. At midday, they were informed that sentencing guidelines that they thought had come into force had in fact been suspended. The courts would have been sentencing offenders under guidelines that the Lord Chancellor herself now admits are fundamentally flawed. These are guidelines which, she has stated, would inflict a “two-tier” system of justice, undermining fairness and consistency in our courts.

In addition, buried in the very email sent to judges and magistrates, the Sentencing Council somewhat audaciously declared that

“we remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate”.

While the Lord Chancellor advised in the other place on Tuesday:

“I believe that we must reverse them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 183.]

So the Lord Chancellor says one thing and the Sentencing Council continues to say another.

This situation was entirely preventable, had the Lord Chancellor put party politics aside weeks ago and backed, rather than blocked, the Bill that my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick introduced in the other place. This Bill would have restored accountability and given the Lord Chancellor the power to govern justice policy. We may welcome the belated introduction of the Lord Chancellor’s Sentencing Council Bill, although I express regret that it had to come to this. However, we should be clear that the proposed Bill does not address the core of the problem, which concerns the status and accountability of the Sentencing Council.

There have already been concerns about other aspects of the Sentencing Council guidelines. Public reference has been made to the guidelines on immigration offences, although I understand that they are debated and indeed disputed. Further concerns have been expressed about guidelines on the provision of bail, where there is particular reference to the priority of ethnic minorities and transgender offenders. That also is a potentially discriminating practice that should not be maintained in our criminal justice system.

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor maintains that this Statement raises issues of principle, that it is about policy being for Parliament and not for judges, and that the Sentencing Council has breached the principle of equality before the law. We hear complaints from the Conservatives in particular—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is no exception to this, and it is unsurprising that I take a different view from him—of judicial overreach and of a two-tier justice system. However, all in this House are committed to equality before the law.

The background to the new proposed guidelines is the wealth of evidence, almost entirely undisputed, that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to be sent to prison than white defendants. Yesterday I mentioned the Lammy review, but there is so much more. This inequality of outcomes must be addressed; it is the very opposite of equality before the law.

Pre-sentence reports are a vital tool that enable judges to take into account the circumstances of an offender as well as the nature of the offence for which he is before the courts. The Lord Chancellor appears to accept that. The only other significant assistance a sentencing judge receives on an offender’s background and circumstances is the speech in mitigation from defence counsel. Although speeches in mitigation are powerful tools, they are made by defence counsel on the instructions of the defendant, so they are neither independently prepared nor impartial. They also cannot generally be independently verified, as pre-sentence reports can.

So we need these reports, and they have long been intended to be the norm not an optional add-on, yet resources for these reports have, in effect, been rationed. The Probation Service was hopelessly mishandled by the last Government, and one result is that there is not enough money to fund the number of pre-sentence reports we need. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, yesterday gave the figures: the number of pre-sentence reports is down by 44% between 2013 and 2023.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points they have made and the questions they have asked. To set the scene, we believe the guidelines, as formerly suggested, risk differential treatment before the law, and that is why we opposed them. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise the guidelines, and it did not do so. The Lord Chancellor introduced legislation a couple of days ago to address the specific issues to which the Government object, and the Sentencing Council has put its guidelines on hold while Parliament has its say on these matters. The Lord Chancellor has gone further than this: she has committed to reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council more broadly and is considering all options. We are grateful to the Sentencing Council for pausing the introduction of the guidelines so that Parliament can have its say on the Bill that has been introduced.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, referred to the Conservative Party’s proposed Bill. We believe that that Bill goes wider than necessary, and the Bill that the Government are putting forward is addressing the specific point within the guidelines to which the Government object, but we acknowledge that there are wider considerations, and that is why my right honourable friend has put in place this wider consideration of the role of the Sentencing Council and its recommendations. I reject the noble and learned Lord’s assertion that magistrates and judges were blindsided. I do not think they were, and I do not think there would have been any inadvertent sentencing. I reject that accusation. I think there is a core problem here, which my right honourable friend has acted swiftly to address.

I agree with a lot of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I was just reflecting that, in my previous role as a magistrate, I would have ordered many hundreds of pre-sentence reports, but I am conscious that, sitting in this Chamber now, there are colleagues who would have ordered many thousands of pre-sentence reports throughout their career. Of course, I agree with the points he made that they are an invaluable tool for anybody seeking to sentence in our criminal courts and that they had been degraded under the previous Government in their use and, to be frank, in the trust they were held in by sentencing magistrates or judges. It is very much the current Government’s intention to increase the number of probation officers—there were 1,300 more last financial year and there will be another 1,000 in the current financial year, and it is very much anticipated that there will be an enhanced role for the probation services as we move forward with future recommendations on sentencing, which are imminent. I agree with the general points that the noble Lord made about the importance of pre-sentence reports, and we want to build on that.

My Lords, I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which was the predecessor to the present Sentencing Council. As the House has heard, a primary role of the Sentencing Council is to promote consistency in sentencing. At present, there is an apparent inconsistency, in that ethnic minority defendants appear, according to statistics, to be receiving more severe sentences than white defendants. The Sentencing Council guideline that is under attack instructs judges to call for a pre-sentence report before sentencing a defendant from this cohort. Might not this guidance be intended to promote consistency of sentencing rather than the contrary? If there is a question as to whether it achieves this object, could this not better be dealt with by discussion rather than legislation?