.png)
4 hours ago
1
Good morning. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has been accused by a Labour peer and prominent KC of “Trumpism”. Perhaps that is not surprising. But, in an interview on the Today programme this morning Helena Kennedy suggested that the accusation also applied to her Labour colleague, the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood. This is the latest development in a row that started when the Sentencing Council published new guidelines, taking effect from April. These say that, for certain types of offenders, a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary for offenders in certain categories.
In the Commons yesterday, during a statement about court sitting days, Jenrick asked about the new guidelines. Because reading a pre-sentence report often leads to a judge giving a reduced sentence (because it might explain mitigating factors in considerable detail), Jenrick said:
Why is the justice secretary enshrining this double standard—this two-tier approach to sentencing? It is an inversion of the rule of law. Conservative members believe in equality under the law; why does she not?
The phrase “two-tier approach” elevated this from what might otherwise have been an arcane policy row into Daily Mail splash material. The allegation that Britain runs a two-tier justice system biased against white people has become a popular rightwing allegation that circulates very widely on social media, partly because it can be applied to various stories (the policing of Gaza protests, the treatment of non-crime hate incidents, grooming gangs) and partly because you can rhyme two-tier with Keir.
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, could spot the danger, and in her reply to Jenrick she said:
As somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch or under this Labour government.
Later in the day, as it became clear that the story was not going away Mahmood announced that she would be writing to the Sententing Council to “register my displeasure” and “recommend reversing this change to the guidance”. She said:
The Sentencing Council is entirely independent. These guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government.
But, because Mahmood does not seem to have the power to order the Sentencing Council to change the guidelines, Jenrick has been on the airwaves escalating his claim that Labour is over-seeing a “two-tier” justice system. He does not seem to have been deterred by interviewers pointing out that the Sentencing Council published these guidelines following a consultating that took place when the Conservatives were in power.
Speaking to Times Radio, Jenrick claimed Christian, white men were being penalised.
What worries me about these sentencing guidelines [is] … they say that you are less likely to get a custodial sentence because your case would be handled through a pre-sentencing report commissioned by a judge, if you’re a woman, if you’re trans, if you’re neurodiverse, if you’re an ethnic minority, if you’re from a minority faith group, which presumably means anyone who isn’t Christian.
Essentially Christian and straight white men, amongst other groups, will be treated differently to the rest of society.
Speaking on the Today programme, Kennedy said a “well informed court” would always provide a better outcome. She also said that a two-tier system of justice was already in place, because some groups are disproprotionately likely to receive custodial sentences than others. The Sentencing Council guidelines are intended to address this.
Kennedy went on:
The real issue is, the system at the moment, all the evidence shows that it’s disproportionately doing unfairness to certain sections of our society.
Women are certainly in that category. Young people from ethnic minorities are in that category. And so a court knowing more about them is a good thing.
Now, the independent Sentencing Council is made up of very, very skilled people from different backgrounds, and the research, the evidence, is there.
Do we want better outcomes in our courts? Of course, we do. Do we want them for all? Yes.
But this is Jenrick introducing Trumpism into our system.
When it was put to Kennedy that the justice secretary agrees with Jenrick on this, Kennedy said she was “very disappointed” by her Mahmood’s response. That seemed to be “a step back”, she said. She went on:
This is about wokeness. They want to say this is about being woke. It’s not. It’s about basing the system on real evidence of where there are failures, and knowing more helps to get better outcomes.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Keir Starmer and Micheál Martin, the taoiseach (Irish PM), attend the UK-Ireland summit.
9.30am: Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, takes questions in the Commons.
After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, makes a statement on next week’s Commons business.
Late morning: Starmer is due to make a defence-related visit in the north-west of England where he will speak to the media.
Lunchtime: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is expected to speak to broadcasters on a visit.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
