.png)
1 week ago
14
Regarding your article (Lawyers attack dangerous decision to halt Sentencing Council guidelines, 1 April), David Lammy, in his 2017 review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals in the criminal justice system, said: “The analysis published by the MoJ in 2016 highlights a potential risk in this process: a significant proportion of decisions made within a sentencing judge’s discretion, may result in that discretion being exercised in one direction for BAME defendants (a longer sentence) and in the other direction for White defendants (a shorter sentence).”
He also said: “Sentencing decisions need greater scrutiny, but judges must also be equipped with the information they need. It is the role of the Probation Service to provide judges with pre-sentence reports … These reports … may be particularly important for shedding light on individuals from backgrounds unfamiliar to the judge.”
As the Sentencing Council rightly points out: “The judge will be better equipped to do that if they have as much information as possible about the offender. The cohort of ethnic, cultural and faith minority groups may be a cohort about which judges and magistrates are less well informed.”
Today, only 11% of judges are from a declared ethnic minority. Of those, only 1% are Black. The latter statistic has not improved in 15 years. Nothing has changed since the Lammy review. There will be no reduction in disparity unless there is a will, divorced from politics, to address racial disparities and negative bias wherever they may occur, consciously or otherwise.
For Black and ethnic minority populations, two-tier policing and sentencing has always existed, just not in the direction that the justice minister and the opposition appear to believe.
Cordella Bart-Stewart
Co-founder and director, Black Solicitors Network
I am a criminal defence solicitor representing a young mother, and the government’s latest move could have catastrophic consequences for my client and her baby (Labour’s populist pantomime over sentencing rules plays into the hands of the right, 1 April). The new sentencing guideline took account of current medical, legal and psychological consensus on the dangers of prison for pregnant women and its disproportionate impact on their dependent children.
Following the hard work of campaigners and practitioners, we at last saw a move in the right direction – to prioritise the rehabilitation of offenders without inflicting unnecessary, long-lasting harm on children or unborn babies.
It is extremely troubling that Shabana Mahmood would choose to spend her time as justice secretary seizing the one positive change in the criminal justice system as the battleground for her culture war. Meanwhile, the prison overpopulation crisis continues to deepen, along with the crown court case backlog.
Before waging war against the Sentencing Council, Mahmood should have at least understood the purpose of pre-sentence reports. They don’t lead to lower sentences, they simply provide additional information to judges before they can choose the appropriate sentence. In practice, this often leads to a harsher punishment.
I represent a young woman due to be sentenced next month after pleading guilty to supplying drugs. She spent the majority of her pregnancy in prison and was released on bail just before giving birth. Since then, she has turned her life around, she is working and is raising a healthy, happy baby. The new sentencing guideline, which took into account the devastating impact of mother-infant separation, would have directed courts to prioritise a community-based sentence for her. In the absence of this, she may well go to prison. The justice secretary’s political point-scoring has devastating consequences.
Francesca Cociani
London
