The legislature clearly want a role with the new guideline. Here it is. A big change is to ditch the guidance on the number of requirements at each level of community order. The norm of ‘1’ at low level and ‘2 or more’ at high level goes on Tuesday. Instead, rehabilitative requirements will fit need rather than number. Understandable, but the problem is the outdated Grayling legislation from 2013 to also add a punitive requirement into every community order.
We face overloaded orders with a banner headline of 'punishment'. Direct conflict with the court’s selection of a rehabilitative purpose … and inevitably more custodial sentences on breach. S.208(10) Sentencing Act 2020 needs to be repealed for this guideline to work fairly.
I very much agree with earlier contributors. Alisdair’s reference to Jenrick’s timer is especially telling but then Paul Stockton puts more crisply some of my earlier observations: with so much legitimately going on and demanding attention for both PM and Justice Secretary why has each of them allowed themselves to be blown off course -as we can hope temporarily- by a shallow opportunist like Shabana Mahmood’s Shadow counterpart? Incidentally, qua solicitor which field did Mr. J practise in, I wonder ?
It is beyond me why the LC and the PM have risen to the bait on this. Surely they have better and more important things to do, than pick a pointless fight with the judiciary just because a chancer like Robert Jenrick has said something
Jenrick has a countdown timer on his X site which counts down in days, minutes and seconds until the time at which "Two-Tier justice under Two-Tier Kier comes into force". No mention, of course, about the fact that the Conservative party were consulted on this. The idea that someone who aspires to be the next Lord Chancellor could think a timer on X, specifically designed to inflame tensions, is in any way serious tells us everything we need to know.
There is an interesting article by Yuan Yi Zhu on page 9 of the latest issue (Issue 56, April 2025) of 'The Critic' magazine, "The road to two-tier justice", commenting on this public spat and setting out the background to the creation of the Sentencing Council, concluding that "the cumulative end result is a loss of trust in the criminal justice system." Such trust is surely undermined by those politicians, such as Robert Jenrick, whose Wikipedia biography shows that he has scant regard for the rule of law and makes, what Michael Hocken in his comment (below), calls "ill-informed and populist remarks".
I entirely agree with your conclusion. The irritation felt by the Sentencing Council about the ill-informed and populist remarks by the Shadow Lord Chancellor/SoS shines through in Sir William’s dignified response to Ms Mahmood.
What is most dispiriting is the way that this spat has occluded the careful and deliberate attempt by the SC to address the apparent injustice currently faced by the identified but not exclusive cohorts in terms of sentencing outcomes, and the suggestion that specific sentencing reports may assist sentencers in that respect.
Lastly, could you please clarify something I have wondered about? Was Ms Mahmood responding here as SoS or as Lord Chancellor? And where does the line fall (if at all)?
Since 2003 the lord chancellor has also been a secretary of state. By statute, some powers must be exercised by the lord chancellor and others may be exercised by a secretary of state. Schedule 15 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 says the non-judicial members of the Sentencing Council are appointed by the "lord chancellor". But I don't think it makes any difference in practice.
The legislature clearly want a role with the new guideline. Here it is. A big change is to ditch the guidance on the number of requirements at each level of community order. The norm of ‘1’ at low level and ‘2 or more’ at high level goes on Tuesday. Instead, rehabilitative requirements will fit need rather than number. Understandable, but the problem is the outdated Grayling legislation from 2013 to also add a punitive requirement into every community order.
We face overloaded orders with a banner headline of 'punishment'. Direct conflict with the court’s selection of a rehabilitative purpose … and inevitably more custodial sentences on breach. S.208(10) Sentencing Act 2020 needs to be repealed for this guideline to work fairly.
I very much agree with earlier contributors. Alisdair’s reference to Jenrick’s timer is especially telling but then Paul Stockton puts more crisply some of my earlier observations: with so much legitimately going on and demanding attention for both PM and Justice Secretary why has each of them allowed themselves to be blown off course -as we can hope temporarily- by a shallow opportunist like Shabana Mahmood’s Shadow counterpart? Incidentally, qua solicitor which field did Mr. J practise in, I wonder ?
It is beyond me why the LC and the PM have risen to the bait on this. Surely they have better and more important things to do, than pick a pointless fight with the judiciary just because a chancer like Robert Jenrick has said something
Jenrick has a countdown timer on his X site which counts down in days, minutes and seconds until the time at which "Two-Tier justice under Two-Tier Kier comes into force". No mention, of course, about the fact that the Conservative party were consulted on this. The idea that someone who aspires to be the next Lord Chancellor could think a timer on X, specifically designed to inflame tensions, is in any way serious tells us everything we need to know.
There is an interesting article by Yuan Yi Zhu on page 9 of the latest issue (Issue 56, April 2025) of 'The Critic' magazine, "The road to two-tier justice", commenting on this public spat and setting out the background to the creation of the Sentencing Council, concluding that "the cumulative end result is a loss of trust in the criminal justice system." Such trust is surely undermined by those politicians, such as Robert Jenrick, whose Wikipedia biography shows that he has scant regard for the rule of law and makes, what Michael Hocken in his comment (below), calls "ill-informed and populist remarks".
I entirely agree with your conclusion. The irritation felt by the Sentencing Council about the ill-informed and populist remarks by the Shadow Lord Chancellor/SoS shines through in Sir William’s dignified response to Ms Mahmood.
What is most dispiriting is the way that this spat has occluded the careful and deliberate attempt by the SC to address the apparent injustice currently faced by the identified but not exclusive cohorts in terms of sentencing outcomes, and the suggestion that specific sentencing reports may assist sentencers in that respect.
Lastly, could you please clarify something I have wondered about? Was Ms Mahmood responding here as SoS or as Lord Chancellor? And where does the line fall (if at all)?
Since 2003 the lord chancellor has also been a secretary of state. By statute, some powers must be exercised by the lord chancellor and others may be exercised by a secretary of state. Schedule 15 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 says the non-judicial members of the Sentencing Council are appointed by the "lord chancellor". But I don't think it makes any difference in practice.