Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The Sentencing Council is preparing to suspend the introduction of guidelines criticised as leading to a “two-tier” justice system following a row with Downing Street, according to people familiar with its plans.
The body is expected to delay contentious guidelines for judges to request pre-sentence reports for offenders from particular backgrounds, just hours before they were due to be implemented.
The council had previously rebuffed ministers’ pleas to abandon the new guidelines, insisting last week that they “did not require revision” given they had already been subject to a “full public consultation”.
No 10 warned it was planning to press ahead with introducing fast-track legislation on Tuesday to override the independent body, but had admitted even an expedited bill could not be passed into law before parliament rose for Easter.
The council felt there was no point in introducing guidelines that would imminently be reversed and that could lead to greater confusion, according to people briefed on its thinking. The Sentencing Council declined to comment.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had repeatedly voiced his opposition to the sentencing council’s new guidance and was “disappointed” the body had not shelved it, his spokesperson said earlier on Monday.
The Labour leader had not ruled out abolishing the body altogether, his spokesman signalled, confirming that ministers “want to look at the role of the Sentencing Council”.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been among the most outspoken critics of the guidelines, under which judges are advised that pre-sentence reports should normally be deemed necessary for individuals from particular backgrounds. These include those with a minority ethnic, cultural and faith minority background, as well as young adults and women.
The reports are prepared by probation officers to assist the court in determining sentences and include information about the offender’s background and circumstances. Critics claim the guidelines would result in preferential treatment for certain offenders.
