Equality Before The Law?

[mushroom25]

Of course. but the new guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council today might suggest that some will be more equal than others -

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2023047/Crime-prison-justice-Labour-Keir

The shadow Justice Secretary is calling the new guidelines, a move toward a two-tier approach to the law.

the Lord Chancellor denies this; and yet, the guidelines say what they say, and they do say this:-

A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:

………………………..

·        from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community

read the guidelines here:-

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline/ ;

....Two Tier legal system?

 

[webbo3]

Two tier Keir

[sandyRoe]

I'm sure I read somewhere that non-white offenders are more likely to receive custodial sentences for the same crimes than their white counterparts.

Equality for all under the law would be a wonderful thing.

[Hymie]

These new guidelines mean that if you are British-white, then you are more likely to be imprisoned than those who are in a minority ethnic, cultural or faith groups (for the same offence) – this is because the guidelines advise that those from such groups should have a pre-sentence report.

 

Having a pre-sentence report (for a guilty defendant) means that the judge is more likely to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence.

 

The BlackBeltBarrister explains in this video why he thinks these guidelines are discriminatory – which could lead to claims of unfair sentences being handed down (I never had a pre-sentence report guv [because I’m British-white], for which I cry foul).

 

 

[New Judge]

There is nothing to prevent  judge or Magistrate ordering a pre-sentence report for a white defendant.

In almost all cases in the Crown Court and in cases where custody or a community order is  considered in the Magistrates' Court,  a pre-sentence report would be ordered for all defendants regardless of their ethnicity.

These guidelines make it mandatory for a PSR for the cohorts mentioned unless the court believes it is unnecessary.

I know a thing or two about sentencing practices and I don't see these guidelines making any significant difference.

"Having a pre-sentence report (for a guilty defendant) means that the judge is more likely to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence."

I don't know what the "black belt barrister" says, but that simply isn't true.

[douglas9401]

"...I don't see these guidelines making any significant difference."

Then why bother with it all, just continue as before.

Every tweak brings more suspicion of special treatment and an unknown agenda.

[fender62]

makes me wonder if its some kind of cleandestine labour social engineering like the new word irregular migrants...

[davebro3]

If it prescribes different treatment for different ethnicity/race/creed then it's blatantly discriminatory & should not be allowed - end of.

[youngmafbog]

//I don't see these guidelines making any significant difference.//

Maybe not, so a) why do this and b) what do you think will happen going forward.

However you cut it, this is 2 tier Justice being proposed.

[New Judge]

“Then why bother with it all, just continue as before.”

No idea. Except to say that I believe the "independent" Sentencing Council is far from independent and its membership far from representtive of a  cross section of views.

“If it prescribes different treatment for different ethnicity/race/creed then it's blatantly discriminatory & should not be allowed - end of.”

I agree.

“so a) why do this”

No idea (except as above).

“ ..and b) what do you think will happen going forward.” 

What I would like to see is the justice secretary overrule the Sentencing Council and the guidelines withdrawn. What I think will happen is that the guidance will be quietly accepted.

“However you cut it, this is 2 tier Justice being proposed.”

I agree.

Although I believe it will make no immediate difference, there is scope for the guidance to be “gold plated” by the senior judiciary in the same way as the ECHR has been manipulated.

At present it only says that when dealing with defendants from the listed cohorts, a PSR “will normally be considered necessary”. It is but a short hop from that to them being mandatory. Once a couple of appeals against sentence succeed where a judge did not consider a PSR necessary, the guidance will be amended.

The guidance is unnecessary. Judges and Magistrates are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they need a PSR. This guidance seems to suggest otherwise.