Judicial Inequality? New Sentencing Rules in Britain Tougher on White Males: Update Added
The British Sentencing Council, established in 2010, provides sentencing guidelines—including prison terms and community punishments—for judges and magistrates in England and Wales. These guidelines are expected to be followed unless there are extenuating circumstances, according to British media outlet GB News.
Earlier this month, the Sentencing Council issued new guidelines introducing harsher penalties for white males over the age of 25 compared to individuals from ethnic, religious, or other minority groups, including women—particularly pregnant women. The Council argued that the change was intended to “remedy a ‘disparity in sentence outcomes’ between white and non-white offenders,” as per the BBC.
The new rules are set to take effect on April 1.
Even Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledges that the Council is promoting a two-tier justice system. Several days after the Council announced this major change, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood formally urged them to reconsider. On Friday, she was informed of the group’s decision: the guidelines “did not require revision.”
The BBC reported that Starmer was “disappointed” by the Council’s decision and that “all options” were on the table, “including passing legislation to block the changes.”
But shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, a vocal opponent of the new guidance, said the threat to legislate was “too little too late”.”From Tuesday, [Mahmood] will preside over a sentencing system she conceded is two-tier,” he added.
Noting that while the prime minister cannot overrule the Council’s decision, he can “scrap” it, GB News political editor Christopher Hope said he’d asked Starmer twice why he has not done so. Hope reported:
The judges now are looking back at the elected politicians here, both Sir Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood, who is the justice secretary, and saying, ‘I’m afraid to say, these are what’s gonna happen.’ And from Tuesday, this is what will happen. Judges will prepare presentencing reports where necessary, and if someone is of ethnic, cultural, or faith minority, or a young person under 25, or a woman or a pregnant woman, they will get a special sentencing report.
Normally, those presentencing reports do mean that the sentence is mitigated. Time is taken off the jail term, for example. What it means, though, is that white men are going to be treated a lot tougher by Tuesday compared to other groups in society.And that is unacceptable to the prime minister. I said twice ‘would you scrap the Sentencing Council?’ He said, ‘All options are open.’
Mahmood issued a statement which read (in part):
I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent clear, differential treatment under which someone’s outcomes may be influenced by their race, color, or religion. This is unacceptable and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week.I’m extremely disappointed by the Council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.
“The question now,” Hope asked, “is can they legislate by Tuesday? The answer surely is not. It will take months and months and in that period, there will be a lot of uncertainty for white men in front of the judges.”
First, while the specific issues differ, the underlying situation is strikingly similar to what is happening in the U.S., where unelected district court judges are interfering in foreign policy decisions.
Second, Hope describes the consequences of unelected officials attempting to override the authority of elected leaders with a single word: uncertainty.
But most notable of all, these so-called progressive figures believe that justice should not be applied equally but rather determined by an individual’s race, religion, or gender. This decision is blatantly racist, bigoted, and sexist.
The Council’s ruling upends the principle of “equal justice under law,” which has been the bedrock of legal systems throughout the world for centuries.
As Hope reported, Starmer cannot directly overrule the Sentencing Council, but he does have the authority to “scrap it” entirely.
While the British justice system differs from ours in many ways, it is still rooted in the rule of law—and these new sentencing guidelines appear to be a blatant violation of that principle.
This isn’t justice; it’s madness.
As I see it, Starmer has only one option: he must abolish the Sentencing Council immediately.
Update: March 31 – 8:48 p.m.
Sky News reported late Monday afternoon that the sentencing guidelines have been delayed due to the backlash. Article can be viewed here.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY