Critics Slam Conservative Plan to Dismantle Sentencing Council

CoinZn A recent initiative by the Conservative Party to dissolve the judge-led Sentencing Council and transfer its responsibilities to the Ministry of Justice has sparked significant backlash. Former Tory ministers have labeled the proposal as 'bonkers,' 'unimplementable,' and 'potentially dangerous.'

On Tuesday, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick is set to declare that a future Conservative administration would eliminate the independent public body that establishes guidelines for judges and magistrates in England and Wales, citing it as 'not fit for purpose.'

Several former Conservative ministers, who possess considerable insight into the UK criminal justice system, voiced their incredulity at Jenrick's plan. They argue that the changes would exacerbate the overcrowding crisis in prisons, escalate sentences, and jeopardize the stability of the entire criminal justice system.

In Jenrick's framework, the responsibility for determining sentencing policy would shift to lord chancellors. He claims this adjustment is necessary as the UK is 'slipping into a two-tier nightmare under Keir Starmer.' Jenrick will attribute the council's guidelines for diluting sentences prescribed by parliament for serious offenses.

Critics Slam Conservative Plan to Dismantle Sentencing Council This initiative extends beyond the recent modifications introduced by former Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, which addressed concerns about 'two-tier sentencing.' In the previous month, the Labour government revised regulations to mandate that new court guidelines must receive approval from both the justice secretary and the lady chief justice.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve expressed strong disapproval, stating, 'This is bonkers. Sentences have been rising in recent years, and there is no prison capacity left. The Sentencing Council has done good work in providing consistency, even if it may not be perfect. The [Jenrick] proposal is the cheapest form of politics, as he must know it is unimplementable.'

Regulation Bob Neill, a former chair of the Commons’ justice select committee, echoed Grieve's concerns, labeling the policy as 'very unwise and potentially dangerous.' Another former Conservative minister remarked, 'This is a policy that has not been thought through. It fails to understand the role the Sentencing Council performs and is in response to a proposal that has been withdrawn. The consequence might be longer sentences, but there isn’t the prison space for more prisoners.'

The Sentencing Council was established by the government of Gordon Brown in 2010 with the intention of preventing the politicization of sentencing guidelines. Its purpose is to facilitate expert, considered judgments regarding appropriate sentencing ranges. Comprising eight judicial members and six laypeople, the council generates guidelines aimed at enhancing consistency in sentencing, although these guidelines are not legally binding and operate within parameters set by Parliament.

During the conference in Manchester, Jenrick is anticipated to state, 'The public are sick of voting for tougher sentences and getting the opposite. So in future, the justice secretary, accountable to parliament, will be responsible for setting sentencing policy. No longer will an unaccountable quango be able to subvert the will of the British people for criminals to be properly punished.'

https://coinzn.org/ As the Conservative Party moves forward with this controversial proposal, the ramifications for the UK criminal justice system remain to be seen. Critics warn that dismantling the Sentencing Council could have dire consequences, leading to longer sentences without the necessary infrastructure to accommodate them, thereby straining an already overwhelmed prison system.

The debate over the future of sentencing guidelines in the UK is poised to intensify as the Conservative plan unfolds. With significant concerns raised by legal experts and former ministers, the implications for justice and public safety will be closely monitored. As the conversation progresses, it is crucial for policymakers to consider the established frameworks and the potential fallout from such sweeping changes.