The Two-Tier Justice Sham: A Betrayal of Equality Under the Law

 

Tomorrow, April 1, 2025, England and Wales will officially descend into a legal abyss with the implementation of new sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council. These rules, cloaked as progressive reform, enshrine a two-tier justice system that undermines the bedrock principle of equality before the law. Ethnic minorities, women, young adults, and other designated groups will receive preferential treatment—potentially lighter sentences and earlier bail—while others, implicitly white men, face the full weight of judicial consequence. This is not justice; it’s discrimination dressed up as fairness, and it’s a disgrace to a nation that once prided itself on impartiality.

 

The Issues: Leniency and Bail Bias

The new guidelines mandate that judges “normally consider” pre-sentence reports (PSRs) for offenders from ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities, as well as women, pregnant women, and young adults aged 18-25, before deciding on custody. These reports, compiled by the probation service, often highlight mitigating factors that can sway courts toward suspended sentences or community orders instead of prison time. The Sentencing Council claims this addresses “disparities in sentencing outcomes,” citing evidence that ethnic minorities receive longer sentences on average. 

 

But the solution—systematically favouring certain groups—creates a perverse incentive: commit a crime, claim a protected status, and dodge the jail cell.

 

Worse still, a leaked document reported by The Telegraph reveals that ethnic minority suspects are now to be prioritised for bail, with judges advised to consider “historical trauma” in their decisions. This vague, emotive term invites subjective leniency, tilting the scales further. Imagine two identical crimes: one perpetrator, a white male, languishes in custody; the other, from an ethnic minority, walks free on bail, citing ancestral grievances. This isn’t hypothetical—it’s the framework taking effect tomorrow. The message is clear: your punishment depends not just on what you did, but on who you are.

 

Past Controversies: A Track Record of Missteps

This isn’t the Sentencing Council’s first flirtation with controversy. In 2024, it introduced guidance urging judges to consider “deprived” or “difficult” backgrounds—poverty, poor schooling, discrimination—as mitigating factors. Critics, including then-Justice Secretary Alex Chalk, blasted it as “patronising” and warned it risked excusing criminality with socioeconomic sob stories. The council ploughed ahead regardless, ignoring dissent from the government it ostensibly serves. Now, it doubles down with an explicit focus on ethnicity and gender, amplifying the same flawed logic: personal circumstances should trump accountability.

 

The council’s history reeks of overreach. Its 2011 guidelines on drug offences were accused of softening penalties for mules and low-level dealers, prompting outrage from victims’ groups who saw dangerous offenders slip through the cracks. In 2017, its push for community sentences over short prison terms drew fire for prioritising rehabilitation over public safety—a noble idea until you’re the one mugged by a repeat offender. Each time, the council cloaks its decisions in data and platitudes, dismissing critics as unenlightened. Tomorrow’s guidelines are just the latest chapter in this saga of self-righteous meddling.

 

The Panel: Who Are These People?

Who sits on this unelected body dictating justice? The Sentencing Council’s current members include:

• Lord Justice William Davis (Chairman): A senior judge with a career steeped in establishment respectability, Davis has defended the new guidelines with a straight face, insisting they don’t mandate leniency—just “better information.” Yet his tenure as deputy head of the Criminal Bar Association saw him dodge controversy over legal aid cuts, raising questions about his spine under pressure.
• Claire Fielder: A district judge with a low profile, Fielder’s past is unmarred by public scandal—but her silence on these divisive guidelines suggests either complicity or cowardice.
• Diana Fawcett: Chief Executive of Victim Support, Fawcett’s advocacy for victims should make her a sceptic of leniency. Yet her presence on the council hasn’t tempered its drift toward offender-centric policies. Why the disconnect?
• Max Hill KC: Former Director of Public Prosecutions (2018-2023), Hill oversaw a CPS criticised for dropping cases amid court backlogs and for perceived leniency in high-profile riots. His track record hardly inspires confidence in resisting woke judicial trends.
• Professor Mandeep Dhami: An academic with a focus on decision-making, Dhami’s research into sentencing disparities fuels the council’s obsession with identity-based outcomes. Her influence reeks of ivory-tower idealism detached from street-level reality.

These individuals—judges, bureaucrats, and academics—wield immense power with little accountability. Their pasts, while not always scandal-ridden, reveal a collective tendency to favour theory over pragmatism, offenders over victims. Why are they allowed to rewrite justice unchecked?

 

The Attorney General’s Inaction: A Dereliction of Duty

Where is Attorney General Lord Hermer in all this? His office has the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme. Yet he’s been deafeningly silent as the Sentencing Council steamrolls toward tomorrow’s deadline. Historical data shows ethnic minorities already face longer sentences—why hasn’t he intervened to ensure consistency rather than letting this divisive fix proceed? His predecessor, Victoria Prentis, flexed this muscle in 2023 to toughen sentences for rioters. Hermer’s inertia suggests either incompetence or ideological alignment with the council’s agenda. Neither is acceptable.

 

Why Does the Sentencing Council Even Exist?

The Sentencing Council was birthed in 2010 under the Coroners and Justice Act, tasked with promoting consistency in sentencing while “increasing public understanding.” It’s failed miserably at both. Its guidelines breed confusion, not clarity—witness the public uproar over “two-tier justice” on X and beyond. Judges already have discretion; why layer on a quasi-governmental body to nudge them toward predetermined outcomes? The council’s independence is a sham—it’s sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, yet defies the Justice Secretary’s pleas to rethink this mess. It’s a rogue entity, answerable to no one, peddling social engineering under the guise of fairness.

 

Why Hasn’t the Government Abolished It?

The bigger question: why does the Labour government tolerate this? 

 

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has huffed and puffed, threatening emergency legislation to block the guidelines. Too little, too late—tomorrow, they take effect. Sir Keir Starmer, dubbed “Two-Tier Keir” by critics, claims disappointment but dithers on decisive action. The Tories, when in power, consulted on these changes in 2023-2024 and raised no objections—exposing their own cowardice. Neither party has the guts to dismantle this Frankenstein’s monster. Abolishing the Sentencing Council would restore judicial autonomy and public trust. Instead, both sides play politics while the rule of law erodes.

 

The Verdict

Tomorrow’s two-tier justice system is a betrayal of every citizen who believes in equality under the law. Lenient sentences for some, bail priority for others—it’s a recipe for resentment and chaos. The Sentencing Council’s track record proves it’s unfit for purpose, its members too entrenched or timid to challenge the rot. The Attorney General’s silence is indefensible, and the government’s failure to scrap this body is a scandal. If justice isn’t blind, it’s not justice—it’s favouritism. On April 1, 2025, Britain takes a dark step toward that abyss. We deserve better.