‘Softer sentencing’ for minorities was based on David Lammy report
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Guidelines suggesting that people from ethnic minorities should get softer sentences were drawn up on the back of recommendations by David Lammy, The Times can disclose.
New guidance sent to judges said they should consider the background of members of ethnic and religious minorities when deciding whether to impose a custodial or community sentence.
The guidelines were issued by the Sentencing Council, an independent body that provides guidance for judges and courts, and will come into effect on April 1. They have prompted claims of a “two-tier” sentencing policy that favours ethnic minorities.
The council went ahead with the changes despite being told by magistrates during a consultation on the reforms that the guidance was “biased and conflicts with equality in sentencing”.
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has threatened to overrule the Sentencing Council if it refuses to reverse the guidelines “as soon as possible”. She has requested an urgent meeting to discuss the controversy.
She said she would change the law through the Sentencing Bill later this year “if necessary” as she wrote to Lord Justice William Davis, the council’s chairman, to register her “displeasure” at the policy.
Mahmood said she would consider stripping the council of the power to set sentencing guidelines and also whether ministers should have a role in setting the guidance for judges.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, began legal proceedings in an attempt to reverse the guidance through a judicial review, on the grounds that it discriminated against white male and Christian offenders.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said her party would attempt to amend the government’s Crime and Policing Bill, going through parliament at present, to reverse the change.
In her letter to Davis, Mahmood wrote: “I must make clear my displeasure at the direction that this guideline took in recommending differing approaches for those from ethnic minorities, cultural minorities and/or from a faith minority background.
“The guideline states that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary for these cohorts. A pre-sentence report can be instrumental in assisting courts in the determination of their sentence. But the access to one should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or religion.
“As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for differential treatment before the law like this. For that reason I am requesting that you reconsider the imposition of this guideline as soon as possible.”
She added: “I will also be considering whether policy decisions of such import should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role ministers and parliament should play.
“For that reason I will be reviewing the role and powers of the Sentencing Council alongside the work of the Independent Sentencing Review.
“If necessary, I will legislate in the Sentencing Bill that will follow that review.”
The council said that the changes had been influenced by several sources of research, including a review carried out in 2017 by Lammy, now the foreign secretary. The review found widespread racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and recommended changes to improve outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic offenders.
In the review, Lammy said that sentencing decisions needed greater scrutiny and judges must be equipped with more information about the offender’s background.
He recommended greater use of pre-sentence reports, which are drawn up by the Probation Service to provide judges with information about the character and circumstances of an offender.
Lammy wrote: “These reports ‘assist the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender’ and may be particularly important for shedding light on individuals from backgrounds unfamiliar to the judge.
“This is vital considering the gap between the difference in backgrounds, both in social class and ethnicity, between the magistrates, judges and many of those offenders who come before them.”
The guidance published by the Sentencing Council relates specifically to the pre-sentence report, which is drawn up when an offender is from a particular cohort that judges and courts may deem relevant when considering the type and nature of a sentence.
The council said that a pre-sentencing report could be “pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence.”
The guidance added factors such as whether an offender was from an “ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community” and whether an offender had disclosed they were transgender.
Existing factors that are taken into consideration when deciding the type of sentence include whether an offender has previously served a custodial sentence, if they are aged 18 to 25, if the offender is a pregnant or postnatal woman or has addiction issues, suffers from a chronic medical condition or physical disability or mental ill health or is a victim of domestic abuse.
The council insisted that the guidance did not dictate the sentence but simply gave additional information and context to courts when considering the nature of the sentence.
The guidance was sent to magistrates and judges to help them decide when to impose community orders and custodial sentences, including whether a prison sentence could be suspended.
Another source of information that influenced the Sentencing Council’s update was a report by the chief inspector of probation in 2021 that found members of ethnic minorities were given “more punitive sentences” owing to poorer pre-sentencing reports that failed to consider “all relevant factors”.
Jenrick said: “Labour’s fingerprints are all over this two-tier sentencing guidance. Lammy’s report failed to establish conclusive evidence of direct discrimination in sentencing decisions. Now it’s being used to justify abandoning the foundational principle of equal treatment under the law.”
Lammy has not responded to a request for comment.
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
It's debatable whether England even counts as a free country at this point. The justice system is formally adopting apartheid rules for criminal sentencing, with whites and Christians penalized more harshly than minorities. That's obviously been the practice there for a while, but now it formally required. Combine that with draconian anti-free speech laws and it pretty clear the British lack the basic freedoms and equal protection one associates with a modern democracy.
Next step will likely be the impositions of blasphemy laws to protect Muslim sensibilities. The new Prime Minister refused to rule them out when Muslim extremists in his party demanded them.
A couple elections go the wrong way and progressives judges invade the Supreme Court and this is what America can look forward to.
Only between incredibly dense morons who don't actually understand the difference between "sentencing guidelines" and a law being passed that says minorities serve less time which didn't happen.
In our American system, many minorities serve more time, are less likely to be offered probation, are more likely to be stopped and searched by police looking for drugs even though whites use and sell drugs at the same or higher rates. So, which is more unfair? Their choice to give judges some guidelines that allow them some latitude and to take into consideration backgrounds including ethnicity and religion when deciding whether to impose a custodial (throw in jail) or community (service) sentence? One would have to be extremely obtuse to mistake this as some rejection of democracy.
Only incredibly dense morons believe that sentencing guidelines that require the criminals' race to be considered are consistent with equal application of the laws. That they champion two tiered race based justice is not a surprise.
It goes with the territory that racialist progressives would support a legal system that intentionally treats people differently based on their race. English progressives share the same ideology as their brethren who created Jim Crow laws. They've gone international with their racist obsessions.
If society outside the courtroom were actually equal, and no one treated minorities differently, then I would 100% agree with you, they would have no need to show empathy in their court system based on ethnicity or religion. Sadly, society doesn't treat all races, ethnicities or religions equally there or here.
Here in America, we have a legal system that essentially says, "If you've got money, you're less guilty!". It used to be "If you've got money or you're white, you're less guilty!" which still seems to be reflected in the conviction rates and sentences and probation offered, they're just less open about it.
Now if that had been a young black man, oh how the outraged white rightwing conservatives would have screamed and gnashed their teeth at such an outrage, especially if it had been a white woman who was raped. But when it's a young white boy with so much of his life ahead of him, that judge's latitude with sentencing guidelines sure comes in handy to appease those same white rightwing conservative parents of those young white boys.
It's truly hilarious how the white nationalists and white supremacists are now trying their best to paint the left as the racists. It's almost comical and a little sad that they think anyone with more than half a brain buys their bullshit, but they keep shoveling it hoping to obfuscate their own depravity.
So lesser punishment for minority Brits and the same old more for American minorities.
perfect /s
Sometimes in life, I would just like to 'forget' what all the warring in this world is about, but the same old tired cast of sad, sick, people keep the drama alive! If there is a Hell. . . racists, of all stripes, are going to be singled out, judged, and I pray "all" be casted down into it to the uttermost degree! The harm unrepentant racists have given this world makes each one of them unredeemable.
In Europe our democrat party is regarded as a "centrist" party. Their political parties are all various stages of the left.
Though I will say this for English progressives. They don't seem as brain damaged as the ant-Trump contingent we have in America. When the undeniably racist implications of the guidelines were published, some progressives there at least expressed shock and promised to remedy the situation.
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has threatened to overrule the Sentencing Council if it refuses to reverse the guidelines “as soon as possible”. She has requested an urgent meeting to discuss the controversy.
As we've seen in America, a progressive TDS sufferer would never do that. Take the use of taxpayer funds to provide transgender criminals with gender surgery. Most progressives first response was to call it a lie and conspiracy theory. When it became clear that Kamala Harris supported using taxpayer dollars for criminals, they immediately fell in line and supported a policy 90% of Americans hated. Some british progressives are falling into the same trap and supporting the racist guidelines because its party/race over justice for them, but at least a few are standing up against racism.
Okay! Now that's it. "Transgendered criminals"?!! Produce evidence of the law against being a transgendered individual.
Read what I wrote Again.
Okay. I will give you that, because not everything a liberal supports is easy to explain or understand-as is the case often times more with conservatives, especially conservatives.
That is, I am not going to 'die' on that hill. Let me shed some light on the issue, nevertheless: