Originally published at thestealingofemily.co.uk

We reported on The Stealing of Emily amid a raft of new sentencing guidelines being rapidly introduced—rules which, if enforced, could have led to different outcomes in the criminal justice system based on a person’s age, sex, or ethnicity.

In response to this, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood attempted to pass emergency primary legislation to block the changes. Her goal was to have the bill through Parliament within 24 hours. However, she was advised that this would be impossible before the Easter recess. The revised sentencing guidelines were scheduled to take effect the following Tuesday in England and Wales—raising the risk of a “confusing period” where they’d be in force before possibly being rendered illegal.

At the heart of the controversy was a list of ten groups for whom pre-sentence reports would “normally be necessary.” This included individuals from ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities, as well as young adults, mothers, and survivors of abuse. Under the new guidance, magistrates and judges would be required to consider these reports before sentencing, which the Sentencing Council claimed would “take into account structural disparities in sentencing outcomes.”

Legal figures such as the Society of Black Lawyers defended the guidelines as a historic step toward equality, aiming to redress racial disparities that have persisted for centuries in British law. “Equal treatment,” they argued, cannot be achieved without first acknowledging past and present inequality. But critics, including Mahmood, argued this amounted to singling out specific cohorts for differential treatment under the law.

Following a high-level meeting on Monday, the Sentencing Council announced it would suspend the implementation of the guidelines, citing the imminent introduction of legislation that would make them unlawful. This followed their earlier refusal to amend the list of specified groups as Mahmood requested.

The dispute has laid bare a rift between the executive and the judiciary, which dominates the Sentencing Council’s membership. Mahmood has since told MPs that the Council’s role will come under formal review.

Meanwhile, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick called for the removal of Lord Justice Davis, who chairs the Sentencing Council. In sharp contrast, Attorney General Lord Hermer KC warned Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights that political attacks on the judiciary represent “a huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.”

Further Reading and Media Coverage

• Sentencing Council suspends plans amid ‘two-tier’ justice row – The Guardian
• Ministers plan bill to block sentencing guidance in England and Wales – The Guardian
• England’s Sentencing Council suspends plans to introduce ‘two-tier’ justice guidelines – Reuters
• Lawyers attack ‘dangerous’ decision to halt sentencing changes – The Guardian
• Video: Sentencing row explained – YouTube

• Urgent Request: Follow-Up on Missing Child Case
• Why children are being taken from families now numbering 758,000
• Clarifying PHSO Complaint: Key Questions Asked
• AI in Social Work: Understanding the Risks
• Criminal action on website. Is this the Government interference?