Ethnicity Row Sparks Major Shake-Up in Sentencing Rules

Published: 02 September 2025. The English Chronicle Desk

The British government has introduced sweeping reforms to the way sentencing guidelines are issued, following months of controversy over proposals that ethnicity should be considered in pre-sentence reports. The move, unveiled by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, will mean that the Sentencing Council can no longer issue guidance to judges without explicit approval from both the Justice Secretary and the Lady Chief Justice, effectively tightening political and judicial oversight of the process.

The changes come after a heated dispute earlier this year when the Sentencing Council suggested that judges take into account the ethnicity of offenders in cases where evidence showed significant disproportionality within the criminal justice system. The recommendation, which appeared in draft guidance published in March, provoked an immediate backlash, with critics arguing that it amounted to differential treatment and risked undermining the principle of equality before the law.

Ms Mahmood condemned the original proposals as unacceptable and signalled her determination to ensure that future guidance reflected parliamentary accountability. Speaking as the reforms were introduced under the Sentencing Bill, she insisted that the independence of the judiciary would remain intact but argued that sentencing policy could not be left solely in the hands of unelected bodies. “Individual sentencing decisions will always be the responsibility of the independent judiciary – and this is something I will staunchly defend,” she said. “However, policy must be set by parliamentarians, who answer to the people. Government and Parliament have a legitimate role in setting the sentencing framework. It is right that we now have greater democratic and judicial oversight of the direction of the Council’s work and the final guidelines they publish.”

The row exposed deep divisions within the political and legal establishment. Critics accused the Justice Secretary of political interference and warned that the reforms risked damaging the long-standing principle of judicial independence. Former Conservative Justice Secretary Robert Buckland described Ms Mahmood’s earlier reaction as “knee-jerk” and suggested it betrayed a lack of respect for the Sentencing Council. Others, however, welcomed the changes. Conservative MP Robert Jenrick was among those who branded the original ethnicity proposals “two-tier justice,” warning that they would foster resentment and perceptions of bias.

The Sentencing Council’s guidance, published in March, had recommended that courts request pre-sentence reports (PSRs) more frequently in order to provide fuller information about an offender’s background. PSRs typically include details such as the individual’s risk of reoffending, the causes of their behaviour, or personal circumstances that may affect sentencing. The draft guidance listed a range of groups that might particularly benefit from such reports, including those from ethnic minority or faith minority backgrounds, transgender individuals, pregnant women, victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and people struggling with addiction.

While supporters of the Council’s proposals argued that the guidance was aimed at addressing systemic imbalances and ensuring more informed sentencing decisions, opponents claimed that it risked introducing social engineering into the justice system. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick was particularly scathing, calling the inclusion of ethnicity “blatant bias” against white men and warning of the dangers of undermining public trust in equal justice.

The controversy has now culminated in legislative change. Under the new provisions of the Sentencing Bill, neither the Sentencing Council nor the judiciary will be able to issue or implement guidelines without prior approval from both the Justice Secretary and the Lady Chief Justice, with each officeholder exercising independent veto powers. The government insists that the reform strengthens democratic accountability while preserving judicial impartiality.

However, legal experts remain divided on whether the changes will enhance fairness or simply politicise the sentencing process. Some warn that the move could set a precedent for greater political involvement in judicial decision-making, while others argue that Parliament has a legitimate duty to ensure sentencing reflects the values of the electorate.

As the debate continues, the reforms underline the broader tension between judicial independence and political accountability – a struggle that has been reignited by the sensitive question of whether ethnicity should ever play a role in sentencing decisions. What is clear is that the government’s intervention marks one of the most significant shake-ups in the relationship between ministers, judges and the Sentencing Council in recent years, with implications likely to reverberate throughout the justice system for some time to come.