Equality before the law has been a cornerstone of British democracy since Magna Carta.
Yet this sacred principle of our justice system has just been condemned to a slow, painful death by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, the official body that sets guidelines for judges and magistrates.
For the first time, British courts have been instructed to pass lighter sentences on criminals from ‘deprived’ or ‘difficult’ backgrounds.
The Council’s absurd new rules list a dozen alleged ‘mitigating factors’ that beaks should consider sympathetically when sentencing socially disadvantaged offenders. These include poverty, low educational attainment, insecure housing and, inevitably, experience of discrimination.
These execrable guidelines –which came into force on Monday despite warnings from Justice Secretary Alex Chalk that they are ‘inaccurate’ – are a disgrace.
Yes, those at the bottom of society may be more likely to flout the law. But, as Chalk points out, it is ‘patronising’ in the extreme to assume that being hard-up or having housing problems somehow forces people to commit crime – or absolves them of responsibility when they do.
‘This sacred principle of our justice system has just been condemned to a slow, painful death’, says Mick Hume (stock image)
The Sentencing Council, the official body responsible for setting guidelines for judges and magistrates, has for the first time spelt out ‘mitigating’ factors relating to disadvantage that courts should consider before passing sentence
Millions of poorer Britons are honest, decent, hard-working citizens. They don’t ask for special treatment. They will be appalled if others receive it.
And what about the victims of crime, whom the Sentencing Council is tasked with protecting?
Most of them, too, come from the lower end of the socio-economic scale: last year, 40 per cent more crimes were recorded in the poorest areas of Britain compared with the richest.
It is an outrage to sacrifice these blameless people on the altar of political correctness, leaving them to suffer the actions of local ‘deprived’ criminals who have merely been slapped on the wrist and effectively granted a licence to carry on terrorising their estates and communities.
These guidelines don’t merely discriminate in favour of the poor – they do so against the better-off.
There may be little public sympathy for the middle classes, given the obsession with punishing any form of ‘privilege’. But why should a suburban shoplifter be sentenced more harshly than an inner-city pilferer?
Justice Secretary Alex Chalk has called the new advice ‘patronising’
The Sentencing Council itself admits that judges and magistrates were ‘predominantly negative or neutral’ about the new guidelines. Nevertheless, it decided to press ahead, supposedly to improve ‘transparency and fairness’.
Well, it has certainly made transparent how far the rot has gone into the heart of our justice system. How could two-tier justice ever be ‘fair’?
Anatole France, the 1921 winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, once said: ‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.’
Quite so.
In practice – witness Russian oligarchs seeking to silence Press intrusion into their murky affairs – the wealthy and powerful can still enjoy some legal advantages. But that is no excuse, m’luds, for scrapping the historic principle of equality before the law.
A difficult background is something to overcome – not to be used as a pathetic excuse for crime.
Mick Hume is the author of Revolting! How The Establishment Are Undermining Democracy And What They’re Afraid Of.
‘Will we get to the stage of only sending murderers to prison?’ Fury over advice for ‘deprived’ criminals to be given lenient sentences
By George Odling
Guidance suggesting that ‘deprived’ criminals could be given more lenient sentences has been greeted with fury by senior politicians and police leaders.
Factors including low educational attainment, poverty and past experience of discrimination should be considered as part of mitigation, according to the Sentencing Council.
Judges and magistrates have been told they should consider 12 ‘disadvantage’ factors before handing down a sentence, including negative experiences of authority, family members’ offending, drug and alcohol misuse, and negative influences from peers.
The guidelines were issued this week despite warnings from the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk, who said the ‘patronising’ ruling could lead to these factors becoming excuses to commit crimes.
The Sentencing Council has spelt out a set of ‘mitigating’ factors relating to disadvantages that courts should take into account before passing sentence
The guidelines were issued this week despite warnings from the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk (pictured)
Retired senior police officer Norman Brennan, who served in London for 31 years, told the Mail it was unfair to give certain sections of society more leeway than others. ‘Are we going to get to the stage where we are only sending murderers to prison?’ he asked.
‘The reasons we send people to prison is to punish the offender, to deter others, to protect the public and to rehabilitate the criminal.
‘When judges keep making excuses as to why they are not sending someone to prison who deserves to be there, then what message does that send? Many of us had a tough upbringing but did not turn to crime.’ Shadow business spokesman Jonathan Reynolds said justice should be fair and consistent for everyone.
He told GB News: ‘There are a whole range of things a judge would take into discretion when they are handing down a sentence, but I wouldn’t like to give the impression there should be a different judicial regime for people across the country.’ The Sentencing Council admitted judges and magistrates they consulted had been ‘predominantly negative or neutral’ over the new guidelines.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘Sentencing decisions are made by independent judges who already take into account the circumstances of each case in line with guidelines set out by the Sentencing Council.’
