A Conservative plan to abolish the judge-led Sentencing Council and hand its powers to the Ministry of Justice has been described as “bonkers”, “unimplementable” and “potentially dangerous” by former Tory ministers.
The shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick will announce on Tuesday that the independent public body responsible for developing guidelines for judges and magistrates in England and Wales would be closed down by a future Conservative government because it was “not fit for purpose”.
Former Tory ministers with expertise in the criminal justice system expressed disbelief at Jenrick’s plan, saying it would ratchet up sentences, intensify the overcrowding crisis in prisons and put the entire criminal justice system at risk of collapse.
Under Jenrick’s plan, lord chancellors would instead be put in charge of setting sentencing policy because the UK was “slipping into a two-tier nightmare under Keir Starmer”.
He will blame the council’s guidelines for watering down sentences outlined by parliament for serious crimes.
The plan goes further than recent changes made by the then justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to the Sentencing Council after a row over “two-tier sentencing”. Last month, the Labour government changed the rules so that new guidelines to courts must be signed off by the justice secretary and the lady chief justice.
Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, said: “This is bonkers. Sentences have been rising in recent years and there is no prison capacity left. The Sentencing Council has done good work in providing consistency even if it may not be perfect. The [Jenrick] proposal is the cheapest form of politics as he must know it is unimplementable.”
Bob Neill, a Conservative former chair of the Commons’ justice select committee , said the policy was “very unwise and potentially dangerous”.
Another former Tory minister said: “This a policy that has not been thought through. It fails to understand the role the Sentencing Council performs, and is in response to a proposal that has been withdrawn.
“The consequence might be longer sentences but there isn’t the prison space for more prisoners.”
The Sentencing Council was set up by Gordon Brown’s government in 2010 to avoid politicising the guidelines and to allow for considered, expert judgment on the appropriate range of sentences.
Made up of eight members of the judiciary and six laypeople, they produce guidelines on sentencing, which are not binding but aim to increase the consistency of sentencing within the parameters set down by parliament.
Jenrick is expected to tell the conference in Manchester: “The public are sick of voting for tougher sentences and getting the opposite. So in future the justice secretary, accountable to parliament, will be responsible for setting sentencing policy. No longer will an unaccountable quango be able to subvert the will of the British people for criminals to be properly punished.”
Jenrick will claim that the council’s guidelines have watered down sentences outlined by parliament for serious crimes.
Under the guidelines, domestic burglary carries a sentence range from zero to six years despite parliament allowing a 14-year maximum, he will add.
The new policy comes after a public dispute in March between the council and the government over pre-sentence reports for offenders from certain minority groups.
The council was forced to back down after issuing guidelines that would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic or religious minority, or a young adult, abuse survivor or pregnant woman.
Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor in north-west England, said: “Judges are bound by legal reasoning, precedent and principles thereby ensuring decisions are rooted in law. Politicians chase headlines while judges try to uphold fairness. If you want to guarantee a two-tier justice system you let politicians determine the sentencing.”
Andy Slaughter, the Labour chair of the justice select committee, said: “This is a chaotic, unnecessary and publicity-seeking proposal. The sentencing bill already proposes an override that the lord chancellor and lady chief justice can exercise. We don’t need any further political intervention, and certainly not a wholesale removal of the Sentencing Council.”
A Labour spokesperson added: “The Conservatives backed the proposed changes to pre-sentencing reports when they were announced and did nothing to stop them when they were in government. Labour took action the moment we uncovered their mistake.
“This is just another cynical gimmick from Jenrick, a man who constantly undermines the independence of the judiciary just to further his own career.”
