Independent Sentencing Review

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the report and the Government’s response. It is a comprehensive and measured response to the prisons crisis, as one would expect from David Gauke, in contrast with the hysterical nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition today. I particularly welcome the additional resources for probation and electronic monitoring to enable robust punishment and control in the community as an alternative to custody, but even the aggregate effect of the measures in the report will only stabilise the prison population over the longer term. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need effective rehabilitation to end the cycle of reoffending if we are to see a fall in historically high prison numbers?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me be clear: we will be adding prison places to the estate, and we will be filling them up. The prison population will rise year on year by the end of this Parliament, but my hon. Friend is right that the measures we have announced today stabilise the prison population. As a whole country, we will have to do better at ensuring that our prisons are churning out better citizens, rather than better criminals. When we know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders, there is clearly much work to be done in this area.

Victims and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We hope that the Bill will provide some immediate relief when it comes to the recruitment of prosecutors, because it will address an outdated constraint, remove unnecessary legislative barriers, and allow the CPS to recruit Crown prosecutors from a broader, more diverse pool of talent. Estimates suggest that there may be more than 800 CILEX specialist criminal practitioners who have expressed an interest in becoming a Crown prosecutor. The measure will support greater flexibility in resourcing, and may help to shorten waiting times for cases to be prosecuted. It supports our manifesto pledge to ensure that more prosecutors are available and, above all, may help reduce the long, painful wait that many victims face for their case to come to court.

We are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the right safeguards. Through the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards longer-term change. Although private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system, the way private prosecutors’ costs are awarded can provide perverse incentives for firms to bring private prosecutions. Costs in private prosecutions can be more than five times higher than in cases where both defence and prosecution are funded via fees that are set out in regulations. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations to set rates at which prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds in private prosecutions. That will ensure the best use of public funds and reduce the incentive for private prosecutors to prioritise profit when considering bringing criminal proceedings.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is about to mention that this comes from a proposal made by the Justice Committee as long ago as 2020, under my distinguished predecessor, Sir Bob Neill KC. I am glad to see that the measure is finally reaching the statute book.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was just about to pay tribute to the Justice Committee for its work, to Sir Bob Neill, and to my hon. Friend, the current esteemed Chair of that Committee. I thank him and Members past and present for pushing for Government action on this matter, and I am glad that we have been able to include this measure in the Bill.

Let me turn to measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As the House will know, the scheme is a safeguard that allows the Attorney General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal. That action is taken if it is believed that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. However, in practice, the 28-day statutory time limit for referral has proven problematic when cases have been brought to the Attorney General’s attention late in that period.

The Bill will ensure that every eligible case is properly scrutinised, and will guarantee that the Attorney General has 14 full days to assess any request received in the final fortnight of that 28-day window. This change will ensure that enough time is allowed for cases to be fully considered and referred to the Court of Appeal as necessary, and will provide greater clarity to victims, families and the public.

Finally, the Bill will create greater consistency in the courts through a targeted and technical amendment to magistrates court sentencing powers for six offences. We are tidying up an anomaly that we inherited. These six offences were not included in legislative changes made by the previous Government. By ensuring that everything is aligned, this change will ultimately help to avoid confusion and errors in sentencing.

The Bill marks an important step forward in our mission to rebuild our justice system, so that it serves the victims who, in recent years, it has all too often failed. It brings forward long-overdue reforms that will strengthen victims’ rights, force offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, restrict the parental responsibility of convicted child sex offenders, and further empower the Victims’ Commissioner.

The criminal justice system in this country suffered terribly at the hands of the Conservative party: the backlog in our courts is long and growing longer; our prisons are trapped in a cycle of crisis; and victims have paid the price. This Government are beginning the work of reversing that damage. We will deliver swifter justice for victims, and ensure that criminals face certain punishment and that our justice system serves victims, rather than subjects them to trauma on top of what they have already suffered. I know this is just the beginning and that there is much more that we must do, but the work is under way and I look forward to a constructive debate ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

This Bill builds on the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Parliament, to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner and, more generally, the administration of criminal justice. Like its predecessor, this Bill is published against the backdrop of significant court backlogs, with victims of crime too often waiting years for their cases to come to court, and with criminal legal aid advocates turning away from the profession. This Government have taken steps to tackle those deep-rooted problems, built up over years by the last Government’s failure to invest in the criminal justice system, but until they are resolved, victims will continue to suffer harm for too long.

On 27 March this year, the latest criminal court statistics were published, showing a record high of 74,651 outstanding cases in the Crown court, as at the end of December 2024. Also in March, the Victims’ Commissioner published a report entitled “Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice system”. The report concluded:

“With the increased number of victims held in the system because of the backlog, victim services are under increasing pressure which impairs their ability to provide the accessible, high-quality support that victims need.”

It called for

“The government to explore how victims whose cases are going to trial might be given a single point of contact to improve communication and ensure their Victims’ Code entitlements are delivered… The restoration of an independent Courts’ Inspectorate so that the operation of the Court Service is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny… Providing emergency funding to victim support services to help them cope with increased caseloads arising from the court backlog crisis.”

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Select Committee in April, in response to concerns that changes proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review would not have a direct impact on delays in the Crown court for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend noted:

“The system requires substantial reform, and the department looks forward to receiving the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts’ recommendations on longer-term structural reform options later this spring, followed by recommendations on the efficiency and timeliness of court processes by Autumn.”

It is against that challenging background that we debate the Bill today. I welcome the measures in it, and I know that the ministerial team will use the leverage that it gives them to improve the lot of victims in the criminal justice system, but, as in every other aspect of the work of the Ministry of Justice, they have been set a difficult task by past neglect.

Let me comment briefly on the main provisions in the Bill. First, it deals with attendance at sentencing hearings. It will give Crown court judges an express statutory power to order the attendance of offenders at their sentencing hearings and to sanction those who refuse to comply with such an order, or who attend but then commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result. They may receive up to two years’ additional imprisonment and/or the imposition of prison sanctions. Those proposals have been welcomed by advocates for victims and organisations working in the violence against women and girls sector. However, there are some concerns about how these provisions will work in practice and about the implications for judges, court staff, prison officers, prison escort officers and prison governors.

Secondly, the Bill deals with restricting parental responsibility. Concerns have been raised that people convicted of serious crimes can retain their parental responsibility unless an application is made to the court to restrict or terminate it. That means, for example, that they can potentially ask for school reports, be consulted on medical issues, and withhold their consent to a child’s going on holiday or being issued with a passport.

In last year’s King’s Speech, the Government committed to legislating to restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders. The new provisions automatically restrict a person’s parental responsibility when they are sentenced to four or more years in prison for a “serious” child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. This means that instead of the non-offending parent or carer having to drive the process, the offender’s parental responsibility will be automatically restricted at the point when they are sentenced.

Thirdly, I will discuss victims’ rights. The Bill will: update the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to expand the eligibility criteria to victims of more offences, who will then be covered by the victim contact scheme; create a victims helpline for some victims who are not covered by the scheme; expand the definition of “victim” for the purposes of the scheme; and ensure greater consistency for victims of offenders who are subject to a hospital order.

Fourthly, I will address the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In their manifesto, the Government committed to increasing the power of the Victims’ Commissioner. The Bill achieves that by allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to exercise their functions in individual cases that raise public policy issues, placing a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the commissioner for the purposes of supporting victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour, and empowering the commissioner to report independently on the victims’ code.

Fifthly, I will speak to prosecutions. The Bill seeks to increase the flexibility of the director of public prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors. It will remove the legislative barrier that is preventing CILEX lawyers, who have specialist qualifications and more limited rights of audience, from becoming Crown prosecutors.

Sixthly, I will discuss the cost of private prosecutions. In June 2020, the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the fairness of private prosecutions and the need for procedural safeguards, following a request from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that arose from the Horizon scandal. The Committee recommended that the Government should

“urgently review funding arrangements for private prosecutions in order to address the inequality of access”

and

“ensure a fair balance between the prosecutor and the defendant”.

In March 2021 the then Government accepted the Committee’s conclusions and agreed that

“costs recoverable from central funds by a private prosecutor should be limited in the same way that costs so recoverable by an acquitted defendant already are, by being capped at legal aid rates.”

They said that this would require amendments to the existing legislation, and I am pleased that, through clause 10, the Lord Chancellor is able to make regulations to achieve that aim.

Finally, the Bill introduces greater flexibility into the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as requested by, among others, the Victims’ Commissioner for London. There are other technical changes in the Bill, but those are the major proposals and I welcome them all. In aggregate, they both assist victims in their progress through the criminal justice system and reform that system to make it more consistent and user-friendly.

The Bill is not a panacea for the troubles afflicting the criminal courts—that will require more radical root-and-branch reform, and for that we await the findings of the independent review—but it is a step along the road towards a fairer and more humane criminal justice system for victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The loss of very sensitive data relating to so many vulnerable people over such a long time makes this one of the most serious data breaches of recent years. It is also a wake-up call, alerting us to the poor state of the Legal Aid Agency IT systems, and perhaps Government IT systems more generally. I appreciate that the Minister has inherited this debacle, but it is on her desk now. Will she confirm the numbers affected, whether the leaks have been stemmed, and what steps are being taken to recover the data from the thieves who have taken it? I have more questions that there is not time to deal with here. She said that she will provide a written statement, but will she also brief the Select Committee and the opposition parties, if necessary in confidence, on the steps being taken to rectify the situation?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent question. He will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any great detail while the investigation is ongoing. As he and the rest of the House can imagine, if we are talking about those who have applied for or been in receipt of legal aid since 2010 and all the legal providers in this country that have had legal aid contracts with the Government, one gets a sense of the scale of the exposure. It is a very serious breach indeed.

The malign criminals who are responsible for the hack have given a figure for the amounts of data that they have, which has been trailed in some of the newspapers. Those who have read the papers will know that it is in the region of 2 million items of data, so one can see that the scale of the problem is very serious indeed. I should say that that figure cannot be verified, and I will not comment in further detail.

With respect to my hon. Friend’s request that the JSC and Opposition parties are kept up to date as the investigation develops and as we take steps to eliminate this risk from our systems, I am very happy to give that update.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

We should never forget that the crisis in our prisons that the current Lord Chancellor is seeking to resolve was created over 14 years by the irresponsible mismanagement of the previous Government. Although today’s announcement makes sense in the short term, subject to safeguards, we must consider the whole way in which recall has developed, from 100 cases 30 years ago to more than 13,000 today—over 15% of the prison population—with less than 30% of recalls being for further offences. Will the Government consider the way in which recall operates? Without the freeing up of space in prisons, rehabilitation is impossible, overcrowding reaches ridiculous levels and we run out of space altogether.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right: the recall population has doubled in just seven years and we need to address that. The independent sentencing review will report shortly, and I hope that there will be recommendations to which we can respond in that report.

Protection of Prison Staff

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Last week, the Justice Committee visited Wandsworth prison and noted improvements, but from a very low base. We heard that the poor reputation of some prisons, including rising violence, makes recruitment more difficult. That is the legacy of 14 years of starving prisons of resources. What are the current Government doing to improve the recruitment and retention of prison officers?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely correct: we inherited a prison system in crisis, where prisons were on the edge of collapse. Reducing violence in prisons is a key priority. That is why we have taken the actions we have in building new prisons and in the sentencing review: to ensure that we always have prison spaces to lock dangerous people up.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

If we are to compromise the independence of the Sentencing Council in substantial ways, we should do it only having considered all the implications of doing so, but that is not what this Bill allows for. It is designed to do a specific job, and I think it could do it even more specifically, hence my amendments.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the Committee stage of this short Bill. On Second Reading, only a few days ago, I set out my views on the merits or otherwise of the Bill; how it affects the role of the Sentencing Council; the council’s consultation on this guideline; and the response to that consultation by the then Government, through their sentencing Minister, and by the Justice Committee, through my predecessor as Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC.

I also regretted the way that the Bill has been used to undermine judicial independence, and to allow ad hominem attacks on judges under the guise of belated objections to the guideline. I am not the only person to raise these concerns, and I agree entirely with the article on this matter by Sir Bob in The Times last Thursday. I do not propose repeating any of his arguments; nor do I need to spend a long time on the amendments tabled for debate. Those proposed by the official Opposition do no more than continue on another front the culture war that is the obsession of the shadow Lord Chancellor in his quest for higher office.

I am more sympathetic to the new clause in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who is an important member of the Justice Committee. Given the fractured nature of the debate around the Bill, and the testy relationship between the Sentencing Council and the Ministry of Justice, it may be sensible to review the effect of the Bill, but I am not sure we need to put that into legislation. Indeed, the sentencing landscape is about to shift fundamentally with the imminent publication of the independent sentencing review, which is swiftly to be followed by a sentencing Bill. I suspect that issues raised by this Bill will get swallowed up in that process, and the Lord Chancellor has indicated that it may include a review of the role of the Sentencing Council.

I do not want to stir the pot further, but I observe that had the Sentencing Council been prepared, without the threat of legislation, to postpone implementation of the guideline, all these matters might have been dealt with in one Bill, and in the light of David Gauke’s recommendations. The parliamentary and ministerial time that has been spent debating a relatively narrow point could, in my view, have been better spent on other matters requiring urgent attention in our courts and prisons.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why we are here today is an error of judgment by the Sentencing Council, on which it refused to back down until threatened with legislation? Does the amendment proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary not offer greater protection to the public from future errors of judgment by the Sentencing Council?

[Andy Slaughter]

As I say, I do not want to repeat everything I said on Second Reading. I made a case then for why the Sentencing Council had behaved quite properly. It was complimented by many people—including the Justice Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman serves—for the way it conducted its consultation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the council and its chair, who were somewhat surprised by the reaction at that stage, the guideline having been approved by pretty much everyone who considered it at that time.

On the views of the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Justice Committee, whose opinions I have a great deal of time for, the Sentencing Council was a little stubborn when confronted with the Lord Chancellor’s view, as well as those of other Members of the House, and it could have acted to prevent us all needing to discuss this today; as I say, there are many other matters that need our attention.

On the amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), as I would expect from a distinguished former Attorney General, his amendments go to the central issue in the Bill, which is whether it does what the Government intend it to do. I hope the Minister will address the issue of what a “personal characteristic” is, as opposed to a particular demographic cohort, and the question of what characteristics are caught by clause 1.

I will take a few minutes, if I may, to add some related questions on which I am seeking the Minister’s guidance. First, I turn to the effect of the Bill on the sentencing guidelines already in force. The effect of the Bill goes beyond the imposition of the community and custodial sentences guideline and future guidelines; it would also render unlawful the inclusion of provision framed by reference to different characteristics of an offender in all definitive sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council that have already been issued and are in force. The potential retrospective effect of the Bill on guidelines already in force could create legal uncertainty as to their lawfulness.

There are two main examples of overarching guidelines in force that could be caught by the Bill: the guideline on sentencing children and young people, and the guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments.

In relation to offence-specific guidelines, a significant number contain mitigating factors framed by personal characteristics that have expanded explanations referring to the need to order a pre-sentence report—for example, an explanation for the mitigating factor of “age and/or lack of maturity” in the aggravated burglary guideline. By way of another example, the explanation of the mitigating factor of pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care in the same guideline states:

“When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender…the Probation Service should be asked to address the issues below in a pre-sentence report. If a suitable pre-sentence report is not available, sentencing should normally be adjourned until one is available.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

If we had used the phrase demographic cohort, we would have to define what that means, whereas personal characteristics is a phrase that already has a level of definition and is therefore preferred by the Government.

I turn to the similar issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick. We carefully considered whether the Bill should be narrower than referring to personal characteristics—for example, an offender being from a cultural minority—but in the end we felt that was not helpful.

As such, while I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for suggesting alternative wording, the Government remain of the view that, having considered it carefully, the term personal characteristics is the most appropriate way of capturing the issues raised by the guideline.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister clarify the point in relation to pregnancy? He said—it is in the explanatory notes—that it would be right for a sentencer to follow Thompson and order a pre-sentence report where a woman is pregnant or has recently given birth, but that, following the passage of the Bill, it will be incorrect for the Sentencing Council to make recommendations along those lines for sentencers to follow. I do not quite see the difference.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Court of Appeal has made it clear, and, as my hon. Friend said, it is right to follow Thompson in those circumstances.

While I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for raising and rightly exploring this issue in Committee, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on behalf of the official Opposition, would require the Sentencing Council to obtain the Secretary of State’s approval before issuing any sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. Again, I referenced the helpful words of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who said we should tread carefully in this territory and that the separation of powers needs to be very much respected. Therefore, while carefully considering the case for mandating that the Sentencing Council obtain the Secretary of State’s approval, I am not persuaded that that is appropriate at this particular time.

As the Lord Chancellor has set out, this case has highlighted that a potential democratic deficit. That is why we are currently assessing the Sentencing Council’s wider role and powers for developing sentencing guidelines, with recent developments and imposition guidelines in mind.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.

There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.

The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that

“victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.

Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:

“a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]

That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.

Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

When it enacted the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Parliament decided that the Sentencing Council should be chaired by a judicial member, appointed by the Lady Chief Justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that Members of this House should respect the principle of judicial independence when discussing the leadership of the Sentencing Council?

[Shabana Mahmood]

When judges are acting as judges, they are acting in their independent capacity. All Members of this House should respect judicial independence. My hon. Friend will know that my disagreement with the Sentencing Council relates to where the line is drawn between matters that are correctly within the purview of our independent judiciary and matters that relate to policy that is correctly within the purview of this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for establishing the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks, but freedom of information requests by the charity Hundred Families disclosed last month that at least 392 mental health patients in England committed or were suspected of murder or manslaughter between 2018 and 2023. The victims included Susan and Jeffrey Farrance, the elderly parents of my constituent. Will the inquiry consider cases like that of the Farrances so that we can learn all lessons necessary to prevent these tragic and avoidable crimes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for raising an important issue for his own constituents that also has wider significance. I will publish the full terms of reference and place them in the Libraries of both Houses very soon. Regardless of whether the review goes into the specifics of every other type of case, I am sure that it will make findings on how such cases, particularly involving people with mental health conditions, are properly managed. I am sure that those findings will be of interest not just to our Department but to others, and will be implemented by the Government in due course.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Let me begin by summarising how we got here. On 29 November 2023, the Sentencing Council launched a consultation on proposed changes to the imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline. On 19 February 2024, the then Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), wrote to the chair of the council and welcomed its work on the revised guideline, in particular the

“fuller guidance around the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report”.

On 28 March 2024, the then Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill KC, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council noting that the council had conducted a particularly effective consultation exercise.

On 5 March 2025, a year later, the Sentencing Council published the revised guideline, saying that it would come into effect on 1 April. The same day saw the first exchange in this Chamber between the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on the guideline. The accusation by the shadow Lord Chancellor that the guideline would

“make a custodial sentence less likely”

for those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community was not the view of the Sentencing Council, but the exchange led to extensive correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the chair of the Sentencing Council for the rest of March.

I do not have time today to describe the contents of those letters, but the central point raised by the chair of the Sentencing Council was that the purpose of a pre-sentence report is to provide information, not to determine the sentence. He said:

“Frequently the information provided will not assist the offender’s prospect of avoiding a custodial sentence: rather the reverse.”

He added that the guideline does not make a custodial sentence less likely for someone simply by way of their membership of a cohort; that the guideline

“does not instruct or mandate judges and magistrates to request a pre-sentence report”

but is discretionary; that the list of cohorts is “non-exhaustive”; that a pre-sentence report “may be necessary” for those outside the list; and that,

“The section of the guideline relating to pre-sentence reports is directed to the issue of information about offenders, no more and no less.”

On 31 March 2025, following a meeting with the Sentencing Council, the Lord Chancellor said she was going to introduce legislation to render the section on cohorts unlawful. The guideline was due to come into force on 1 April. As a result, the council said that it would delay the date on which the guideline was due to come into force, pending such legislation taking effect.

On 1 April 2025, this Bill was given its First Reading. The Bill is designed to make it unlawful for a sentencing guideline issued by the Sentencing Council to include a presumption that a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on the offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort. The Bill has one operative clause, clause 1, which would amend section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The drafting of clause 1 indicates that the provision will apply to all sentencing guidelines that have been issued by the Sentencing Council and that are already in force when the provisions in this Bill take effect.

The Bill states that guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council cannot include provision framed by reference to “personal characteristics”. The Bill then specifies that

“‘personal characteristics’ include, in particular…race…religion or belief…cultural background.”

The list is non-exhaustive and therefore also covers other personal characteristics—for example, age, disability, sex and sexual orientation. Clause 1 would therefore render unlawful the following cohorts that were included in the imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline issued on 5 March:

“a young adult…female…from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community…pregnant or post-natal…has disclosed they are transgender…has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability, or mental ill health, learning disabilities…or brain injury/damage”.

The explanatory notes state that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council “from issuing guidelines advising courts to consider the offender’s personal circumstances in deciding whether to request a PSR”.

The explanatory notes also state that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law on the circumstances where a pre-sentence report is either necessary or desirable. It then cites three cases:

“Thompson…which says that where a woman who is pregnant or has recently given birth is to be sentenced, it is desirable for the court to obtain a pre-sentence report;…Meanley…where the court referred to the importance of PSRs in serious cases involving young defendants; and…Kurmekaj…where the court said that the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery meant a PSR should have been requested”.

The Government have repeatedly emphasised that they object to the inclusion of ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community in the guideline. The Government have not said that they object to the inclusion of the other cohorts in the guideline framed by personal characteristics. The fact that the explanatory notes make clear that the Government do not intend to prevent the Court of Appeal, or any other body, from issuing guidance relating to pre-sentence reports from being framed by personal characteristics, other than ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community, would appear to indicate that they do not object in principle to such an approach. I am sure some of these matters can be explored more in Committee.

I will conclude by saying a few words about judicial independence. In his letter dated 10 March to the Lord Chancellor, the chair of the Sentencing Council said:

“There is general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary because they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority. The Council preserves the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing.”

The independence of the judiciary is recognised as a principle of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom’s constitution. The principle serves to protect the judiciary’s ability to exercise its functions in deciding cases in accordance with the law and free from external pressures. Deciding on an offender’s sentence is a clear example of that, but the principle of judicial independence also requires that the judiciary is treated with respect and with recognition of the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary, the Executive and Parliament.

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said in 2018:

“Within Parliament it is a parliamentary custom, supported by rulings of the Speaker, that an attack on a judge’s character or motives, or charges of a personal nature or a call for his or her dismissal, should be made only on a substantive motion on which a vote will be taken, and also that arguments that a judge had got a decision wrong should be made in moderate language.”

There has been significant criticism of the Sentencing Council, and in particular its chair, in this Chamber. The shadow Lord Chancellor asked on 1 April in this House if the Lord Chancellor could

“honestly say at the Dispatch Box that she has confidence in the head of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice Davis, given that he has brought it into total disrepute”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 184.]

Criticising the judiciary for their decisions in their capacity as members of the Sentencing Council risks undermining their independence as serving judges.

It remains to be seen whether the measures in this Bill have ripples beyond the narrow prescription in clause 1. I look forward to the Government clarifying the detailed effects of the Bill in Committee, but it would be unfortunate if such a modest piece of legislation left in its wake collateral damage to the relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. Of course, I respect the independence of the judiciary. I think I was very clear in my statement and the remarks I have made that I not only stand behind that principle, but have taken an oath that I fulfil and consider my duty to do so. Where I consider to be in disagreement with the Sentencing Council is that this is properly an area of policy, rather than a mere tool for the consistency of judicial practice when it comes to sentencing. That is the point of principle on which we have a disagreement, and it is why I will be considering a further review of the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. I simply repeat to my hon. Friend that ensuring that a creature of statute is operating in the way that was intended when that statute was put in place is the proper preserve of politicians and Parliament. I hope we can all agree on that.