Pupil Barrister Olivia Davin speaks with the charity Inquest, who provide expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation to policy makers, about the consequences of the recent suspension of new sentencing guidelines.

On the 1^st of April 2025, the Sentencing Council decided to suspend new imposition sentencing guidelines after Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood’s criticisms of a ‘two-tier justice system’.

The new guidelines would have made it mandatory for a Judge to consider a pre-sentencing report whenever an offender faces a custodial sentence and ‘belongs to one or more cohorts.’

This would have required courts to consider the following factors when deciding whether to impose a custodial or community sentence:

•  Age
•  Female
•  From an ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community
•  Pregnant or post-natal
•  Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
•  Transgender
•  At risk of/have suffered domestic, physical or sexual abuse, coercion, grooming, intimidation, exploitation and modern slavery.

(This is a non-exhaustive list).

The Potential Impact of New Sentencing Guidelines

These new guidelines would have provided for a more progressive approach to sentencing - prioritising rehabilitation by way of community sentences, over the solely punitive measure of custody. Further, the guidelines would have acknowledged factors that increase the vulnerability of offenders and expose them to a higher likelihood of offending.

I am lucky to be surrounded by compassionate and progressive advocates who consider the issues that their clients will face within the justice system. These guidelines could have helped redress sentencing disparities and looked at the root causes of crime, in a way that better reflects the realities of offending in the UK by considering the socioeconomic circumstances that affect offenders and contribute towards their offending.

For the Sentencing Council to acknowledge such issues and the need for them to be taken into account during sentencing would have been a huge step forward in prioritising rehabilitation over punishment. Community orders that allow offenders to maintain relationships, jobs, and undertake rehabilitative programmes whilst serving a sentence decrease the likelihood of reoffending. Maintaining strong community roots decreases the chances of offenders returning to crime upon completion of their sentence.

The Consequence of Suspending the New Sentencing Guidelines

Prior to securing pupillage at Kenworthy’s Chambers, I volunteered with INQUEST Charity for two years. I spoke with them regarding the suspension of these new guidelines. Their comment demonstrates the consequences of this suspension for those who work within the legal system:

“A progressive sentencing guideline aimed at reducing disparities in criminal justice outcomes for marginalised groups, including ethnic minorities and mothers, was scrapped after being labelled ‘two-tier justice’. This prompted Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood to reject it, in a misguided attempt, to appease right-wing critics. 

“This capitulation exposes the rotten core of a carceral system that would rather cage mothers and minorities than challenge state violence. The move undermines genuine efforts to address systemic racism and overcrowded prisons and misses a real opportunity to counteract some of the mistakes of successive governments that fuelled the current prison crisis. 

“When even modest attempts at justice reform are crushed by political peacocking, those of us working on the front lines see clearer than ever that the only solution lies in a move away from the prison-industrial complex and towards building transformative justice rooted in community care.”

Olivia Davin’s Final Thoughts

An opportunity to incorporate a progressive means of sentencing offenders has been missed.

The possibility of the courts being able to pass down sentences that address the root causes of offending has been sacrificed to allay scrutiny of a ‘two-tier’ justice system.

This criticism has missed the point. To label these guidelines as such would imply that all offenders enter the justice system as equal. They do not.

These guidelines would have acknowledged societal inequalities that can cause offending and enabled the courts to provide solutions tailored to those reasons. It is not preferential treatment to acknowledge socioeconomic factors which explain why a person has found themselves in the criminal courts, and that they may be at a disadvantage because of those reasons.

These factors should be attended to by governing bodies, such as the Sentencing Council, to understand how offending can be prevented. Narrow-minded thinking is detrimental to the progress of society and the advancement of our justice system.

Olivia Davin is a Pupil Barrister specialising in Criminal Law and Immigration, Asylum and Nationality. Following completion of her pupillage, she will practice in Crime and Immigration. If you have a case that you need advice or advocacy for, call our Clerks on 0161 832 4036, or fill out our contact form.