Abolish the Sentencing Council: A Sham Justice System Protecting Elites

 The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is an affront to the very concept of equal justice under the law. It has entrenched a two-tier legal framework where the privileged are shielded from the full force of the law, while ordinary Britons suffer the consequences of an increasingly ideological judiciary. This unaccountable body, which dictates sentencing guidelines to the courts, is not just failing to deliver justice—it is actively undermining it. It must be abolished.

The fundamental flaw of the Sentencing Council is its role in creating lenient sentencing frameworks that disproportionately benefit elites and those protected by ideological dogma while ensuring that harsher penalties fall on the working and middle classes. This disparity is not accidental—it is the natural outcome of an institution that prioritises political narratives over blind justice. Take, for example, the council’s guidance on hate crimes and so-called ‘offensive’ speech. Individuals who transgress fashionable progressive norms can find themselves facing severe punishment, while those committing violent crimes often receive laughably light sentences in the name of ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘restorative justice.’

Moreover, the Sentencing Council systematically ignores the concerns of the public. Time and again, public polling has shown that Britons believe sentencing is too lenient. Yet, rather than responding to public demand for stronger punishments for violent offenders, career criminals, and repeat offenders, the Council continues to tinker with guidelines that allow these individuals to avoid meaningful punishment. This is not a justice system—it is a bureaucratic playground for academics and activists who view the working classes with contempt and see ordinary citizens as obstacles to their ideological ambitions.

The Council’s policies have created a dystopian legal environment where law-abiding citizens are at greater risk of prosecution for defending themselves than violent criminals are for attacking them. In an era where knife crime and gang violence continue to rise, sentencing guidelines that prioritise ‘understanding’ over deterrence are not just foolish—they are dangerous. Who benefits from this soft-touch justice? Certainly not the victims of crime. The reality is that the Council’s approach shields the powerful and connected from the harsh penalties it happily applies to those without influence.

The solution is simple: abolish the Sentencing Council and return sentencing power to the judiciary, guided by parliamentary statute and democratic accountability. This would strip away the ideological framework that has allowed justice to become politicised and would empower judges to apply the law with clarity and consistency rather than bending to the whims of progressive bureaucrats. Parliament must take back control of sentencing policy and ensure that the justice system serves the people—not activist elites.

The Sentencing Council has presided over a justice system that is anything but just. It has nurtured a two-tier legal framework where ideology trumps fairness and where criminals are emboldened rather than deterred. Enough is enough. It is time to abolish this disgraceful institution and restore true justice to Britain.