Justice on Trial: The Rule of Law Under Threat

The Sentencing Council, an unelected quango, came dangerously close to undermining the rule of law with its two-tier sentencing guidelines. It's clear that quangocracy embeds ideological principles that are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our constitutional principles.

By Bobby Seymour

7 AUGUST 2025

The rule of law is a cornerstone of the UK constitution. It is vital that, in a democratic society, laws apply equally regardless of background or status. Recently, this very characteristic came under attack from the Sentencing Council.

Earlier this year, the non-departmental public body issued new guidelines for sentencing. These outlined that courts may consider the offender's ‘ethnic, cultural, or religious background, as well as their transgender status, when deciding between custodial and community sentences’ .

Despite vehement objection from the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, the Sentencing Council refused to reverse course. In fact, the plans were only suspended when the Government announced plans to stop the guidelines through an Act of Parliament.

"Why should religion play a role in whether somebody goes to prison? What is the relevance of ethnicity in sentencing?"

In other words, they were forced to abandon the plans. These guidelines never came into effect, but it was an especially disconcerting episode for the rule of law. The United Kingdom came alarmingly close to having a legally system that did not apply equally.

We do not have to pretend that this is okay. Why is a transgender human less deserving of a custodial sentence? Why should religion play a role in whether somebody goes to prison? What is the relevance of ethnicity in sentencing?

It also demonstrates worrying consequences in the rise of ‘quangocracy’ – rule by semi-governmental administrative bodies outside of ministerial control. These quangos seem hostile to the very principles that define our constitution.

"The erosion of the rule of law sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to the destruction of our constitution. There is no hiding from the fact that this report was political."

If sentencing decisions were to disproportionately punish ethnic minorities, it would be rightly condemned as discrimination. Why should leniency based on ethnicity or gender identity be seen any differently? It must work both ways.

The term ‘two-tier’ derives from the idea that groups or individuals are treated with differing levels of treatment. This term could be used to describe the application of justice in the UK, if the Sentencing Council’s report had been followed. We would have become a state that applies its laws unequally, a complete detachment from our fundamental legal principles.

The erosion of the rule of law sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to the destruction of our constitution. There is no hiding from the fact that this report was political. It had an agenda. If we allow further politicisation of our judiciary then how are we supposed to trust our courts to defend and protect against misinterpretations of our great constitution?

"The integrity of our justice system relies on objectivity, ensuring our legal system is impartial, free from politicisation and clear that sentencing is determined by actions and not identity."

We, as conservatives, know that justice must be applied consistently. The integrity of our justice system relies on objectivity, ensuring our legal system is impartial, free from politicisation and clear that sentencing is determined by actions and not identity.

We must be firm in defending equal justice. We must reject a two-tier system that undermines the rule of law and threatens our legal principles by placing identity ahead of accountability. We must reject a legal system which places ideology ahead of impartiality.

Bobby Seymour is the Treasurer of Constitutional Conservatives UK. He is also the Conservative Town Councillor for Calne Central. You can follow him on X/Twitter here