Tory peer Lord Murray of Blidworth is taking on secretive immigration tribunals, demanding first-tier courts publish rulings on whether foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers remain in the UK. No more two-tier judges operating in the dark…
He’s tabled an amendment to the Border Security Bill that reads:
(1) All judgments of Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) must be published on a Government website within three days of being made.
(2) Judgments published under subsection (1) may be anonymised to the extent considered necessary by the Tribunal.
The amendment is sponsored by Tory peer Lord Jackson of Peterborough and two other Lords. Lord Murray says:
“The first purpose is to enable public scrutiny of the way in which courts decide cases, to hold judges to account for the decisions they make and to enable the public to have confidence that judges are doing their job properly.”
Labour Whip Lord Katz was quick to dismiss the move, claiming: “We see no reason to change it, and we feel that it is not simply a matter of transparency but of independence of the judiciary.” Heard that one before…
Essex Police are due to hold a press conference this morning over their handling of the unrest in Epping, as public anger over migrant crime boils over. The Telegraph reports this morning that the force has now admitted they escorted around 40 pro-migrant activists from Stand Up to Racism to the Bell Hotel – used to house migrants – on 17 July. Up until that point, protests had remained peaceful. That changed when the activists – some masked – arrived and clashed with a crowd of 400 protesters. Locals have turned on the policing decisions…
Initially, Essex Police denied facilitating the group’s entry to the protest. Then they were shown video evidence. Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Hooper said:
“In terms of bringing people to the hotel, the police have a duty to facilitate free assembly. We would only ever take people away from protest if we felt there was an immediate threat to people or property, to free up police resources, to protect others, or to prevent additional violence.”
Another example of two-tier justice. A tinderbox…
The BBC’s documentary titled Starmer’s Stormy Year aired today, reeling off the list of scandals and U-turns in the last year. Happy anniversary…
Starmer’s chum attorney general Richard Hermer gave an interview in the documentary. He used his airtime to launch an attack on claims of two-tier justice – examples of which Guido has dutifully followed – are “disgusting“:
“I think it’s offensive to our police. It’s offensive to our crown prosecutors who are trying to apply the law in the best faith. It is offensive to the courts, where independent judges are applying the law to reach the right sentences. We have one justice system. It’s frankly disgusting.”
He went on to parrot his usual professorial gush about international law, reiterating that it is at the “heart” of everything Starmer does:
“Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is. It’s important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve. The government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law — domestic law and international law — we serve the national interest.”
He then tried rebrand himself amid mounting criticism, claiming to be “actually a progressive”:
“The attacks on me are based on the fact that I represented some clients – obviously over 30 years, I represented thousands of clients. But the attacks are [that] I represented some individuals with reprehensible political views. It’s a bit like attacking a journalist for the person that they’re interviewing or a doctor for the nature of their patient. Frankly, it tickles most of my family and friends that I’m being portrayed as some huge lefty, because that’s not who I am. I’m progressive, and I’m deeply pragmatic in my politics.”
Robert Jenrick’s helpful video explaining the cab-rank rule might beg to differ on that….
Last night The Telegraph reported on two additional pieces of highly suspect 2025 guidance in the justice system, this time from the Probation Service:
The Ministry of Justice’s official response to that is to say: “These guidelines were first brought in under the last government. This Government will ensure equality in the courts.” Meanwhile on the guidance Labour “pointed to its origins under the Tories in 2016.” Neither bit of spin adds up…
There is no mention of trauma from racism or discrimination in the previous Probation Service pre-sentencing report guidance from 2021 or 2016. Neither is there mention of the need to take into account the “culture” of the offender. Not the ‘last government,’ then…
Guidance for issuing bail to minorities also pre-dates the last government. As early as 2007 bail guidance was set out in New Labour’s “Bail Information Scheme” to “prioritise women, BME and vulnerable prisoners.” Not the ‘last government,’ then…
Labour’s spin operation is clearly running a little loose as it becomes increasingly clear that on its watch two-tier justice is advancing in earnest. At midnight tonight those new Sentencing Council rules come into effect unimpeded by the government…
The government is set to push through emergency legislation this week to “surgically remove” the Sentencing Council’s new ‘two-tier’ guidelines after top judges flatly rejected Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s plea to rethink the rules. Justice Secretary Mahmood had slammed the Council’s guidance, stating, “The appearance of differential treatment before the law is particularly corrosive.” The new guidance comes into effect tomorrow. Optimistic government voices claim the “surgery” can be done within a week – others say it will take much longer…
The government is scrambling to rush its emergency legislation through both the Commons and Lords, though a Ministry of Justice insider admits: “There is no world in which these guidelines don’t take effect as planned.” Meanwhile, the Sentencing Council’s defiance has reignited concerns over the “democratic deficit” within the quango, with government sources hinting at wider reforms in Labour’s upcoming sentencing bill. Labour’s sentencing tsar, David Gauke, could use the legislation to tighten ministerial control over the Council. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick was scathing, branding Labour’s last-ditch attempt “too little, too late.” The two-tier guidance was flagged over a month ago. How many two-tier sentences will now be decided thanks to Mahmood’s failure to act in time?
UPDATE I: Fast track legislation to block two-tier justice will be published tomorrow though it won’t be in force until after Easter.
UPDATE II: The Sentencing Council has agreed to pause its ‘two-tier’ guidance until the government pushes through emergency legislation to block it. Parliament will now spend days undoing guidance that won’t be implemented in the first place…
The row over “two-tier” justice rules isn’t going away. Sentencing guidance requiring pre-sentence reports for ethnic minorities is set to take effect on April 1, and Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has vowed to challenge it in court if Labour refuses to intervene. Prompting Justice Secretary Mahmood to write to the Sentencing Council urging them to reconsider, warning: “If necessary, I will legislate”…
Both sides are now locked in a blame game. Mahmood is now pointing the finger at former Tory Sentencing Minister Gareth Bacon, claiming he backed the plans in a 2024 consultation. Meanwhile, the Sentencing Council claims the guidance is based on a 2017 report by David Lammy. No surprise there from the human rights lawyer…
Lammy’s report argued that sentencing decisions require greater scrutiny and that judges need more context on offenders’ backgrounds, recommending pre-sentence reports for minorities so judges can consider “the gap between the difference in backgrounds, both in social class and ethnicity”. Labour have just 25 days to get a grip on this one…
Former leader of the SNP in Westminster Ian Blackford told Times Radio why he believes Nicola Sturgeon’s claim that she spent no time in the kitchen and therefore didn’t see any of her husband’s purchases:
“She doesn’t have a passion for cooking.”