The Sentencing Council in the UK has introduced updated guidelines urging judges to consider pre-sentence reports for offenders from ethnic, cultural, and faith minority backgrounds, as well as young adults and pregnant women.
This has led to accusations of a “two-tier justice system,” with critics, including Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, arguing that it makes custodial sentences less likely for certain groups.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood refuted the claims, insisting that there will be no differential treatment under the Labour government. The guidelines, according to Lord Justice William Davis, aim to ensure courts have a fuller understanding of an offender’s background to issue “more effective sentences”, rather than indicating leniency.
The guidance has also drawn support from campaigners for its stance on pregnant women and mothers, advising courts to avoid imprisonment unless absolutely necessary. Feminist advocacy group Level Up called the change a “huge milestone” in protecting vulnerable women, while No Births Behind Bars praised the recognition of prison’s harmful impact on babies and mothers.
However, the broader debate over whether these changes undermine equality before the law continues, with critics warning of potential bias in sentencing outcomes. The Sentencing Council maintains that pre-sentence reports provide essential context, ensuring fair and informed judicial decisions.
Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood want to create a two tier justice system.
Under new guidance, ethnic minorities will be less likely to get prison sentences.
Only Reform UK will end this madness. pic.twitter.com/YmTyMyzuhq
— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) March 5, 2025
🚨 BREAKING: ‘TWO-TIER JUSTICE’ CONFIRMED—NEW SENTENCING RULES GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON RACE & RELIGION
Shadow Justice Secretary @RobertJenrick has exposed new sentencing guidelines that will make jail time less likely for offenders from ethnic, cultural, and faith… pic.twitter.com/8z1xezECbN
— Western Intel (@TheWesternIntel) March 5, 2025
Image credit: Matthew Ansley
“equality under the law”?
Depending on whether you are rich or wretched, the Court will juge you black or white.
Especially in a ” class” society such as the UK
Freedom in the UK means living in a container, a narrowboat, or in a caravan alongside the ‘Travelers’, and being out and away from the darkened Africanised turmoil of populated areas in the U.K. that are crime-infested, heavily policed, and are now ghetto-like.
Not to mention the stab-fests of knife crimes…
Woke totalitarianism…….
Kinda reminds one of the ‘Three Strikes Law’ here in NZ, which was adopted from Bill Clinton imposing the same on his political opponents.
Example;
Speeding ticket- 1 strike.
Parking ticket- 1 strike.
Failure to pay a fine on time or file taxes on time- 1 strike.
OFF YOU GO TO AN INDEFINITE JAIL TERM, AS PER THE NDAA, NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE BAIL, OR SUFFERING BOGUS / FRAMED CHARGES!
In Soviet Russia after the 1917 October Revolution, the Bolsheviks didn’t design a formally segregated “two-tier” justice system with separate courts or laws for different groups (like, say, apartheid’s legal dualism). However, in practice, the system absolutely delivered different outcomes for different people within the same framework, driven by class, political loyalty, and revolutionary goals. Here’s how:
Class-Based Bias: The Bolsheviks explicitly framed justice as a tool of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Their slogan “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability” extended to legal treatment. Workers and poor peasants often received leniency for crimes, seen as victims of capitalist oppression, while former elites—landowners, aristocrats, or “kulaks”—faced harsher penalties for similar offenses, if not outright extrajudicial punishment. For example, theft by a worker might be excused as a revolutionary act, while theft by a “class enemy” could mean a death sentence.
Political Loyalty Over Evidence: The revolutionary tribunals and later Soviet courts judged people based on their perceived threat to the state. A loyal Communist Party member accused of a crime might get a slap on the wrist or a pardon, while a suspected counter-revolutionary (even without solid evidence) could be executed or sent to the Gulag. During the Red Terror (1918–1922), this was especially stark—thousands were killed or imprisoned based on vague accusations like “sabotage” or “anti-Soviet agitation,” with outcomes hinging on their political alignment rather than legal facts.
Extrajudicial Power of the Cheka: The Cheka (and later its successors) operated within the same system but outside normal judicial oversight. If you were a worker caught in a petty dispute, you might face a people’s court; if you were labeled an enemy of the state, the Cheka could bypass courts entirely and decide your fate—often death or imprisonment—based on secret reports or denunciations. This created a de facto disparity: one process for the “trusted” masses, another for the “disloyal.”
In short, yes, Bolshevik Russia had a justice system where outcomes varied dramatically based on who you were—your class, loyalty to the regime, or usefulness to the revolution—rather than the law being applied consistently. It wasn’t two separate systems on paper, but it functioned as such in reality.
Because you think the law is ” fair and impartial” in europe ?
You get into prison for stealing mince meat at the supermarket while crooks ( among whom politicians) paying thousands to barristers go scott free
“Shabana Mahmood” – traditional British name, that.