In a decisive shift for England and Wales’ criminal justice system, the Justice Department has announced that Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood will now have the power to veto any new changes to sentencing guidelines proposed by the independent Sentencing Council. The move, confirmed on September 2, 2025, is set to reshape how sentencing policy is formed, sparking a fresh debate about the balance between judicial independence and democratic oversight.
The Sentencing Council, a non-departmental public body consisting of some of the most senior legal figures in England and Wales, has long been responsible for issuing guidance to courts on how sentences should be determined. But under the new rules, the Council will no longer be able to issue guidelines without explicit approval from both the Justice Secretary and the Lady Chief Justice, who serves as the head of the judiciary. If either of these key figures opposes a proposed guideline, it will not be issued.
This requirement for dual approval forms a central pillar of the Sentencing Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on Tuesday. The Bill also stipulates that the Sentencing Council must seek sign-off from the Justice Secretary for its annual business plan, further embedding ministerial oversight into the Council’s operations. According to the Justice Department, these reforms are designed to ensure a “democratic lock” on the Council’s work, preventing it from setting policy without Parliament’s involvement.
Justice Secretary Mahmood defended the changes, stating, “Individual sentencing decisions will always be the responsibility of the independent judiciary – and this is something I will staunchly defend. However, policy must be set by parliamentarians, who answer to the people.” She added, “It is right that we now have greater democratic and judicial oversight of the direction of the Council’s work and the final guidelines they publish.”
The reforms follow a public dispute earlier in 2025 between the Sentencing Council and the government over the Council’s proposed guidance regarding pre-sentence reports for offenders from certain minority groups. The now-abandoned guidelines would have required judges to consider the backgrounds of offenders from ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities, as well as young adults aged 18 to 25, women, and pregnant women, before deciding on punishment. The Council argued that these reports would ensure courts had the “most comprehensive information available” to hand out appropriate sentences.
However, the proposals quickly became a lightning rod for criticism. Both the government and opposition parties argued that the guidelines risked creating what they termed “two-tier justice.” Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick was particularly vocal, describing the proposed rules as biased “against straight white men” and amounting to “two-tier justice.” Official figures have shown that offenders from ethnic minorities consistently receive longer sentences than white offenders for indictable offences, a fact that fueled the debate on both sides.
Justice Secretary Mahmood had previously asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider its guidance, expressing concern that the proposed rules amounted to “differential treatment” because pre-sentence reports were encouraged for some groups but not others. When the Council rejected her request, the government moved swiftly, introducing emergency legislation to override the guidelines. The controversial rules were ultimately abandoned, but the episode highlighted a rift between the independent body and elected officials over who should set the terms of sentencing policy.
According to multiple sources, including The Telegraph and The Guardian, the government has insisted that the new powers do not interfere with the independence of judges in making individual sentencing decisions. Rather, they argue, the reforms are about ensuring that the broader framework within which judges operate reflects democratic values and accountability. “Government and Parliament have a legitimate role in setting the sentencing framework,” Mahmood explained. “It is right that we now have greater democratic and judicial oversight.”
The Sentencing Bill also includes broader measures aimed at tackling persistent prison overcrowding, a problem that has bedeviled the justice system for years. Among the proposed solutions are so-called “Texas-style earned release sentences,” which would allow prisoners to secure early release through good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs. The Bill also promises tougher community punishments as alternatives to incarceration, reflecting a growing consensus that the prison population cannot be managed by custodial sentences alone.
The Lady Chief Justice, whose approval is now required for any new sentencing guideline to be issued, is expected to play a critical role in safeguarding the judiciary’s independence. By giving both the government and the judiciary an individual veto, the reforms aim to strike a delicate balance between democratic legitimacy and legal expertise. If either Mahmood or the Lady Chief Justice objects to a proposed guideline, it will not move forward—a structure designed to foster consensus but which may also slow the pace of reform.
Not everyone is convinced that the changes will improve the system. Critics warn that giving a Cabinet minister veto power over sentencing guidelines risks politicizing what should be a neutral, evidence-based process. They argue that, in practice, the reforms could lead to increased political interference in the day-to-day administration of justice. Supporters, on the other hand, say the changes are necessary to restore public confidence and ensure that sentencing policy is subject to democratic scrutiny.
The Sentencing Council itself has pushed back against the reforms. Earlier this year, it defended its proposed guidelines, insisting that pre-sentence reports for minority groups and vulnerable offenders would help judges make more informed decisions. “The rules would ensure the courts had the most comprehensive information available to hand out a punishment,” the Council stated. But with the new Bill set to become law, the Council’s autonomy is now significantly curtailed.
What does all this mean for the future of sentencing in England and Wales? For one, it signals a clear intent by the government to reassert control over a process that has, until now, operated with a high degree of independence. The changes may also set a precedent for how other independent bodies interact with Parliament and government ministries, especially on matters where public trust and perceptions of fairness are at stake.
As the Sentencing Bill moves through Parliament, both supporters and critics will be watching closely to see how the new system works in practice. Will the dual veto foster better policy, or will it lead to gridlock and delay? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the debate over who should set the rules for justice in England and Wales is far from over.
