Criminals from poorer backgrounds could soon be handed more lenient sentences by the courts, in a move branded ‘utterly ludicrous’ by Shipley MP Philip Davies.
Mr Davies said sentences should reflect the crime committed and a person’s socio-economic background was not relevant.
The Sentencing Council recently consulted on what measures judges and magistrates could consider when handing out a sentence. It has now confirmed as of April new rules will come in allowing mitigating circumstances to be considered which will include negative experiences of authority, being in care, poverty, and low educational attainment.
Mr Davies set out his concerns and opposed all the measures in a formal response to the consultation.
He said: “A crime is a crime and low educational attainment and poverty are not excuses to commit crimes.
“By introducing these changes, we will now see some people treated more leniently by judges and magistrates simply because they are, for example, poorer. What sort of message does that send out?”
“It is extremely patronising and an insult to all the hard-working, law-abiding people also on low incomes - some of whom will be the victims of these very crimes.”
The Government also opposed the change, as did many judges and magistrates.
The changes also emphasise that age and lack of maturity are mitigating factors that can apply to criminals up to the age of 25. Mr Davies also opposed this, and argued that while maturity could be relevant in “very young offenders” there was no reason someone up to the age of 25 should be given special dispensation.
He added: “In 2022 more than 200,000 18 to 25 year olds were sentenced. Taking someone’s age into account will apply to so many offences that it will inevitably include serious crimes such as sexual and violent crimes. This will naturally be a concern to the public.
“It is extremely disappointing that the Sentencing Council decided to include these factors. My constituents rightly want the courts to be tough on criminals not hand out even more lenient sentences.”
The Sentencing Council did accept one of the suggestions put forward by Mr Davies. He called for “cultural differences” to be scrapped when considering an offender’s remorse given it was unclear what it meant. This view was shared by judges and magistrates.
