Justice Secretary enforces new guidelines

3 Sept 2025News

The Justice Secretary's new regulations strengthen oversight of the Sentencing Council and improve public confidence in justice systems

The Sentencing Council will now require the explicit approval of both the Justice Secretary and the Lady Chief Justice for any new guidelines, marking a significant change in how sentencing policies are established. This move comes in response to previous disagreements over guidelines that the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, argued could lead to “a clear example of differential treatment” and risk “undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law”.

The new law introduced in today’s Sentencing Bill enhances democratic oversight by ensuring that any directive issued by the Council must be approved by both authorities. Should either party oppose a guideline, it will not be implemented, effectively ending a historic democratic deficit in the governance of sentencing frameworks. Shabana Mahmood stated that while “individual sentencing decisions will always be the responsibility of the independent judiciary – and this is something I will staunchly defend,” it is crucial that policy be set by “parliamentarians, who answer to the people.”

This legislation is a critical part of the Government’s broader Plan for Change, aiming to rebuild public confidence in the justice system. In addition to the new oversight measures, the Sentencing Bill includes provisions to prevent prison overcrowding, such as earned release sentences and increased focus on community punishment. The Government is also investing heavily in expanding prison capacity, with a commitment to increase places by 14,000 by 2031 through a £7 billion construction initiative.

Furthermore, there will be a requirement for the Council to obtain the Justice Secretary’s approval for its annual business plan, reinforcing the accountability of the Council’s operations while maintaining judicial independence in individual sentencing cases. Overall, these reforms aim to enhance the integrity of the justice system and ensure that the sentencing framework aligns with democratic principles.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

SPP urges HMRC to reconsider pension tax

The Society of Pension Professionals has called on HMRC to address concerns over inheritance tax on pensions to avoid confusion for families affected by bereavement

Progress in cleaning up Companies House

A new report highlights ongoing improvements to the Companies House register aimed at tackling economic crime

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...