Tory is planning to scrap the judge -led conviction council, criticized as ‘Bonkers’ | Conviction

A Conservative plan In order to abolish the conviction council led by the court and to transfer its powers to the Ministry of Justice, former Tory ministers described as “Bonkers”, “non-implementable” and “potentially dangerous”.

The Shadow Court -Secretary Robert Jenrick Will announce on Tuesday that the independent public body that is responsible for developing guidelines for judges and magistrates in England and Wales would be closed by a future conservative government because it was “not suitable for the goal”.

Former Tory ministers with expertise in the criminal justice system expressed disbelief Jenrick’s planSaying that punishing would rise, intensify the overcrowding crisis in prisons and to collapse the entire criminal justice system.

According to Jenrick’s plan, Lord Chancellors would instead be in charge of setting the conviction policy because the UK “slid into a dual nightmare under Keir Starmer”.

He will blame the guidelines of the council for watering down penalties that are outlined by parliament for serious crimes.

The plan goes beyond Recent changes Made by the then Minister of Justice, Shabana Mahmood, to the conviction council after a row over “two -part conviction”. Last month, the Labor Government changed the rules so that new guidelines for courts must be signed by the secretary of the Justice and the Lady Chief Justice.

Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney General, said: “These are Bonkers. The penalties have risen in recent years and there is no prison capacity left. The Conviction The Council has done a good job in offering consistency, even if it may not be perfect. The [Jenrick] Proposal is the cheapest form of politics, because he must know that it cannot be implemented. “

Bob Neill, a conservative former chairman of the Select Common’s Select Commons, said that the policy was “very unwise and potentially dangerous”.

Another former Tory Minister said: “This is a policy that was not conceived. It understands the role that the Council of the conviction does not play and is a response to a proposal that has been withdrawn.

“The result can be longer penalties, but there is no prison room for more prisoners.”

The conviction council was founded in 2010 by the government of Gordon Brown to prevent the guidelines from being political and to allow a considered, expert opinion on the right range of sentences.

They consisted of eight members of the judiciary and six lay people, they produce guidelines for conviction, which are not binding, but want to increase the consistency of conviction within the parameters determined by the parliament.

Jenrick is expected to tell the conference in Manchester: “The public is to vote for harder penalties and get the opposite. So in the future the justice secretary, responsible for parliament, will be responsible for setting the conviction policy. No longer an irresponsible Quango people for the Britels.”

Jenrick will claim that the guidelines of the Council have weakened punishments by parliament for serious crimes.

According to the guidelines, the domestic burglary bears a sentence range from zero to six years, despite the parliament that allows a maximum of 14 years, he will add.

After a public dispute in March, the new policy comes between the council and the government about pre-sentence reports for perpetrators of certain minority groups.

The council was forced to withdraw after issuing guidelines for which magistrates and judges should be to consult a pre-sentence report before they decided whether someone of an ethnic or religious minority, or a young adult, survivor or pregnant woman would be given up.

Nazir Afzal, a former public prosecutor in the northwest EnglandSaid: “Judges are bound by legal reasoning, precedent and principles that ensure that decisions are rooted in the law. Politicians are haunting the headlines while judges try to maintain fairness. If you want to guarantee a dual legal system, you have politicians determine the conviction.”

Andy Slaughter, the employment chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said: “This is a chaotic, unnecessary and publicity -seeking proposal. The conviction account already represents a lifting that the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice can do.

A spokesperson for work added: “The Conservatives supported the proposed changes in pre-judge reports when they were announced and did nothing to stop them when they were in the government. Labor took action when we discovered their mistake.

“This is just another cynical gimmick from Jenrick, a man who constantly undermines the independence of the judiciary to promote his own career.”