Partner Ernest Aduwa comments on Sentencing Guidelines in The Times, The Law Society Gazette, and Law360

Partner Ernest Aduwa comments on the Justice Secretary’s proposal to grant herself – and her successors – the power to veto recommendations of the Sentencing Council, warning that such a move represents a dangerous overreach of ministerial authority.

Ernest’s comments were published in Law360, 2 September 2025, The Law Society Gazette, 3 September 2025, and The Times, 10 September 2025.

“As a practitioner who has dedicated my career to the intricacies of the criminal justice system, I find this proposed arrogation of power by the Justice Secretary to be profoundly disquieting and constitutionally regressive. The very notion that a political appointee whose tenure is subject to the vicissitudes of electoral fortune and partisan manoeuvring, should possess an individual veto over the meticulously considered guidelines of the Sentencing Council is an affront to the sacrosanct principle of judicial independence.

“This is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is a fundamental recalibration of the relationship between the executive and the judiciary that strikes at the heart of a functioning, democratic state built on the separation of powers.

“The Sentencing Council is not some nebulous, unaccountable quango operating in a void. Its composition is a deliberate amalgamation of the most eminent judicial and legal minds in the country. Its guidelines are the product of extensive consultation, empirical research, and profound legal scholarship, designed to balance the scales of justice between consistency and the necessary discretion to account for the infinite complexities of each case and each individual who stands before the court. To insinuate that this body requires the political imprimatur of a cabinet minister to validate its work is to display a breathtaking cynicism towards expertise and a lamentable misunderstanding of how sentencing actually operates in practice.

“This veto does not protect democracy; it imperils it by placing a political filter over a judicial function. A ministerial veto risks a framework shaped by politics rather than principle, creating a chilling effect long before any defendant enters a courtroom. Sentencing decisions are not abstract concepts; they are life-altering events for victims, defendants, families, and communities. They must remain guided by independent experts, not politicians chasing headlines. This proposal is a dangerous overreach and one that anyone who values the rule of law must oppose.”