Martin Daubney erupted in a fiery clash with barrister Rebecca Butler on GB News over the Sentencing Council's controversial guidance on pre-sentence reports for minorities.
The heated exchange centred on what Daubney called "two-tier justice" in the criminal justice system.
Butler defended the Sentencing Council, questioning whether the public would prefer "politicians in charge of sentencing" over "a board of experts".
Martin said: "There is a recommendation that the sentence is downgraded from its current term to a softer term to take into account the fact it's the first offence for illegal immigrants.
"It's two-tier justice for illegal immigrants. It is."
She responded: "No, but indigenous people get lower sentences for first offences as well. It's not the case that they're getting preferential treatment.
"In answer to the rhetorical question you asked about how your viewers would think, I would pose back: Are your viewers more content to have politicians in charge of sentencing?"
Martin then fired back: "Let the judges do their job. Why should judges answer to a quango? Nobody likes them."
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
She replied: "Well, there's your question. Do you want them to answer to political motivations, or do you want judges to take their guidelines from a board of experts? They're not a random group of people on the sentencing council. There are a lot of people who are experts."
Shaking his head, Martin retorted: "But Rebecca, they are making recommendations based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status. That goes against the very ethos of being equal before the law. Lady Justice should be blind. These guidelines aren't."
Butler continued by asking: "Yeah, but, you know, take the example of a pregnant woman. How should a pregnant woman be treated on sentence?"
To which Martin fumed: "Well, I'll tell you: if you say you get lesser sentences, then every female with half a brain will be getting pregnant while they're waiting to go on trial, won't they?"
Laughing at the suggestion, Butler said: "Arguably, yes. But I think, honestly, people will say it's so much better to leave the person who's the arbiter of fact, the person who's heard the case, to leave the administration of justice to judges.
"The sentencing council is a qualified, competent council. It's not just an unelected quango. It's full of highly specialized individuals who understand sentencing."
Martin replied: "But it's another filter. It's another filter of what they deem the law to be."
The clash comes as the Justice Secretary made it clear she would not accept the Council's decision without further action.
"I am extremely disappointed by the Council's response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary," Shabana Mahmood stated.
Find Out More...
The heated exchange centred on what Daubney called "two-tier justice" in the criminal justice system.
Butler defended the Sentencing Council, questioning whether the public would prefer "politicians in charge of sentencing" over "a board of experts".
Martin said: "There is a recommendation that the sentence is downgraded from its current term to a softer term to take into account the fact it's the first offence for illegal immigrants.
"It's two-tier justice for illegal immigrants. It is."
She responded: "No, but indigenous people get lower sentences for first offences as well. It's not the case that they're getting preferential treatment.
"In answer to the rhetorical question you asked about how your viewers would think, I would pose back: Are your viewers more content to have politicians in charge of sentencing?"
Martin then fired back: "Let the judges do their job. Why should judges answer to a quango? Nobody likes them."
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- ‘Utterly scandalous!’ Ex-Met detective says leftist bureaucrats rule Britain as Sentencing Council REJECTS Labour’s demand to scrap ‘two-tier’ guidelines
- Robert Jenrick BLASTS Shabana Mahmood for 'sitting on her hands' as UK faces 'two-tier' guidelines: 'Humiliating!'
- Barrister erupts over ‘soft’ new guidelines that could mean more illegal immigrants swerve deportation
She replied: "Well, there's your question. Do you want them to answer to political motivations, or do you want judges to take their guidelines from a board of experts? They're not a random group of people on the sentencing council. There are a lot of people who are experts."
Shaking his head, Martin retorted: "But Rebecca, they are making recommendations based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status. That goes against the very ethos of being equal before the law. Lady Justice should be blind. These guidelines aren't."
Butler continued by asking: "Yeah, but, you know, take the example of a pregnant woman. How should a pregnant woman be treated on sentence?"
To which Martin fumed: "Well, I'll tell you: if you say you get lesser sentences, then every female with half a brain will be getting pregnant while they're waiting to go on trial, won't they?"
Laughing at the suggestion, Butler said: "Arguably, yes. But I think, honestly, people will say it's so much better to leave the person who's the arbiter of fact, the person who's heard the case, to leave the administration of justice to judges.
"The sentencing council is a qualified, competent council. It's not just an unelected quango. It's full of highly specialized individuals who understand sentencing."
Martin replied: "But it's another filter. It's another filter of what they deem the law to be."
The clash comes as the Justice Secretary made it clear she would not accept the Council's decision without further action.
"I am extremely disappointed by the Council's response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary," Shabana Mahmood stated.
Find Out More...