What is justice? How our judicial system is failing to uphold our values.
A fair and functioning justice system should be based on clear principles: punish violent crime properly, ensure sentences reflect the severity of offences, and protect fundamental freedoms, including the right to speak one’s mind. Yet recent cases have shown that our legal system is failing in all three areas.
Two cases, both presided over by Judge Steven Everett, demonstrate just how uneven and inconsistent sentencing has become. A man convicted of assaulting a constituent was given a suspended sentence, allowing him to walk free. Meanwhile, a care worker with no prior convictions was jailed for 15 months for a Facebook comment.
It is hard to see how this can be justified.
The Unequal Sentences
A Violent Attack – No Prison Time
Former Labour MP Mike Amesbury was convicted of assault after a drunken altercation in which he repeatedly punched a constituent. The attack was caught on CCTV. Initially, he was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison. However, after an appeal, Judge Steven Everett suspended the sentence, meaning Amesbury did not serve a single day in custody. Instead, he was ordered to complete unpaid work and attend an alcohol monitoring programme.
Despite the conviction, Amesbury remains an MP. He lost the Labour whip but continues to sit in Parliament as an independent.
A Facebook Post – 15 Months in Prison
Compare this to Julie Sweeney, a care worker with a clean record. She was convicted over a Facebook comment that was deemed offensive. Unlike Amesbury, she had not physically harmed anyone. Yet Judge Steven Everett sentenced her to 15 months in prison on the premise that her words could incite hatred and violence.
Regardless of the nature of the post, it is difficult to see how an online comment—which did not result in any physical harm—warranted a harsher sentence than a violent attack. Even without the appeal, 10 weeks in prison is significantly less than 15 months.
What Does This Say About British Justice?
These two cases expose a serious imbalance in our legal system. A justice system that punishes speech more harshly than physical violence is fundamentally broken.
The message seems to be:
- If you assault someone, the courts may let you off with a short or suspended sentence.
- If you say the wrong thing online, you could go to prison for well over a year.
This is not about excusing harmful speech, but about ensuring proportionality in sentencing. The idea that words alone are a greater offence than actual violence should worry anyone who believes in fair and reasonable justice.
The Threat to Free Speech
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. But when legal consequences for speech outweigh those for real-world violence, it is clear that something has gone very wrong.
The British public must have confidence that the courts will apply the law fairly and consistently. That means:
- Violent crimes should carry meaningful custodial sentences—no one should be able to attack another person and walk free.
- Speech offences should be treated proportionally—while direct threats or incitement to violence should be punished, there must be clear limits on when online comments warrant criminal prosecution.
- Justice must not be politically motivated—the law must be applied equally, not based on who the defendant is or how their words are perceived by the establishment.
A Justice System That Works for the People
Reform UK believes in law and order that is applied fairly. This means:
- Protecting the public from real crime, rather than unnecessarily criminalising people for speech.
- Sentencing based on harm caused, not political pressure.
- Restoring common sense to the courts, so the public can have confidence in British justice again.
If we do not demand change, these inconsistencies will only get worse. A justice system that fears words more than violence is a justice system that no longer serves the people it is meant to protect.