The role of the Solicitor General is not simply administrative. It carries moral weight. Decisions about whether a sentence is “unduly lenient” speak to what, and who, the state believes is worth protecting. In recent months, Ellie Reeves has exercised that power in ways that raise deeply uncomfortable questions about consistency, compassion and justice.
Reeves refused to refer the sentence of Michael Webber to the unduly lenient scheme. Webber received just six months in custody after pleading guilty to the sexual assault of a 19-year-old. That young woman later took her own life. Reeves’ explanation was procedural; the sentence, she said, could not be “properly referred”. For the family and those following the case, that reasoning offers little comfort. A serious sexual offence, a short custodial sentence, and a young life lost, yet no appetite from the government’s senior law officer even to allow the Court of Appeal to review whether justice was adequately served.
Contrast this with Reeves’ decision to personally refer the sentence of Farah Damji as unduly lenient. Damji received a six-year sentence in a case where, crucially, no one died and the allegations remain disputed. Her appeal is due to be heard by the full Court of Appeal on 14 January 2026, based on claims of serious failures including lack of disclosure, police misconduct and an unlawful trial process. These are not fringe arguments; they are substantial enough to justify a full appellate hearing.
Yet Reeves intervened aggressively, seeking to increase Damji’s sentence. This intervention took place despite the fact that Damji was undergoing cancer treatment at the time of trial, which she was required to attend regardless, and despite ongoing concerns raised by supporters about her health and access to adequate medical care in prison. According to those close to the case, she is gravely unwell and deteriorating behind bars.
The optics are brutal. A man who admits to sexual assault receives six months and is deemed beyond review. A woman contesting her conviction, facing serious health issues, is targeted for sentence escalation. The law may insist these decisions are technical. But justice, to retain legitimacy, must also be intelligible and humane.
Ellie Reeves may insist she is merely applying legal tests. But when discretion is exercised so unevenly, it stops looking neutral. It begins to look like power: unaccountable, selective, and devastating in its consequences.
Image source: BBC
Opinion article by The View.