Pressure is mounting on Sir Keir Starmer to sack Attorney General Lord Hermer.
Claims have emerged that he declined to review "unduly lenient" sentences given to a rapist, a paedophile and a terrorist fundraiser - despite signing off on the prosecution of Lucy Connolly.
The three criminals all received softer sentences than Connolly, who was imprisoned for 31 months for a tweet about last year's Southport attacks.
The Attorney General's office is said to have opted not to refer the decisions to the Court of Appeal for review.
Lord Hermer's office decided not to use the power to review the sentences despite each receiving less jail time than Connolly.
The findings, first reported by The Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about Lord Hermer's judgement.
Sir Keir Starmer is being urged to sack his Attorney General, Lord Hermer over the allegaations of 'two-tier justice'
GETTY
In England and Wales, members of the public can ask the Attorney General to re-examine a sentence handed down by a Crown Court if they believe it to be "unduly lenient".
The Attorney General may then refer the decision to the Court of Appeal, which can keep the sentence the same, increase it or issue guidance for future cases.
The minister has the constitutional power to review sentences when requested by the public. The mechanism allows for judicial decisions to be scrutinised if they appear inappropriately light given the severity of the crimes committed.
The Court of Appeal holds the final authority in these reviews, with options to maintain existing sentences, impose harsher punishments, or provide guidance for similar future cases.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for 31 months for a tweet about last year's Southport attacks
PALord Hermer personally approved Connolly's prosecution despite having the constitutional power to prevent it. He did not have any say over her sentence.
The Attorney General's decision to sign off on the prosecution whilst declining to review the lighter sentences of more serious offenders has intensified scrutiny of his decision-making process. His office had the authority to intervene in Connolly's case before it reached court but chose not to exercise this power.
The fresh claims have emerged amid intense scrutiny over Hermer for a speech in which he compared calls for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights to the rise of Nazism.
His comparison of ECHR withdrawal calls to Nazi ideology sparked significant backlash across the political spectrum.
Deputy leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice, said: "Lord Hermer appears to think rape, paedophilia and terrorism are less serious offences than a nasty offensive tweet that was deleted after four hours."
He added: "This would make him simply unfit to be Attorney General, and he should resign or be fired."
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “Lord Hermer is clearly not suitable to serve as Attorney General. From acting as a cheerleader for the Chagos Islands giveaway to smearing his political opponents as Nazis, he has shown appalling judgement.
“If Starmer had even an ounce of principle, he would have already sacked Hermer. But we all know he won’t lay a finger on his old friend, donor, and legal lodestar.”
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office said: "Decisions to prosecute are, rightly, made independently of Government by the Crown Prosecution Service.
"Decisions relating to conviction, sentencing and sentencing length are made entirely independently of Government by juries and judges."
More From GB News
Most Read
