Exclusive:Staffing costs soar by a 'dismaying' 407% at Scottish sentencing body
The Scottish Sentencing Council has been accused of “feathering its own nest” after costs for the quango soared by more than 400 per cent
Costs for Scotland’s criminal sentencing authority have soared by 407 per cent, the latest figures show.
The Scottish Sentencing Council (SCC), set up in 2015, has released its latest annual report giving a full picture of expenditure over its first 10 years.
Overall annual costs have increased by 402 per cent while staffing costs have spiralled by 407 per cent, the report shows.
The Scotsman told last month that the SSC’s cost to taxpayers had risen by 338 per cent since it was set up but it is only now the accounts have been updated that the complete sum can be revealed.
Senior law academic Dr Graeme Brown had taken the SCC to task over what he called a “masterclass in institutional preservation”, criticising the body’s limited output over the past decade.
Dr Brown said: “The 2024/25 annual report does nothing to allay the concerns raised in respect of the Council’s expenditure.
“In fact, the figures demonstrate that the financial position is even worse than was first reported.”
Between the Council’s establishment on October 19, 2015 and March 31, 2025 its expenditure, including staff costs, totalled £5,594,754.
The Council was established in October 2015 but some staff did not take up post until January 2016.
The Council’s annual expenditure has increased year on year, increasing by 402 per cent, from £198,635 in 2015-2016 to £996,797 in 2024-2025.
Dr Brown added: “In an era of widespread job insecurity and real term pay cuts in the public sector, and when other civil servants are instructed to ‘do more with less’, staff costs at the Sentencing Council have spiralled by a truly astonishing amount.”
Staff costs have risen by 407 per cent, from £147,102 in 2015/16 to £745,982 in 2024/25.
The SCC’s secretariat has also increased by two new members of staff to a total of 13.
“In an era when many public services are facing deep-rooted challenges and squeezed budgets, it is quite simply unacceptable for the Council’s expenditure and its staffing costs to have both increased by more than 400 per cent in the space of ten years,” Dr Brown said.
“Why should the Scottish Sentencing Council, as a somewhat niche advisory body, be immune to the budget cuts experienced by other public bodies?”
Scottish Conservative shadow minister for victims and community safety Sharon Dowey MSP said taxpayers “will be dismayed” that further costs have been incurred.
“Law-abiding Scots will be rightfully aggrieved at the staggering sums of taxpayers’ money being racked up by them,” Ms Dowey said.
“It’s vital that the SSC are fully transparent about how they are using taxpayer’s cash and ensure that all funds are targeted towards best supporting the needs of victims.”
Lord Justice Clerk Beckett, who is chair of the SSC, writes in the introduction to the 2024/25 annual report that the body fulfils its statutory duty by developing sentencing guidelines.
Dr Brown points out the sentencing council has produced three general guidelines and one offence-specific guideline in its first decade.
Lord Beckett writes that the Council is nearing completion of its finalised sentencing guidelines on rape but these have taken more than seven years to prepare.
Dr Brown added: “The three general guidelines largely re-state existing practice, albeit with the controversial and flawed addition of extending the definition of a young offender to those aged under 25.
“The Council’s lack of any real progress together with its massive increases in expenditure, particularly the 407 per cent increase in staff costs, suggests that the Scottish Sentencing Council is more concerned with feathering its own nest than effecting any meaningful change in Scottish sentencing practice.”
The academic points to the work the SSC, which is funded by the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, has done in raising public awareness of sentencing, such as publishing educational materials and launching a podcast.
However, he says these are of limited use to judges, sheriffs and lawyers.
He said: “If we focus instead on the Council’s outputs which are actually used by the courts, and if we include the forthcoming and long-awaited guidelines on sentencing rape in the equation, then each of the Council’s sentencing guidelines, imperfect as they are, have cost the taxpayer more than £1.1m to prepare.
“It is frankly embarrassing that the Council has spent over seven years preparing its guidelines on sentencing rape.”
As told in The Scotsman last month, Dr Brown laid out a scathing overview of the SCC’s work in Greens Criminal Law Bulletin, citing the “intense controversy” over the council’s Sentencing Young People guideline, which he says led to unduly lenient sentences for under-25s who commit serious crimes.
Dr Brown listed what he views as issues with the organisation, including poor quality research commissioned by the council; an unacceptable delay in issuing sentencing guidelines on rape and other sexual offences; and the soaring costs of the body when other public servants have faced pay erosion.
The Scottish Sentencing Council was approached for comment.