The Labour Courts Minister "Tolerating" Sharia Courts in Britain

Meet Sarah Sackman MP, the current courts minister.

Labour MP Sarah Sackman was appointed Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services in December 2024.

She currently holds responsibility for court reform, legal aid, and miscarriages of justice, among other policy areas. She supports the Justice Secretary, now David Lammy, in overseeing key aspects of the UK’s justice system.

Given her position, one would expect her to take seriously any issue that could undermine the application of UK law. Yet days ago, she appeared to do the opposite.

Responding to a question in the House of Commons from Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin on whether she “recognises Sharia courts in the UK”, Sackman said:

“Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils—in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith—that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.”

To some, it came across dismissive—an attempt to shroud supposed “far-right” race-baiting in that warm, fuzzy blanket of progressive tolerance.

In truth, Pochin’s question cut to the core of an issue that has concerned activists across the political spectrum for decades.

In 2012, an undercover investigation exposed two imams, one based in Peterborough and the other in East London, who were both willing to facilitate the marriage of a 12-year-old girl to a man in his 20s under Sharia law.

When challenged, one of the imams reportedly justified his position by stating that he would not have performed the marriage without the girl’s consent. Perhaps someone forgot to remind him that children cannot consent.

In a 2013 exposé, The Telegraph reported on the case of a Muslim woman who had already secured a civil divorce after her husband subjected her and their children to violence. A family court limited him to indirect access to the children.

But when she turned to a Sharia council/court in Leeds to obtain a religious divorce, she was told she would need to give up custody of her children to him.

In another case in the same year, this time in Leyton, a woman seeking religious divorce described her husband as verbally abusive, neglectful of their children, and refusing to work.

The presiding scholar/judge, Dr Suhaib Hasan, urged her to give her husband another month and try to reconcile “with the help of Allah.” “We are not just here to issue divorces,” he explained. “We want to mediate first.”

The Telegraph uncovered another case of a woman whose husband had assaulted her while she was pregnant and had been jailed for his violence.

Despite court injunctions protecting both her and her children, the Dewsbury Sharia Council urged her to attend mediation with him before granting a divorce.

Perhaps in the most reprehensible case—tellingly cited by the Muslim Women’s Network in 2017—another woman, repeatedly raped by her husband, who had also taken another wife, was told by a Sharia mediator to be “patient” in order to secure her divorce.

As Savin Bapir-Tarvey, a psychologist with the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO), hauntingly recalled at the time:

“Women who have been through FGM might not make that clear (to their new husbands), but they might say they don’t want to have sex. One woman was told it was her duty–and she should pray while her husband has sex with her–basically while he raped her.”

In plain terms, these courts/councils were found issuing deeply perverse, unconscionable rulings all across the country. Ones fundamentally at odds with UK law. And they’ve become so widespread that in December last year, The Times dubbed Britain the “Western capital” of Sharia law.

It’s true that many Muslim women report fair treatment when seeking divorce in certain courts/councils. It is also true they hold no weight in UK law. But it is their opaque and fractured nature that foments so much concern.

For one, nobody seems to actually know how many there are. Current reports state there are north of 85 Sharia courts/councils operating across the UK, but that number was also cited by The Telegraph in 2013.

Second, each court/council operates independently, with rulings based on its panel’s personal knowledge and interpretation of Sharia law, their approach and decisions can vary wildly.

This naturally leads one to wonder: if we don’t know how many Sharia councils/courts exist, how can we know what happens inside them?

Worse yet, given the lack of oversight and the insular nature of certain Muslim communities, how do we know they’re not acting as de facto courts?

If they’re living in parallel societies, it follows their abiding by parallel laws. Apostates are well known to be aggressively shamed and shunned. It’s a strong motivator for compliance.

About 100,000 Islamic marriages are believed to have been conducted in Britain, many of which are not officially registered with the civil authorities—unlike Christian and Jewish marriages, which Sackman failed to concede.

Scores of Muslim women attending these de facto courts have testified to having no clue their marriages were not legally recognised under UK law, leaving them utterly powerless when seeking divorce.

This is partly what led to Baroness Caroline Cox warning that they were evolving into “a parallel quasi–legal system” in 2017. She even attempted to get a private members’ bill passed to protect victims from discrimination.

Baroness Cox

Theresa May’s Home Office published a review on the issue in 2018 and found the same shocking evidence. Women were effectively being treated as second-class citizens.

The review went to suggest forming a government regulator so these foreign courts could have a code of practice. But the Conservatives, as former prosecutor turned Reform UK councillor Laila Cunningham recently put it, effectively “shelved” the plans.

Nearly seven years have passed. We still don’t know how widespread these courts are, or how much discrimination may still be taking place. Only charities, like Muslim Women’s Network, are seemingly working on new ways to stem discrimination and abuse.

What we do know is that our courts minister shrugs off questions and robotically defaults to platitudes about tolerance. This is, ironically, despite her past heralding of Labour’s effort to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

She even said it was a promise she was “personally committed to”—unless, it seems, it involves an unpopular topic in her political domain.

Prior to becoming Courts Minister, Sackman served as Solicitor General from July 2024. Alongside Attorney General Lord Hermer, she oversaw the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as it carried out its fast-tracked prosecutions of the non-violent Southport protestors.

That crackdown led to some people receiving longer sentences for online speech than others have received for rape and paedophilia.

This was largely due to the CPS’ unusual and widespread use of Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, pertaining to “stirring up racial hatred”, rather than the usual legislation applied to online speech, such as the Communications Act 2003 or the Online Safety Act 2023.

By law, prosecutions under the Public Order Act require sign-off from the Attorney General’s Office, meaning both Hermer and Sackman.

Sackman also previously worked at Matrix Chambers, the notoriously left-leaning barrister set known for defending asylum seekers against deportation. The set also boasts Hope Not Hate-linked Hermer as a former member.

She is now reviewing proposals that could strip citizens accused of lower-level crimes, such as shoplifting, drug possession, and common assault, of their right to a jury trial in light of mounting court backlogs.

The recommendation comes from a review led by Sir Brian Leveson. Branded “once-in-a-generation” reform, it proposes cases involving less serious offences be handled in a new kind of court: one judge, two magistrates, and no jury.

In other words, Sackman could soon oversee a move that strips more citizens of one of the most fundamental rights in any democratic justice system, the right to be judged by a jury of their peers.

In an interview in July, Sackman declared:

“As courts minister, my aspiration is that we restore public confidence in our justice system for people in their daily lives because justice is ultimately about a sense of security: in family relationships; in the ability to negotiate with an employer or an unscrupulous landlord; security in walking home at night.”

If confidence and security is the goal, one could be forgiven for thinking she’s working to achieve precisely the opposite.

*Last Thursday, I submitted FOI requests to both the Home Office and Ministry of Justice seeking details of any recent or ongoing investigations into Sharia councils/courts, as well as any policies, guidance, or safeguards that have been developed, implemented, or recommended to prevent any unlawful discrimination in their operation. Will keep you updated.

---

---

• Do you believe our best days lie ahead?

• Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?

• If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.

• In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief has reached 130+ million people. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up, enrol them on a journey of actual enlightenment, and put another dent the uniparty’s monopoly.

---