Victims and Courts Bill
Tuesday 20th May 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the Government took office just 10 months ago, we inherited a justice system in crisis—our prisons were on the point of collapse, and the backlog in our courts was at record levels and rising fast—and victims were all too often paying the price. The Government are beginning the long and hard work of rebuilding our justice system so that it serves victims once more. In my eyes, that means meeting three principles.
The first is that justice must be swift. It is all too easily said that justice delayed means justice denied, but few have had the bravery to wrestle with the implications of that. This Government are investing more in court sitting days than any before them, but we know that that is not enough, so we will pursue reform—even if it courts opposition—in the pursuit of swifter justice for victims. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform of our courts. Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of our legal system for the most serious cases, but it is clear that we must consider whether there are cases heard before a jury today that could be heard in a different way, such as in front of a magistrate or a new intermediate court, in order to deliver the swifter justice that victims deserve.
The second principle of a justice system that serves victims is that punishment must be certain. This Government inherited the grotesque position of having more prisoners than prison cells. If prisons run out of space, victims pay the price. If courts hold trials and the police are forced to stop making arrests, crime goes unpunished and victims see no justice done. This Government will ensure that criminals face punishment. We are building 14,000 prison places in the largest expansion since the Victorian era, after 14 years in which the Conservatives added just 500 cells to our prison estate. We are also reforming sentencing so that our prisons never run out of space again and there is always space inside for dangerous offenders.
The third and final principle of a justice system that serves victims is that they are not retraumatised by their engagement with it. That third principle is what unites the specific measures set out in the Bill, and I will start by speaking about those which will force criminals to attend their sentencing in court.
In recent years, too many offenders have been allowed to cower in their cells rather than face the consequences of their actions. That is a final insult to victims and their families because it robs them of the chance to tell offenders, through victim impact statements, the pain they have caused. It robs victims and their families of the opportunity to look the offender in the eye and see them face the consequences of their crime and the full reality of their punishment. The Bill will change that.
The Bill gives judges the power to order criminals to attend sentencing hearings, it makes it clear that reasonable force can be used to ensure that happens and it hands out punishments to those who still defy that order. Adult offenders could face up to an additional two years in prison and an unlimited fine. I know, however, that that is little punishment for those who are serving long sentences or perhaps whole life orders, because they did not expect to see the light of day at all. For that reason, we will also give judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders, including confining criminals to their cells, the loss of privileges and, going further, limits on social visits.
If offenders appear in the dock but behave in a disruptive or disrespectful way, as has all too often been the case in recent months, judges must have the ability to remove them from the courtroom so that the hearing can continue and justice can be served. The Bill will give a judge the ability to impose the same penalties both on those who refuse to attend their sentencing and on those who attend but attempt to disrupt proceedings. While the previous Government brought forward similar measures, we are going further by expanding the range of punishment available through amending prison rules, which will expand the sanctions available to judges, and by extending the length of time for which such sanctions can be applied.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome this section of the Bill. My constituent, Sabina Nessa, was brutally murdered when she was on her way out to meet a friend. Her murderer refused to attend court and participate in his sentencing, and that caused a great deal of distress to her family. I therefore welcome the move not just to force these characters to turn up in court, but to apply sanctions when they do not comply; my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend speaks of one of the tragic cases that has led to these changes in the law and on which, in fairness, the previous Government were also seeking to act before the election was called. We are pleased to go further on sanctions. I know that some of the families we are talking about are here and I will pay tribute to them in a few moments’ time.
We will take a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to specify sanctions in regulations. Those regulations will provide discretion to prison governors, who hold a legal responsibility and accountability for what happens inside prisons. Judges will retain discretion over when to order offenders to attend. This means that, in cases where a victim’s family does not want to see the offender forced to attend, judges can decide differently. As this is a delegated power, the list of sanctions is not presented on the face of the Bill, but it will be rooted in the Prison Rules 1999, which will be amended and extended. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add more sanctions quickly and easily, should that be necessary. This approach offers much more flexibility than a rigid list, which would require the lengthy process of primary legislation to amend it.
I know that, for many, this day has been a long time coming. I am sure the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I would like to welcome to this place Cheryl Korbel, Antonia Elverson, Jebina Islam, and Ayse Hussein and her daughter Angel, who are in the Public Gallery today. They have suffered unimaginable pain and then faced the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face them. They have fought tirelessly to bring about this law, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their courage and fortitude. Today is their day, and it will have a lasting impact for others yet to come, who should never have to face what they have endured. While nothing will ever lessen the pain of such immense loss suffered by these families, this measure in the Bill is brought forward in the name and memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.
The Bill will also address the trauma that reverberates years after a parent has sexually abused their child. Today, a parent convicted of sexually abusing their child can continue to exercise parental responsibility for them. From behind bars, these vile abusers have been able to continue interfering in the lives of their children. Today a mother has to request that parental responsibility is restricted in a case where a father has committed a sexual offence against their child; now, we will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by anyone sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse against their children. This will restrict those rights from the moment of sentencing, so that children are immediately protected. It sends a clear message that abusers no longer have the power to exercise control. Making this step automatic will spare families the trauma of having to go through proceedings in the family courts, giving them the space they need to begin healing and move on with their lives.
The previous Government brought forward proposals in their Criminal Justice Bill to apply this measure to offences committed against all children, but that measure was restricted to child rape. Under their proposals, a parent could commit a wide range of heinous sexual offences against their child, including sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and not be covered. We believe that was too narrowly drawn; it overlooked the devastating impact of a parent committing other serious sexual offences against their own child—so although we supported the measures in opposition, we are now strengthening them in government.
Our measure will cover all serious sexual offences committed by a parent against a child they have parental responsibility for, such as sexual assault and sexual exploitation, causing a child to watch a sexual act and sexual activity without consent. There is no denying that we are in novel territory with this measure and, as such, we have a duty to take a balanced approach. This automatic restriction can, and likely will, be challenged. We do not yet know how many challenges the courts will receive. We have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed, and that vulnerable children going through the family court do not suffer. For that reason, we have chosen to expand the offences beyond child rape, but to begin by restricting our measures to serious sexual offences where a perpetrator holds parental responsibility for their victim.
I have heard the strength of feeling from survivors and campaigners who want to see our measure extended to all offences against any child, not just where a perpetrator has parental responsibility. I understand the calls on us to be as ambitious as possible, and to expand this to a wider cohort of offenders, but we believe that our measure is stronger than what came before and is the right starting point for this novel change. We will work collaboratively and constructively with Members from across the House, and with those in the sector. I say to them that this is the beginning of legal change in this area, not the end.
The Bill will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that victims are not forced to fight every fight themselves, but have the commissioner—both the individual and the office—to fight for them. That will ensure that there is proper accountability when victims are let down by the justice system, and that victims are not retraumatised by having to fight for every improvement to the system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent presentation to the House. My constituent Kevin Curran has campaigned all his life in memory of his brother Declan, who tragically took his own life. He was a victim of child sexual abuse. The ability to access therapeutic services is one issue, but another is that many providers are reluctant to give their services because evidence from medical records could be used to try to break a case. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure not only that people can access therapeutic services, but that their records will not be used in evidence to destroy a case?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I am sorry about the case of her constituent. She will know that her request is one of the leading recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to taking it forward. I know that we will see more progress made in this area.
Under the Bill, for the first time, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to act on individual cases that expose systemic failure. They will have the power to request information from agencies on why a failing has happened, what will be done to address it, and how we can drive change across the system.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the inclusion of this measure in the Bill. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the extension of the measure to local authorities and social housing providers is essential if the Victims’ Commissioner is to fully represent victims of antisocial behaviour?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will say later why the Government and I reject the idea that antisocial behaviour is low level and therefore outside the purview of the Victims’ Commissioner; that is why we are extending the commissioner’s powers. I welcome the support that the measure has received from the hon. Gentleman and others across the House. I hope we can all work collaboratively on the measure to ensure that it takes proper effect.
The Bill will also require the commissioner to produce a new independent assessment each year, providing much-needed scrutiny of how public agencies meet their duties under the victims code. It will ensure that victims’ rights are being upheld and, where they are not, that action is taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill; what she has outlined is exactly what we wanted to hear. My constituent has asked me this question. During the restoration of justice, the victim often feels isolated from the process. Does the Minister believe that if the Bill is to be effective, communication is key? Does the Bill go far enough in ensuring an obligation to communicate? I know she wants that communication, but I ask for my constituent, and to satisfy my conscience.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member makes an important point about communication with victims, and I will come a little later to the measures in that area that will enhance the system and provide a good foundation for us to build on, so that victims have the information that they need to get through criminal justice system processes, and are kept updated once an offender has served their sentence and is on licence in the community.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister ensure that the legislation also applies to Northern Ireland? I understand that it does, but I meant to ask that question before; apologies for not doing so.
Shabana Mahmood
These matters are devolved in Northern Ireland—the Bill applies to England and Wales—but we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. I know that the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), will engage with counterparts to ensure that, where possible, arrangements reflect each other. We all have an interest in ensuring that the whole system, across the UK, is as strong as it can be.
The Bill will also ensure greater accountability for how agencies respond to victims of antisocial behaviour. As the House will know, that is an area in which many victims are not heard and not supported. Incidents are too often dismissed as minor or low-level crimes, when they have a devastating effect on local communities and on people’s lives. The Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to request information from local authorities, and from social housing providers, which sit outside the criminal justice system, so that the commissioner can better understand how victims of antisocial behaviour are being supported. Those measures are an important first step towards rebuilding victims’ confidence in the system, ensuring that their voices are heard, and leaving public bodies in no doubt that they will be held to account when they fall short.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and compelling speech. I warmly welcome what she is saying, which closely resonates with the feelings of many of my constituents in Reading town centre and elsewhere who have unfortunately suffered from antisocial behaviour in many different forms. I am sure that colleagues from around the country have experienced the same. I commend her approach and thank her for her work.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that this part of the Bill will get lots of support from across the House. By strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, so that they can take more action on antisocial behaviour, it is important that we send the clear message that we will not tolerate antisocial behaviour ruining the lives of constituents up and down the country.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is a huge issue in my constituency. I have seen its impact on many of my constituents; it blights the community and makes people fearful in their own home. I have felt my constituents’ real disappointment when it has been labelled low-level crime; that has affected how supported they feel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must absolutely ensure that antisocial behaviour is not dismissed as low-level crime, and that its victims are put at the forefront of our justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is an assiduous champion for the people of Clwyd East. Let me assure her that I approach this as a constituency MP just as much as I do as a Cabinet Minister. Far too many of my constituents have, like hers, suffered antisocial behaviour and been unable to move on in their life because of the trauma that they suffered, day in, day out. They feel like nobody takes it seriously. Under the Bill, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to hold local authorities and social housing providers to account to ensure that they deliver for the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Let me move on to other measures in the Bill. The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in ensuring that information is communicated to those who are eligible to receive it. The legislation that governs it is over 20 years old, and there are issues with the scope and operation of the scheme. Victims repeatedly say that the criminal justice system is too complex, disjointed and difficult to navigate, including when they try to access support. Where we can simplify and rationalise the system, we should. That is why the Bill will streamline the system. It will bring victims who are currently served by different operational schemes into the victim contact scheme, and will provide all victims with one clear route for requesting information, through a new dedicated helpline. Taken together, the measures will better support victims and ensure that they receive the right information about offenders at the right time.
I move on to measures that will improve efficiency and deliver swifter justice for the victims of crime. Timely access to justice is a cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system, yet we face a shortage of prosecutors—an issue that directly contributes to delays in our courts. Legislation prevents the appointment of qualified legal professionals—such as Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners—as Crown prosecutors, even when those individuals are eminently capable, have experience in criminal litigation, and hold the necessary rights of audience.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Only this weekend, I was discussing with a district Crown prosecutor and another Crown prosecutor the backlog in our court system, and they expressed strong concern about the recruitment and retention problem in the Crown Prosecution Service. I welcome this new measure, which will go a long way to ensuring that we have enough Crown prosecutors, so that the backlog in the court system can be eased.
Shabana Mahmood
We hope that the Bill will provide some immediate relief when it comes to the recruitment of prosecutors, because it will address an outdated constraint, remove unnecessary legislative barriers, and allow the CPS to recruit Crown prosecutors from a broader, more diverse pool of talent. Estimates suggest that there may be more than 800 CILEX specialist criminal practitioners who have expressed an interest in becoming a Crown prosecutor. The measure will support greater flexibility in resourcing, and may help to shorten waiting times for cases to be prosecuted. It supports our manifesto pledge to ensure that more prosecutors are available and, above all, may help reduce the long, painful wait that many victims face for their case to come to court.
We are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the right safeguards. Through the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards longer-term change. Although private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system, the way private prosecutors’ costs are awarded can provide perverse incentives for firms to bring private prosecutions. Costs in private prosecutions can be more than five times higher than in cases where both defence and prosecution are funded via fees that are set out in regulations. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations to set rates at which prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds in private prosecutions. That will ensure the best use of public funds and reduce the incentive for private prosecutors to prioritise profit when considering bringing criminal proceedings.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is about to mention that this comes from a proposal made by the Justice Committee as long ago as 2020, under my distinguished predecessor, Sir Bob Neill KC. I am glad to see that the measure is finally reaching the statute book.
Shabana Mahmood
I was just about to pay tribute to the Justice Committee for its work, to Sir Bob Neill, and to my hon. Friend, the current esteemed Chair of that Committee. I thank him and Members past and present for pushing for Government action on this matter, and I am glad that we have been able to include this measure in the Bill.
Let me turn to measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As the House will know, the scheme is a safeguard that allows the Attorney General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal. That action is taken if it is believed that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. However, in practice, the 28-day statutory time limit for referral has proven problematic when cases have been brought to the Attorney General’s attention late in that period.
The Bill will ensure that every eligible case is properly scrutinised, and will guarantee that the Attorney General has 14 full days to assess any request received in the final fortnight of that 28-day window. This change will ensure that enough time is allowed for cases to be fully considered and referred to the Court of Appeal as necessary, and will provide greater clarity to victims, families and the public.
Finally, the Bill will create greater consistency in the courts through a targeted and technical amendment to magistrates court sentencing powers for six offences. We are tidying up an anomaly that we inherited. These six offences were not included in legislative changes made by the previous Government. By ensuring that everything is aligned, this change will ultimately help to avoid confusion and errors in sentencing.
The Bill marks an important step forward in our mission to rebuild our justice system, so that it serves the victims who, in recent years, it has all too often failed. It brings forward long-overdue reforms that will strengthen victims’ rights, force offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, restrict the parental responsibility of convicted child sex offenders, and further empower the Victims’ Commissioner.
The criminal justice system in this country suffered terribly at the hands of the Conservative party: the backlog in our courts is long and growing longer; our prisons are trapped in a cycle of crisis; and victims have paid the price. This Government are beginning the work of reversing that damage. We will deliver swifter justice for victims, and ensure that criminals face certain punishment and that our justice system serves victims, rather than subjects them to trauma on top of what they have already suffered. I know this is just the beginning and that there is much more that we must do, but the work is under way and I look forward to a constructive debate ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
In recent months, I have sat with Jeremy and Susan Everard, whose daughter, Sarah, was murdered in the most horrific circumstances; with Paula Hudgell, whose little boy, Tony, lost both legs through brutality and who asks why his abusers will one day walk free; with Katie Brett, whose sister, Sasha, was stabbed to death at 16; and with Ayse Hussein, cousin of Jan Mustafa, whose body was found in a freezer after a catalogue of official failings. Their stories are harrowing and their bravery and resilience is incredibly inspiring. They, and the relatives of countless other victims, have formed the Justice for Victims campaign group, because serious criminals are “escaping proper punishment.” Their demand is clear: make the system value the lives of those who were damaged or even taken.
We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. A Bill that carries the word “victims” should put victims first in practice and not just in prose. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State has rightly said, that some measures in the Bill are stronger than those in the predecessor Bill, but some measures are less strong, or at least different, to those in the prior Bill. Parliamentary time is precious. I know from my own period in government that one cannot always return to the same issues time and again, however worthy the topic, so we must not waste the opportunity afforded by the Bill to enact the most radical and serious changes to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of victims. I will explain why and make what I hope will be seen as constructive proposals to the Secretary of State.
First, victims rightly want offenders to face them at sentence and to confront their crimes. All too often, cowardly criminals squirm away from the consequences of their actions, so I welcome the intent behind clause 1, which proposes to correct that. I question how the Minister will deliver recalcitrant offenders to court, when our own prison officers are already fighting for their lives with bare hands and little serious protection. That is not a new problem, but it is one that we all have to confront together. With no kit, there can be no confidence. In the wake of the HMP Frankland attack, the Minister’s idea of a limited taser trial sometime this summer in a handful of prisons, for specifically trained staff only, seems inadequate. We still do not issue every single officer with a stab-proof vest; body armour is “under review”.
Clause 1, for understandable and right reasons, piles fresh duties on staff, who tell me that they are already one assault away from leaving the service. Until Ministers issue full body armour and staff our escort units properly, this duty will be a burden to them. Officers will not feel safe to force violent offenders out of their cells, not least because the Bill affords them only the use of “reasonable force”, not the ability to use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, which should surely be the threshold in law. Judges making such orders need only to take into consideration the “reasonable excuse” of an offender to override the concern and the will of victims. What is the reasonable excuse to dodge justice? Surely that should be tightened to the most exceptional circumstances.
Where in this Bill is the right for victims’ views to be heard and recorded in court? Some victims will want the offender to come before the court, even in the knowledge that they will be highly disruptive, challenge the solemnity of the court and, frankly, behave in a way that many would consider to be deeply shocking and even scarring. Surely that should be broadly the victim’s choice; they should at least be properly consulted by the judge. This legislation is ultimately for the victims, even if the judge might have reservations or it leads to challenging situations or confrontations that we are not accustomed to in our courts.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend agree that using the test of reasonable force, as the Lord Chancellor proposes, raises the unpleasant prospect that prisoners so forced might bring claims for damages against the Lord Chancellor, which would be a further insult to victims? I firmly support my right hon. Friend’s view that “grossly disproportionate” is the correct legal test to use.
Robert Jenrick
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Given that the threshold of “grossly disproportionate” is an available and established concept in law, why not apply it in these circumstances, so that we can equip the criminal justice system with the standard it needs to ensure that in all bar the most exceptional circumstances, these individuals are brought to court if it is the wish of the victims of crime?
Secondly, Ministers say that clause 3 protects children from predatory parents, but the devil is in the detail. Only abuse of an offender’s own child counts—a point understandably made by the Labour party when it was in opposition. If a man rapes a neighbour’s child, he keeps full rights over his own infant daughter. The BBC this morning highlighted the case of Bethan, who was forced to spend £30,000 in the family court to strip her ex-husband, jailed for the gravest of offences, of parental responsibility. Bethan’s family call the Bill very disappointing, because it would not protect them.
Additionally, offenders jailed for three years and 11 months, which is still a grave sentence, retain their rights. Where is the logic behind four years? Thus far, that is unexplained. Where is the child’s best interest? Conversely, the Bill states that the order
“does not cease to have effect if…the offender is acquitted”
on appeal, so an exonerated parent may still be barred for life unless they marshal funds to return to court. That is neither proportionate nor principled. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s view that that may well be a starting point, but let us get this clause right. This is the opportunity, and it may well be the only one for some time.
I turn to clause 11. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is the last safety valve for victims when a judge gets it badly wrong, and I know how important that is. Just last week, a case that I referred to the Attorney General alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was heard in the Court of Appeal, and three defendants had their sentences increased. Today, a victim has only 28 days from the date of sentence to request that the Attorney General make a referral. That clock starts even while they are still waiting for the official transcript to land.
Everyone in this House has met families who discovered the scheme after the deadline, who will forever wonder whether justice slipped through their fingers because they Google-searched the rules a week too late or did not reach out to their lawyers or friends in the system who were more knowledgeable. I have been very struck recently when speaking to victims—even victims of some of the most prominent and heinous crimes of modern times, who one might have thought would have been equipped with the very best legal advice and support—who simply did not know that the scheme even existed, let alone that it had such a short time limit attached to it.
Clause 11 gives only the Attorney General, not the victim, an extra 14 days when the paperwork arrives on day 28. Officials get six weeks; the mother of a murdered child still gets only four. Ministers claim that this is levelling the playing field, but it is nothing of the sort. Victims’ groups, from rape and sexual abuse centres to the Centre for Women’s Justice, have pleaded for a straightforward fix: double the victim application window to 56 days, and require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify every complainant in writing of the existence of the scheme and of that deadline on the day of the sentence. Those groups asked for time; on this occasion, the Government have delivered bureaucracy. That is clause 11 in a nutshell—a lifeline for Whitehall and the Attorney General’s staff, but not for the people we are sent to Parliament to defend.
Let me now turn to what the Bill does not try to do. The court backlog is spiralling, and the Ministry of Justice cannot yet provide a date by which it will start to come down. Going before the Justice Select Committee, its permanent secretary could not answer that most basic question for an official charged with leading the service. When is this going to start getting better? Cases are being listed today for as far away as 2029; meanwhile, victims are in limbo with their lives left on hold. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, 74 courtrooms across the country are sitting empty because the Justice Secretary still has not taken the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of extra sitting days. There is barely anything in this Bill that will put a dent in the court backlog—nothing that maximises court sitting days. Not one clause addresses listings, disclosure or digital evidence.
For many people, our justice system is opaque and secretive. I am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant—that greater transparency drives change and enhances confidence—but there is nothing in this Bill that enhances transparency on the court backlog, such as publishing the number of courtrooms that are not sitting each day and why they are not sitting. It falls to start-ups producing websites and apps to provide that information, not the Ministry of Justice itself. Nothing in this Bill increases access to court transcripts, so that victims, the press and the public can see justice dispensed. That issue was recently given further prominence by the public’s shock and anger when they heard or read fragments of the transcripts of grooming gang trials. As technology transforms the ability of the courts to provide reliable transcripts using artificial intelligence, we should provide a better and more transparent service to the public and the media. That is possible, so why not use this Bill to establish basic standards in law for the benefit of every victim across our country?
There is also nothing in the Bill that mandates the publication of data on offenders’ visa status or asylum status, so that we know where offenders are coming from. We need that information in order to design a criminal justice system and, above all, an immigration system that protects the British public. The London Victims’ Commissioner has said that the £1 billion of unpaid court fines is “truly astounding”, and that the failure of the Courts and Tribunals Service to recoup outstanding offenders’ fines must come under greater scrutiny. Again, the Bill is silent on that—it contains no extra powers to recoup that money. At a time when the Ministry of Justice’s budget is unquestionably under strain, why not do everything to recoup unpaid court fines, beginning with those? Victims are suffering as a result.
We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. Victims have asked for justice that is swift and certain; in many respects, this Bill is slow and tentative. I urge the Government to amend it—to strengthen it—so that it really does put victims first, in practice and not just in prose. Where it does, the Secretary of State and the Government will have our support, for justice and for the victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
This Bill builds on the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Parliament, to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner and, more generally, the administration of criminal justice. Like its predecessor, this Bill is published against the backdrop of significant court backlogs, with victims of crime too often waiting years for their cases to come to court, and with criminal legal aid advocates turning away from the profession. This Government have taken steps to tackle those deep-rooted problems, built up over years by the last Government’s failure to invest in the criminal justice system, but until they are resolved, victims will continue to suffer harm for too long.
On 27 March this year, the latest criminal court statistics were published, showing a record high of 74,651 outstanding cases in the Crown court, as at the end of December 2024. Also in March, the Victims’ Commissioner published a report entitled “Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice system”. The report concluded:
“With the increased number of victims held in the system because of the backlog, victim services are under increasing pressure which impairs their ability to provide the accessible, high-quality support that victims need.”
It called for
“The government to explore how victims whose cases are going to trial might be given a single point of contact to improve communication and ensure their Victims’ Code entitlements are delivered… The restoration of an independent Courts’ Inspectorate so that the operation of the Court Service is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny… Providing emergency funding to victim support services to help them cope with increased caseloads arising from the court backlog crisis.”
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Select Committee in April, in response to concerns that changes proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review would not have a direct impact on delays in the Crown court for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend noted:
“The system requires substantial reform, and the department looks forward to receiving the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts’ recommendations on longer-term structural reform options later this spring, followed by recommendations on the efficiency and timeliness of court processes by Autumn.”
It is against that challenging background that we debate the Bill today. I welcome the measures in it, and I know that the ministerial team will use the leverage that it gives them to improve the lot of victims in the criminal justice system, but, as in every other aspect of the work of the Ministry of Justice, they have been set a difficult task by past neglect.
Let me comment briefly on the main provisions in the Bill. First, it deals with attendance at sentencing hearings. It will give Crown court judges an express statutory power to order the attendance of offenders at their sentencing hearings and to sanction those who refuse to comply with such an order, or who attend but then commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result. They may receive up to two years’ additional imprisonment and/or the imposition of prison sanctions. Those proposals have been welcomed by advocates for victims and organisations working in the violence against women and girls sector. However, there are some concerns about how these provisions will work in practice and about the implications for judges, court staff, prison officers, prison escort officers and prison governors.
Secondly, the Bill deals with restricting parental responsibility. Concerns have been raised that people convicted of serious crimes can retain their parental responsibility unless an application is made to the court to restrict or terminate it. That means, for example, that they can potentially ask for school reports, be consulted on medical issues, and withhold their consent to a child’s going on holiday or being issued with a passport.
In last year’s King’s Speech, the Government committed to legislating to restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders. The new provisions automatically restrict a person’s parental responsibility when they are sentenced to four or more years in prison for a “serious” child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. This means that instead of the non-offending parent or carer having to drive the process, the offender’s parental responsibility will be automatically restricted at the point when they are sentenced.
Thirdly, I will discuss victims’ rights. The Bill will: update the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to expand the eligibility criteria to victims of more offences, who will then be covered by the victim contact scheme; create a victims helpline for some victims who are not covered by the scheme; expand the definition of “victim” for the purposes of the scheme; and ensure greater consistency for victims of offenders who are subject to a hospital order.
Fourthly, I will address the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In their manifesto, the Government committed to increasing the power of the Victims’ Commissioner. The Bill achieves that by allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to exercise their functions in individual cases that raise public policy issues, placing a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the commissioner for the purposes of supporting victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour, and empowering the commissioner to report independently on the victims’ code.
Fifthly, I will speak to prosecutions. The Bill seeks to increase the flexibility of the director of public prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors. It will remove the legislative barrier that is preventing CILEX lawyers, who have specialist qualifications and more limited rights of audience, from becoming Crown prosecutors.
Sixthly, I will discuss the cost of private prosecutions. In June 2020, the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the fairness of private prosecutions and the need for procedural safeguards, following a request from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that arose from the Horizon scandal. The Committee recommended that the Government should
“urgently review funding arrangements for private prosecutions in order to address the inequality of access”
and
“ensure a fair balance between the prosecutor and the defendant”.
In March 2021 the then Government accepted the Committee’s conclusions and agreed that
“costs recoverable from central funds by a private prosecutor should be limited in the same way that costs so recoverable by an acquitted defendant already are, by being capped at legal aid rates.”
They said that this would require amendments to the existing legislation, and I am pleased that, through clause 10, the Lord Chancellor is able to make regulations to achieve that aim.
Finally, the Bill introduces greater flexibility into the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as requested by, among others, the Victims’ Commissioner for London. There are other technical changes in the Bill, but those are the major proposals and I welcome them all. In aggregate, they both assist victims in their progress through the criminal justice system and reform that system to make it more consistent and user-friendly.
The Bill is not a panacea for the troubles afflicting the criminal courts—that will require more radical root-and-branch reform, and for that we await the findings of the independent review—but it is a step along the road towards a fairer and more humane criminal justice system for victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It means a lot to be speaking about this Bill as the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, but also as someone who has engaged extensively with the criminal justice system as a victim. When I came out the other end of a gruelling Crown court trial as a victim several years ago, I pledged to myself that I would do everything I could to play a part in fixing a system that too often re-traumatises and punishes victims.
When I was part of survivors group therapy with Survivors UK a few years ago, I processed my experiences of abuse alongside 11 other brave men, some of whom are watching today. I swore to those lads that I would never forget their stories, and that I would do what I could to help transform our pain into justice for victims and survivors in the future.
When I meet victims of crime who come to see me for help in my constituency, I promise them that I will throw the kitchen sink at fighting for the support that they need and deserve, so my contribution today is for all of them. I say on their behalf that it is time to shift the centre of gravity back to victims in our criminal justice system. It is time to give victims their voices back. It is time to dignify victims’ experiences with action.
That is why Liberal Democrats fully support the Bill’s efforts to address, for example, the horror of children still being subject to the parental responsibility of those deplorable parents who are convicted of serious sexual offences against them. That is why we welcome the proposed victims’ helpline, eligible for victims whose perpetrators are sentenced, regardless of length, so they can get information about perpetrators’ release and so on. That will go some way to help address some of the concerns I have expressed about the shortcomings of the existing victim contact scheme. I thank the Government for taking on board the feedback from me and many other Members and groups.
It is why the Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill’s measures to strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, empowering them almost to act more like an ombudsman who can take up the causes of individual victims where it is in the public interest. That is why we agree that defendants should participate in sentencing hearings, because robust rehabilitation necessarily involves facing up to one’s actions and understanding the impact of them on their victims.
Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill could be even more ambitious for victims and survivors. That is why, while supporting the Bill in the remaining stages of the legislative process, we will be challenging the Government to address some of the serious omissions that stand to leave victims without the protections they need. The first—the Minister knows this is coming—is on domestic abuse.
The Liberal Democrats have highlighted that this Government have inherited a scandalous state of affairs, where the state does not know how many domestic abusers are behind bars. The Government do not know the reoffending rate of domestic abusers in our criminal justice system. The reason is that there is not a specific identifier in our system, whether it is an offence or something else. Since November last year, we have been screaming out for the Government to deploy robust measures to officially identify domestic abuse perpetrators on a statutory basis, so that victims and survivors can be better protected. I am genuinely grateful that the Government have agreed to seriously develop a way of identifying perpetrators. I know that work is happening behind the scenes, but I would like the Minister to confirm on the record whether we can work together to achieve that in this Bill, or, if not in this Bill, in which piece of legislation in future we might be able to see some progress.
The second gap is on court transcripts. Victims and survivors need measures that deliver fair access to court transcripts. The shadow Justice Secretary forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has led the way on the issue in this place, repeatedly urging the previously Government to make permanent the pilot scheme.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
One of my constituents, a victim of domestic abuse, has written to me about the work Sarah has done, which has resonated across the country. My constituent said that access to transcripts was difficult. She welcomed the pilot from the Ministry of Justice but said that the communication around that for victims was not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever work is done, we need to ensure that victims are communicated with so that they know what powers they have to access the information they need?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that we refer to colleagues not by their first or second names, but by their constituency.
Josh Babarinde
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right; it is critical not only that victims’ rights are strengthened, but that victims have the knowledge of those rights and entitlements so that they can invoke them, enforce them and, fundamentally, benefit from them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has been urging the Government to make permanent the pilot scheme that affords victims of rape and other sexual offences a record of their sentencing remarks free of charge. She has campaigned on this issue for years, not just since the populist bandwagon has been in town, like some others in this House.
With the pilot scheme ending imminently, we must not return to a world in which some victims are charged up to a staggering £22,000 just to see a write-up of their case. This is exclusionary justice, delivered at an eye-watering price. As well as campaigning for the pilot to be extended, we would therefore push the Government to expand it to cover a far wider pool of victims and survivors.
On a similar note, as a constituency MP, I encourage the Government to take steps to encourage not just written but audiovisual records of court proceedings to be made available to victims and survivors. A mother came to a recent constituency surgery to share with me that her son, who has special educational needs and is non-verbal, was restrained on home-to-school transport, and legal proceedings were kicked off as a result. The mother did not get to see the video evidence of the incident until the court case, and has had no access to that harrowing and traumatic evidence since. She ought to have the right to it, so I hope the Government will be able to help us on that matter.
A third gap is on national insurance contributions. We need support for victims’ charities, who have said that the hike in contributions in the Budget will take their services and the victims who rely on them to the brink. A fourth gap is on family courts. We need measures to prevent abusers from using parental alienation proceedings to perpetrate their abuse. A fifth gap is on the court backlogs, which leave so many victims in the lurch for years—when can victims expect to see measures to tackle them?
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that these gaps in the Bill risk overshadowing many measures that I know Ministers have been working hard on. We look forward to supporting the Bill and its efforts to ensure that victims are heard, protected and respected. We will challenge the Government to go further and faster to ensure that victims and survivors get the support they deserve and that they do not pay the price for the neglect they were subject to under the previous Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There are many colleagues hoping to contribute; to enable hon. Members to prepare, I inform the House that after the next speaker there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Today, I will speak to one part of the Bill, which will require convicted offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and provide consequences where they refuse. It is known as Olivia’s law.
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of my constituent, Cheryl Korbel—Olivia’s mother—before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl and her cousin Antonia are with us in the Under-Gallery today.
To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you try to protect them, is a burden that no parent should ever be asked to bear, but under our current justice system convicted criminals can opt out of attending their own sentencing. That is what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman remained in his cell, refusing to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. That injustice must end.
Nothing in this world can bring Olivia back. But instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned so that no other family would suffer the same. Olivia’s law is her work. It is Olivia’s legacy, and it is Cheryl’s legacy.
Today I will read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement. These are the words that the murderer—the coward—Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I want the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House, so that they will be on record in this place forever. Let her words ring out in this Chamber, like they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.
“Olivia was born six weeks early on 13 June 2013 at Whiston hospital weighing 4lbs 2oz. She was so tiny that she fitted in one hand. She had the most beautiful tanned skin. There wasn’t a blemish on her.
The tiny little bundle grew into a toddler, having the most perfect chubby rolls on her legs. Every time we went out, we were stopped by anyone and everyone, saying how beautiful she was, especially her big, beautiful brown eyes and thick curly hair.
Ryan and Chloe adored her as their baby sister. She slept in my room until she was one and then she moved into the big room with Chloe.
Liv wasn’t the best sleeper and would wake up of a night. Often by the time I got to her Chloe was already up and soothing her. Chloe was like a second mother to Liv.
The years passed by too quick and Liv started nursery. She was loved by everyone. She loved to play, in particular playing house and princesses. Cinderella was their favourite.
At home she would dress her dog Gizmo up in a blanket and put him in a pram, pushing him around the house. Gizmo still brings his blanket into me now.
More years passed and Liv skipped into her first day of reception. I was heartbroken but she was so happy and content. I couldn’t believe my baby was going into big school. She loved helping others and especially the role of being the teacher’s helper. She had a special bond with one of her teachers.
Liv was such a social butterfly. She was particularly good with younger children and was such a caring little girl. Liv had really long and beautiful brown hair. Something she was very proud and particular about.
A few weeks before she was cruelly taken away from us Liv had heard about the Little Princess Trust and what they do, from a friend in school. After talking to me, Liv decided she wanted to donate 12 inches of her hair, in her words, ‘for the sick kids to have beautiful wigs’.
We then went online together and applied for the sponsor form. Liv was due to have her hair cut on 27 August.
Liv was a girly girl and loved to play with makeup. She loved shoes with heels on. She didn’t want to wear trainers, ever. She had her own style and would wear what she wanted to wear even though it often didn’t match.
She would go to our Tony’s house with the girls and come down in their clothes and say she’d just found them. Those clothes would then make their way to our house and the girls would never see them again.
As Ryan and Chloe got older and began doing their own things, it became mostly me and her on our own. She was nicknamed my shadow. We were just always together, me, Liv and Pearl her purple bear.
This was once Chloe’s bear, but Liv took a liking to it and decided it was now hers. Pearl was her comfort blanket.
Each evening was different with Liv. One night we could be watching Matilda while she was upside down on the couch. The next night, she would leave me watching H2O while she sneaked upstairs to Ryan’s room whilst he was out so she could lie on his bed watching YouTube on her iPad.
Liv never stopped talking. Literally never. Even if she wasn’t directly talking to anyone, she would be chatting away. One thing I miss most is hearing her say ‘mum’.
I just miss hearing her voice. It’s just so quiet. I would do and give anything in the world to have her chatting to me. It’s so very lonely without her. Everything is just so quiet. I just can’t cope with the silence.
Setting my alarm at half seven in the morning is something I still do because it’s ingrained in me. The day goes by in a blur and then gets to half two and I think about the school pickup, something I will never get to do again as a mum.
She was and will always be my baby. But I miss the routine we had. My mind keeps telling me that I’ve forgotten to pick her up from school.
Now tea time was a big thing for me. Because it was so centred around her and what she wanted for tea.
Everything I do and everywhere I go is a constant reminder that she is not there with me.
This happened in our home where we felt safe and should have been safe. We had no choice but to leave the home that was Liv’s first and only home. When the police left and we weren’t allowed back there, it was heartbreaking.
I walked in and it was if time had stood still. The cups of tea still sitting on the coffee table, next to her Little Princess Trust sponsor form. Liv’s new bike still propped up on its stand. One of her dolls laying on the living room floor and her brand new sparkly shoes in a box.
Right at that moment I was home. We were back to how our lives were before that night. And I soaked up the surroundings until reality dawned and brought me back to my living nightmare. Packing up our home was horrendous. Having to pack up our lives, having to strip Liv’s bed, pack her clothes, toys, jewellery, her memories into a box.
No mother should ever have to do that.
We left our friends, our neighbours. My neighbour Chris was amazing and often when I needed to go to work would sit with Liv until Chloe got home from college.
It’s so hard to go back to the area where I grew up and where I raised all three of my children, the area where some of my closest friends live. The smallest of things remind me of Liv, her friends playing in the streets. When I see them it’s hard to accept she is no longer here.
Moving into the new house was difficult for all of us. Not being able to make her bed, put her clothes away. The toothbrush in the bathroom and not having her favourite food in the fridge.
And that night when I realised Liv had been shot and needed me. I was not able to do CPR properly on her because of my injury. I did not have full use of my hand and I felt helpless. It was only then my neighbour came in and tried all he could to save my baby.
My worst nightmare was being separated from Liv and not being with her when she needed me the most. I was the first person to hold my baby girl and as her mum I should have been the last.
I cannot get my head around how Cashman continued to shoot after hearing the terrifying screams. The utter devastation he has caused, he doesn’t care. How could he? His actions have left the biggest hole in our lives that can never be filled.
That man set out to do a job and he didn’t care about anyone else. Or who got in the way. He certainly couldn’t own it either. Ryan, Chloe and I are just existing day to day and have been since it happened.
We have been waiting for the trial and focusing on it and not addressing how utterly broken we are as a family. I cannot even think about rebuilding our lives without her.
Because of this we have missed out on so much, my nan who was 92 adored Liv and Liv her. Recently my nan’s health deteriorated, and she was admitted into hospital. A couple of weeks ago we were able to bring her home on end of life care.
Due to being at court every day we have not been able to spend enough quality time with her; my main focus has been getting justice for Liv. I believe she held on long enough to hear that that coward had been found guilty. Sadly my nan passed away last night.
My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby, she had amazing qualities and knew what she wanted in life.
She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away.
Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter. I sit with her and talk to her telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.
I tell her she will live on in my heart, she will always be with us, my little shadow.
We love you endless amounts Liv.”
Let Cheryl’s words be heard. Let them be honoured. Let Olivia’s law pass, and make sure that no victim’s voice is ever shut out of justice again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that with us. It was important that the House heard it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to that powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). Our thoughts and prayers are with Liv’s family in the Gallery.
I truly welcome the provision of better information for victims of crime. It is essential that victims are at the heart of justice. As Baroness Newlove has said in regard to domestic abuse:
“Victims and survivors of domestic abuse must be able to trust in our criminal justice system—that it will provide a robust, trauma-informed response that prioritises their safety while holding perpetrators to account.”
We must ensure that victims feel not only that they will get justice, but that they can trust the system. We need to restore trust and confidence in our system.
I am glad to see that the Bill will bring more victims into the scope of the victim contact scheme. They must be given more information about an offender’s upcoming release and the discharge of licence conditions, and should be notified of key events, such as an offender’s transfer to an open prison. One of my constituents raised with me the case of a domestic abuse survivor who, along with her unborn child, survived an attempted murder by her ex-partner. Although he received an 18-year sentence in 2016, in March this year he was eligible for open prison placement four years early, and that was incredibly distressing. As they often say, perpetrators of domestic abuse know everything about their victims. They know where they live, where they work and where their children go to school. It is terrifying for victims to find that perpetrators are potentially being released early; they cannot prepare for that. I want parole boards involved in the decision to give an open prison placement to a domestic abuse offender, so that we can ensure that victims’ voices are heard.
It was said earlier that timely access to justice is key, but confidence is, too, and we must be careful about the language we use. We must ensure that all victims trust our legal system, and I fear that some discussions do more harm than good.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward this much-needed legislation, which will change our justice system for the better by strengthening support for victims and holding those who violate our laws to account.
In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton North, the scars of serious crime and antisocial behaviour and an inundated court system hold back our communities. My constituents and people across the country are looking for answers to those challenges, rather than the posturing that we see all too frequently in some quarters. This Bill goes a long way to providing those answers, and I know that the changes will be truly welcomed in my constituency.
Last week, I held a town hall event focused on crime and antisocial behaviour in Spotland, an area that I am proud to represent and to relay concerns from today. I place on record my gratitude to all those who attended, and who gave their stories, as well as those from Rochdale borough council, Greater Manchester police and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, who also attended and were questioned by local residents. We covered a vast array of issues in a constructive and thoughtful manner, and I believe we got to the crux of what keeps people in Spotland and across my constituency awake at night: ultimately, it is the safety and security of their families and loved ones.
Across our borough, stalking offences, dangerous driving, off-road bikes and drug crime have been growing in prominence. In Greater Manchester, our court backlogs are some of the largest in the country. Most people I spoke to at the event were weary after years of cuts that reduced the police presence, which is essential, and consistent under-investment in our courts. They have seen a system that was built to protect them pushed to the brink and unable to respond effectively to the changing nature of crime in our communities.
Despite the challenging nature of what we discussed, I did not come away disheartened. On the contrary, I came away hopeful and determined to take my constituents’ concerns forward. Communities are rarely unresponsive to challenges, or idle in the face of them. In fact, they want to be part of the solution. People in my constituency want to work alongside authorities and local leaders to make our streets safer and to make sure that victims are supported and perpetrators face the full force of the law. They want common-sense and considered interventions from Government, like the ones before us today.
I will touch on one of the Bill’s provisions that will make a real difference to the communities I represent. First, the shadow of on-street grooming still hangs over families and survivors in my constituency. That is alongside wicked present-day crimes perpetrated against children across the country, the cruelty and cowardice of which remain with victims for life. According to the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, 500,000 children will experience some form of child sexual abuse every year in England and Wales. A third of childhood sexual abuse offences are committed in the family environment. We must make sure that children who are exploited or abused no longer remain under the responsibility of a family member capable of committing such vile acts. That is why I commend the provisions in the Bill to restrict parental responsibility for offenders sentenced for abusing young children.
Families must feel that they have a place to turn to when this unimaginable violation befalls a loved one, and must feel supported in law. I wholeheartedly support the steps to minimise bureaucracy and limit procedural burdens in a way that mitigates the further distress put on families, so that they can begin to rebuild what the perpetrator has shattered. I also support other measures in the Bill, including the provision that mandates perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearing or face further penalties.
As we know, crime does not exist only at a single point in time; its implications live on for victims, sometimes forever. Neither is it faceless. Behind each criminal act is a perpetrator who should face the consequences of their decisions. They should be made to look at the damage they have done to a person’s life, and to hear the verdict on their crimes. The Bill gives victims agency—
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredible speech, to Olivia’s family, and to the Government for listening to their call and including that provision in the Bill. I want to talk a little more about provision for victims, and in particular my court transcripts campaign; the Minister knows this is coming. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his generous tribute on that point.
I am really disappointed that there is no mention of court transcripts in the Bill. Trials are lengthy and traumatising experiences, which victims do not routinely attend; some are actively advised against doing so. Reviewing the sentencing remarks can help provide victims and survivors with clarity and closure, but too often accessing those sentencing remarks is unaffordable, which only adds more barriers to achieving justice. That is why throughout the last Parliament I campaigned on providing victims and survivors with free access to copies of their transcripts. I am glad that my open letter to the then Justice Secretary received support from the then Mother and Father of the House, as well as the former Chair of the Justice Committee.
I was glad to have cross-party signatories to my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Parliament, which, if accepted, would have enabled all victims to receive a transcript of both the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up free of charge. Despite broad support, the amendment was ultimately unsuccessful both in this House and in the other place, where a similar amendment was tabled by my colleague Baroness Brinton and blocked by 187 Tory peers.
Given the previous Government’s refusal to address this gross inequality and their inexplicable opposition to this policy, letting down victims and survivors, I have been interested in the Conservatives’ change of heart. I notice the shadow Justice Secretary’s recent support for transcripts, and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised the issue of the accessibility of court transcripts with the Justice Secretary last month. I am glad to see indications that they may be finally acknowledging the extent to which the last Government failed victims.
Following my campaigning on this issue, and the invaluable work of campaign groups working to support victims, I am glad that a 12-month pilot scheme was introduced in May last year. The scheme gives victims of sexual assault and rape access to court transcripts of their trials at no cost to them. Victims and survivors who have made use of the pilot have reported that its impact has been transformational, yet to my recent question on the issue, the Minister responded:
“We are currently assessing the pilot’s uptake and impact and will be able to say more on our plans for future provision in due course.”
As I am sure the Minister is aware, last week I introduced a Bill to the House that called for the rape and sexual offences free sentencing remarks pilot scheme to be made permanent. My recent early-day motion on this issue, which calls for the scheme to be expanded to cover all victims of crime, has also received cross-party support. If the Government do not make the scheme permanent, not only will they fail victims, but they will be not upholding the commitment in the King’s Speech last year to strengthening support for victims.
I have heard directly from constituents who have accessed their transcripts, having not attended their trial, as well as from members of the public from across the country who have been through similar experiences. They have told me of the hugely positive impact that accessing a court transcript has had on them and their journey. With just eight days until the scheme is due to end, and given that I still await a response to the letter that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne sent to the Justice Secretary on the issue, will the Minister outline the future plans for the scheme? I urge her to make support for victims permanent. I also ask the Ministry to make clear its basis for discontinuing the pilot scheme.
I welcome so many measures in the Bill, and I really welcome its additional support for victims. I really hope that as the Bill continues through the House, we can amend it to extend the pilot scheme and make it permanent.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Rape survivors are too often hidden in plain sight. In Bolsover, my constituency, 10,554 women will have been raped or sexually assaulted since they were 16—a third in their own homes—in Shirebrook, Tibshelf, Wessington, Barlborough and every village and town in between, and 5,277 of them will have been raped more than once; 880 will have reported it, and if we are lucky, 26 will have seen a charge brought.
I have permission to share the experience of one of the wonderful constituents who reached out to me. She said,
“I was spiked in a hotel and sexually assaulted in my room where I thought I would be safe.”
As a result, she says,
“I lost my job, my marriage nearly crumbled and I lost six of my son’s most formative years because my brain shut down completely…and I went into survival mode.”
She continues:
“We need to raise our boys better, to respect and work alongside women without judgement or expectations around sex”.
She is right, but this is not just a Bolsover problem; this is a society issue. Rape is a part of our national story—a part that we are not telling—and we cannot continue with a culture where he did it and she hid it.
Women do not report because they have been let down by the courts for too long. That was the case for another of my constituents, who went four years and five months from rape to trial, with multiple suicide attempts. I am so pleased that this Government are doing something about this, and are treating violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is. The measures in this Bill mean that victims of crime will finally be put first.
The Bill is also our opportunity to put a full stop to a lifetime of ongoing trauma. I will keep speaking about the 10 babies born every day to their mummies who have been raped—six children in my constituency every year, and in every constituency across England and Wales. We see those children hidden in plain sight on our school visits; we see them as adults in the workplace; they drink among us in the pub. But their brave mothers have hidden the story behind their existence throughout history—often even from them.
The mums tell me about the struggle to bond with a baby who looks like the man who hurt them. They tell me about the pain of loving their children and also wishing that they did not exist. They tell me about living with the threat of their rapist being part of their life forever. One survivor said that she could not report the crime because the perpetrator had parental responsibility, and told her that he would use it if she reported it. Being charged, going to prison—nothing would take away his rights around the child who was conceived when he raped her. This Bill is our opportunity to change that. I call on our Government to remove parental responsibility where a child is conceived via rape. Our precious children can no longer be the only proceed of crime to which a criminal has lifelong access.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a privilege, as a Member of Parliament, to support our constituents in their hour of greatest need. All too often, that is when they are a victim of an appalling crime. Many of the constituents I speak to are at their wits’ end; they are desperate to be heard, helped and protected. They rightly want their tormentors to be made to stop, and they want justice.
Many of the steps taken in the Bill will be welcomed on both sides of the House and by victims across our country. It is right, for example, that we restrict convicted sex offenders’ access to their children, and it is right that we give victims more information about their offenders’ release. However, the calls for justice for the victims of grooming and rape gangs grow only louder. Across this country, people are rightly horrified by these crimes and the subsequent cover-up, which represents the biggest national scandal in our history, yet the Government have failed to use this opportunity to deliver real justice for those victims and survivors.
Last month, I spoke in this place of the details of just some of these disgusting crimes. I was able to so because of the organisation Open Justice for All, which has purchased, redacted and published transcripts from some of these court cases. However, it has been refused permission to do that in several instances, because a judge has claimed that there “no public interest” in doing so. This is wrong. Of course we must make sure that the anonymity of victims is protected, but nobody is suggesting doing anything to compromise that. These were public trials held in open court, and at the moment the transcripts represent the only way to get to the truth of these revolting crimes that have been carried out across Britain for far too long.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Is not the answer, in part at least, a national statutory inquiry into what occurred, not least because we do not actually know whether it is still going on? That inquiry would expose so much, which would allow all those right-thinking people to take the action necessary and protect so many of the people who might be at risk from further horrors.
Katie Lam
I can only agree with my right hon. Friend. It is appalling that such transcripts are currently the only way to understand what has happened in these cases. Relatedly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has previously said:
“These aren’t just legal documents, they’re historical documents that tell the story in detail of some of the worst crimes in our recent history”.
This Bill acknowledges that transparent information about our justice system is in the interests of victims, but it does nothing to address the problem. What is more, due to the current limits on appeals against unduly lenient sentences, many victims of these horrific grooming and rape gangs will be denied a vital opportunity to seek real justice. In far too many of these cases, we have seen courts hand down lenient sentences. For far too many victims, there will be no redress and their abusers will walk free. Often after just a few short years, these monsters are back in the communities they came from, walking among us and walking among their victims.
Just last week, the Court of Appeal revisited the case of three men who were convicted of raping a teenage girl in Yorkshire. Ibrar Hussain and brothers Imtiaz and Fayaz Ahmed were convicted in January for committing unspeakably evil crimes against a 13-year-old girl. In the first instance, they each received sentences of less than 10 years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) referred this case to the Attorney General. In this instance, the court rightly ruled that these sentences were far too short. This Bill should have made it easier for victims to seek such redress. It does not.
Mrs Blundell
This Government have announced specific support for five local inquiries and are getting on with the implementation of the recommendations of the Jay report. Would the hon. Member like to comment on what the previous Government did on this subject?
Katie Lam
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. There are several points that I would like to make in response. First, five local inquiries is nothing like enough. These events took place in 50 towns and all the victims deserve justice. Secondly, there are trends across the country and only a national inquiry can get to the bottom of those. Thirdly, she mentions the Jay inquiry. Inquiries are very often specific. The Hillsborough inquiry did not investigate every football match. The infected blood inquiry did not look at the whole of the NHS. The Manchester Arena inquiry did not address every terrorist attack. There has been an inquiry into child sex abuse, but that is not a specific inquiry into the specific phenomenon of groups of mostly Asian Muslim men grooming and sexually torturing mainly white children, facilitated and covered up by those in the British state whose job it was to look after them. That is a specific phenomenon, a particular stain on our country, and it deserves a dedicated inquiry.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Katie Lam
I am coming to the end of my speech.
I am sure that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister want fairness for victims, so will they please amend the Bill, first, to offer the independent national inquiry into grooming and rape gangs that the country and victims need; secondly, to ensure that all such transcripts, appropriately redacted, be made available to the public; and, thirdly, to allow victims greater ability to appeal against the shockingly short sentences that we see all too often?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Liv’s family and to Cheryl for her powerful statement.
I want to focus on the victims of state violence and the fact that they are missing from the Bill. I want to remember the 97 victims who perished at Hillsborough, and their families who have been through so much and fought for justice for so long. I also want us to remember our Government’s commitment to those families to bring in the long-overdue legal duty of candour on public officials, otherwise known as the Hillsborough law. The Bill as it stands is a major missed opportunity to make good on that promise and finally deliver justice for the 97. We have failed to meet our own self-imposed deadline for this year’s 36th anniversary—a painful moment for Liverpool made yet more painful by broken promises and the threat that this commitment may be watered down when it is eventually brought forward.
The core of the Hillsborough law is straightforward: a statutory duty of candour on all public bodies and officials. That means that when incidents occur, those in power must proactively tell the truth, share all relevant information and co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries. There can be no more defensive PR operations, no more smear campaigns against victims, and no more families forced to battle the system for decades just to have their loved ones’ names cleared.
Without a full Hillsborough law, the cycle of cover-ups will continue. From Grenfell to the infected blood scandal, we have seen time and again that institutions act to protect themselves as a priority, leaving ordinary people to pay the price. This Bill is an unmissable opportunity for the Government to make good on their promises. I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling and bring back a Government amendment that implements a full legal duty of candour on public officials.
I also want to take the opportunity to raise the important Inquest campaign for a national oversight mechanism, which is backed by 70 organisations. It is the subject of a private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which is making its way through this place. Public and private bodies have a duty to keep us safe from harm, but every year hundreds of people die preventable state-related deaths. The lack of any mechanism for learning from past tragedies is a huge part of that. When someone dies after contact with the state, hundreds of vital recommendations are made following inquests and inquiries. That includes deaths of people in police and prison custody and in mental health settings, and following disasters at Grenfell and Hillsborough. These families need transparency, accountability and action so that changes are made to prevent future deaths in similar preventable circumstances.
Introducing a mechanism would be a watershed moment for families bereaved at the hands of the state, and it would be unforgivable for us to miss the opportunity that the Bill presents to bring forward such a mechanism. When it comes to victims of the state and public bodies, the details in the Bill are severely lacking. I hope the Minister will listen to the points I have raised and come back with some Government amendments to improve accountability and oversight mechanisms to ensure justice for all in tragedies at the hands of the state.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a more accountable criminal justice system—one that reflects the needs and voices of survivors of crime. Too often, victims have been let down by a system that fails to grasp their trauma and recognise their experiences. They are expected to navigate an underfunded and overstretched justice process that all too frequently delays or even denies justice. I sincerely hope that the Bill is just the beginning of a wider governmental approach to fix the crisis in the criminal justice system, including the court backlog and the mess left behind by the previous Government.
Liberal Democrats support the creation of a specific domestic abuse aggravated offence, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless work on the issue. In February, two men from Hampshire were released as part of the early release scheme, even though they had both been convicted of domestic abuse. The former partners of those men said that they were terrified and felt unable to regain control of their lives. One of the victims said:
“He got three years, I got life.”
The law should be changed to reflect the full impact of domestic abuse on its victims.
I recently met a constituent whose ex-husband was convicted of sexual communication with a child but was permitted to change his name. Even though the Crime and Policing Bill will require registered sex offenders to notify police and seek permission before changing their names, serious risks remain. My constituent’s case highlights how sex offenders can conceal their identities by changing their names. That was raised in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Will the Government take action to protect victims and survivors from that loophole allowing registered sex offenders to change their names to avoid detection?
I am glad that the Government are taking steps to support victims and survivors of crime. I hope that more will be done to ensure that the criminal justice system truly protects the most vulnerable and delivers accessible and fair justice that is centred on the needs of those it is meant to serve.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
May I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and to Olivia’s family for their powerful campaign?
The Bill seeks to challenge the power imbalance that has long existed in our justice system between perpetrators and their victims—for too long, offenders have had the upper hand. I am proud that this Bill and this Government will finally put victims first. The Bill will strengthen our courts, reinforce the core principles of our justice system and provide greater protection for the victims of crime. It will grant our courts the power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, using reasonable force if necessary, and to extend sentences and impose sanctions in prison for the cowards who refuse to face up to what they have done.
Once and for all, our justice system will ensure that those who commit crimes are held fully accountable for their actions. The Bill will strengthen the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in monitoring and reporting on compliance with the victims code. In doing so, it will drive meaningful and lasting change to ensure that victims’ rights are not only recognised but firmly upheld. At its core, the Bill is about shifting the balance of power, moving it away from offenders and placing it in the hands of survivors. It is about safeguarding the rights of every person across the country.
The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is no longer in his place, but he said that he wants transparency. Well, let us give him some transparency on the previous Government’s record on justice for victims. Ten months ago, this Government inherited a justice system in crisis, because the last Conservative Government left prisons on the brink of collapse, a backlog in our courts and a system that failed victims up and down this country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) about how few people report rape in the first place, but shockingly, 60% of those who do report it drop out of the criminal justice system before getting to trial and are often retraumatised by the system. It is a shame that the shadow Justice Secretary is too busy—perhaps with his leadership bid—to hear what I am about to say: justice under the Conservative party means more offenders escaping justice and fewer victims receiving it. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but that is their record in government.
As many Members across the House will know, we are facing an alarming rise in domestic abuse. Sadly, in Gloucester we are all too aware of the scale of that crisis. In December last year alone, nearly 250 arrests related to domestic abuse were made. Given how desperate and widespread that issue is, I am proud that the measures in the Bill will help to deliver justice for the one in four women and one in seven men who have experienced domestic abuse, and for the constituents I represent, who need and deserve that justice. Having spoken in my constituency surgeries to survivors and victims of domestic abuse, I welcome in particular the changes that the Government are making to ensure that victims receive information and support, particularly about their offender’s release. I hope that that will be part of wider reform of the parole and tagging system, which has led to far too many of my constituents being let down in the past.
I am inspired by the pace and ambition with which the Government are delivering on their ambition to tackle and halve violence against women and girls. On the off-chance that the Government might welcome more ideas on how we can better support victims, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to back my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which aims, like this Bill, to place power in the hands of survivors and support them as they seek justice and rebuild their lives.
This Bill brings us a step closer to halving violence against women and girls and delivering the transformative plan for change that our country and my constituents so urgently need. I look forward to voting to give the Bill its Second Reading.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for speaking so movingly about Olivia and her family. I rise primarily to speak about the victim-centred measures in the Bill and would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her engagement with me on this matter and with my constituent Rhianon Bragg, a formidable activist who has done so much work to improve support and services for victims.
The expanded victim contact scheme should see more victims able to get adequate information about their offenders’ sentences and make representations about licence conditions or supervision requirements as they relate to them. Similarly, the victim helpline will give more victims the information they need. I truly welcome those measures, which the UK Government say will cost an extra £0.2 million for HM Prison and Probation Service each year, with updating the victim contact scheme costing £20,000 and the victim helpline costing between £100,000 and £200,000.
I am concerned about whether those costings will be sufficient. As co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I call on the Government to commit to delivering the additional resources necessary for the Probation Service to deal with the inevitable increase in demand, both initially and as victims become more aware that they have these rights. There is a risk of overextending a service that is already in a workload and staffing crisis, at the expense of victims.
Extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is also welcome. Victims should always feel secure that the commissioner can and will do everything in their power to tackle shortcomings where the victims live. That is why I continue my call for a victims’ commissioner for Wales, to represent victims of crimes in the specific context of Wales, where many victim support services and important policy levers, such as those relating to health and social care, are devolved and held to account by the Senedd.
At this point I will mention another aspect of the Bill: the Crown prosecution recruitment. We need personnel in the criminal justice system in Wales who can operate in Welsh and English, so I call on the Government to seek such personnel. Of course, devolving the entire criminal justice system in Wales, as recommended by three independent commissions, would be the best way to ensure a well-focused approach to victim support. In the meantime, a victims’ commissioner for Wales would ensure that the particular voices and experiences of victims in Wales are properly represented. We need only look to the fantastic work done by the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, to see what is possible when we have a focused approach.
The Victims and Courts Bill is a good basis on which to build. There are ways in which it could go further to better support victims, particularly in Wales, and I look forward to seeing how it develops with amendments in Committee.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Given the time limit, I first want to say a huge thank you to the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Solicitor General, who are ably supported by our amazing female team at the Home Office.
I will not go through everything that is fantastic about the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve things for victims. I just want to suggest three ways in which it could be an even better Bill, as my hon. Friend the Minister is always open to suggestions. The first is the unfair use of so-called bad character evidence, which allows the cross-examination of rape victim-survivors about their previous sexual assaults. This has nothing to do with the court case in front of them; it is about victim blaming, intimidating the victim and making the victim afraid to go to court. It would improve the Bill if we did not allow so-called bad character evidence to be used in these proceedings.
Secondly, we need to recognise, as is in law, that victims of domestic abuse are often victims of coercive control. That can include things like taking out loans in their name, but in extreme cases it can be about coercing them to break the law. We need a way for courts to recognise when a victim of domestic abuse has been coerced into committing a crime as part of that domestic abuse, so that the crime is treated as such and seen as part of the ongoing abuse.
Thirdly, I have been campaigning on the issue of person at risk of violence orders. When somebody leaves a domestic abuse situation, they often leave with a lot of debt. In order to keep their address hidden from the perpetrator, they must obtain a person at risk of violence order, involving not only another retraumatising court process but an additional £308 that they must find every time they move. Despite the fact that there may be an active court case or the perpetrator may have been arrested, victims have to independently prove that they are a person at risk of violence.
This Bill is all about ensuring that victims can get justice. Part of getting justice is being able to leave abusive situations and being protected while they do that. My three suggestions would help to strengthen the Bill and increase the confidence of victim-survivors in justice.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied, in an exasperated tone, “Yes”. His dad came towards him with his fist, ready to punch him, but the boy’s mum stepped into the space in front of that fist and pushed her son out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun around and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.”
The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her. Social services were aware that the same father made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine a situation where, despite knowing all of that, a family court permitted that father of those two boys five hours of unsupervised contact per week.
My constituent Claire Throssell does not need to imagine this nightmare: she and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it. On a two-hour contact visit, permitted by that court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Jack and Paul Sykes were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his older brother tried to save him, and then Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze. Jack and Paul’s voices were not heard by social services, by CAFCASS or by the family court. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when, as he was held in the fireman’s arms, he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”
There must be urgent reform of the presumption of contact in law, on the basis of evidence, principle and to ensure children’s voices are put at the heart of our family courts system. Legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser. The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, was clear that the presumption should not remain in its present form.
The Bill before us today presents the ideal opportunity to make changes to the family courts and to deliver for the victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. It already ensures that the justice system serves victims, rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered.
Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade will require a national effort and the use of every single tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Now we need to do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do and hold family courts to the same standard by taking a child-centred approach and repealing the presumption of contact where a parent is a known domestic abuser.
The Government must act now to save the lives of children for generations to come by ending contact at any cost. Let us not just imagine a world in which the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, and no more towns such as mine are left to grieve—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady must recognise that there is a time limit so that Members can get in.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Ilford South has been collectively traumatised by sexual violence and domestic abuse. Together, we have mourned the murders of Harshita Brella and Zara Aleena. Together, we are horrified at the cases of physical and sexual violence that women and girls face every day, many of which go unreported. That is why the Victims and Courts Bill before us today is so desperately needed, because it promises to help us bring justice and empower victim-survivors.
I thank all those who have made the Bill possible, especially the victim-survivors whose voices gave it power and made it real. Although their work has been indispensable, I know that it must never fall on the shoulders of survivors alone to drive policy change. We must all come together to share the burden of fixing the violence that is so deeply embedded in our society. That is why I feel it is so incumbent on me as a male Member to engage with this Bill and see it through. Sexual violence and domestic abuse are men’s issues as much as they are women’s issues.
If I may speak candidly, my conversations with survivors in my work as London Councils’ lead on community safety and violence against women and girls have taught me that victim-survivors are often doubly traumatised—they are first traumatised by the experience of their abuse, then retraumatised by a justice system that is opaque, difficult to navigate and, quite frankly, not built for them.
Sir John Hayes
There is a third trauma when a sentence that emanates from the court is unduly lenient. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Attorney General has the power to review unduly lenient sentences, but only within 28 days of the date of a sentence. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling for the length of time to be extended, in the name of victims?
Jas Athwal
Certainly, as somebody who stands for justice, I will always support anything that would make it stronger.
I welcome this Bill as a start to addressing the injustice that survivors face and a vital step in achieving our plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Through the updated victim contact scheme and the new victim helpline, this Bill simplifies one aspect of the justice system that survivors must navigate. This single, harmonised scheme means that victim-survivors will have a clear route to requesting information about an offender’s release, should they want it, empowering those survivors.
Another welcome aspect of the Bill is the automatic restriction of parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sexual offences. Sexual violence against children is particularly vile and traumatising for families and survivors alike, with survivors taking an average of 22 years before they feel able to disclose their abuse. This Bill will prevent perpetrators from involvement in a child’s life, safeguarding children from further trauma and enabling them to start healing.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about the length of time it can take for victims of sexual violence to get over their trauma and seek help. Does he agree that organisations such as Rape Crisis do absolutely vital work in helping survivors of sexual abuse and rape to move past what has happened? Does he also agree that it would be a fantastic improvement to the Bill if there was some national Government oversight of how much money is put into funding such victim services?
Jas Athwal
Certainly, coming from a local council that is strapped for cash, I agree with the hon. Member’s emphasis; we must look at that as we go forward.
The Bill will prevent perpetrators from being involved in a child’s life, safeguarding children from further trauma and enabling them to start healing. This new restriction is shamefully overdue. Our current system is not built for survivors; it is full of gaps and loopholes for predators, reflects society’s biases and is perilously hard to navigate. To truly centre survivors, the Bill should go further. The automatic restriction of parental responsibility should be extended so that if an individual abuses any child, not just their own, their parental rights are automatically removed. That would further safeguard children, saving families the vast personal and emotional cost of navigating the family court system and ultimately preventing the retraumatisation of survivors and their families.
I welcome the Government’s actions to begin building a justice system that finally centres survivors, rather than treating them like an afterthought, and I hope this Bill will empower those who have not been properly protected for so long. However, as we know, there is still so much further to go and so many more battles remain to be fought in order to prevent sexual violence and empower victim-survivors—online, in our schools, in our homes and on our streets. This Bill is a desperately needed first step, but it must be the beginning of our campaign to get justice for victim-survivors, not the end.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), and to Cheryl and her family for their fight for justice.
Having worked with both adult and child victims of traumatic abuse, I was glad to stand last year on a manifesto that committed to reforming the system to put the needs of victims first, and to ensure they get the support they need and deserve. This Bill is part of that mission. I am pleased that it strengthens victims’ rights, forces offenders to attend sentencing hearings, and empowers the Victims’ Commissioner to do more to stand up for victims and hold public bodies to account where there are failings. Nevertheless, there are three areas in which I believe we should go further and faster.
First, we know that victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence are faced with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing specialist support. They are left at the mercy of the various budgetary decisions made by each area’s police and crime commissioner, local authority and health bodies.
Emily Darlington
What does my hon. Friend say to a police and crime commissioner, such as the one for Thames valley, who does not fund sexual abuse support services in Milton Keynes?
Jess Asato
I believe that all police and crime commissioners ought to fund those services—hopefully the Minister can respond to that point. It is clearly outrageous that any victim of sexual violence should be left without any service at all.
Where specialist domestic abuse services do exist, they are faced with a deeply precarious financial situation that is severely hampering the ability of victims to access the support they need. Fewer than half of victims and survivors are able to access the community-based support they want. Without that support, some victims may be unable to leave domestic abuse perpetrators, or may return to them when they find it too difficult to escape their controlling behaviour. In 2022, only 7% of victims who wanted their perpetrator to receive support to change their behaviour and stop reoffending were able to get that, and recent research undertaken by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that 27% of services are having to turn away child victims from vital support due to a lack of capacity.
For those reasons, I believe this legislation needs to include a statutory duty to commission specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services based in the community for both adult and child victims. It is a stain on our nation that victims of the most unimaginable trauma do not have a right to support after abuse. A new statutory duty would also allow us to create parity with the accommodation-based services that were introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that community-based services are given the same legislative protection.
Secondly, I believe that the parents and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crimes also require support as third-party victims. A campaign on this issue has been led by Cath Pickles, the chief executive officer of Restitute, an amazing local charity that supports third-party victims. These crimes fracture families and support networks, and those who are left to care for primary victims often develop their own mental health issues and may even have to give up work. There are mothers who must face picking up the pieces after the sexual abuse of their child, and families who have to support domestic abuse victims as they fight for justice. We should look to include them in the scope of the support available to victims, because the impact of abuse does not just harm the primary victim, but can destroy the victim’s family too.
Finally, I recognise that we must not risk a very welcome step forward with potential legal challenges, but I believe we ought to look again having at a stricter definition for the purpose of depriving people of parental responsibility, especially where there is a risk to the child. Many will simply not comprehend how the serious sexual abuse of a child is compatible with the right to family life. What about the child’s right to live a life free from harm? I hope that the Government are willing to work with me, and with others, to tighten that aspect, among others that I have mentioned, as the Bill progresses through the House.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Today marks a defining moment—a moment when we finally put victims at the heart of our justice system. For countless people in Bolton, that moment is long overdue. I am proud to support the Bill: proud because it empowers judges to compel offenders to attend their sentencing so that no victim is left speaking into a void; proud because it finally—finally!—removes parental rights from child sex offenders, something that I can hardly believe we are doing only now, in 2025; proud because it gives real power to the Victims’ Commissioner to demand answers, scrutinise the system and drive change; and proud because it will speed up justice and tear down needless barriers. Survivors deserve a system that works for them, not against them.
From conversations on doorsteps and from constituency surgeries, I know that far too many of my constituents have experienced domestic abuse and coercive control. That is why I have been working with those at Bolton’s frontline organisations, including Fortalice and Endeavour, who understand what is at stake and the difference that the Bill will make. Fortalice provides refuge and support for domestic abuse survivors. Its chief executive, Gill Smallwood, told me that it had received more than 400 referrals since January alone, and that the Bill would finally deliver the change that victims need. Gill told me that, right now, victims are left in the dark about bail conditions or release dates. The Bill will change that: it will allow victims, finally, to be kept informed by enabling them to nominate a trusted professional to receive updates, and to access information through a dedicated helpline.
Endeavour, another local charity, supports high-risk young people, black and minoritised survivors, and older victims. Its chief executive, Jill Caldwell, told me of a woman who had had to flee her home, job and support network, simply because she had not been told that her abuser had been released. The Bill would have prevented that. By guaranteeing victims the right to up-to-date information, we are ending uncertainty and removing the burden on victims to constantly chase, ask, call and email for updates. We are saying, “You deserve to know; you deserve to be safe; you deserve to be heard and to be reassured at a time of complete uncertainty, when you have already endured so much.”
The Bill is ambitious, but my constituents in Bolton need it to go further. Right now, 82% of domestic abuse victims never report the abuse, not because nothing happened but because they fear they will not be believed, and for those who do, the courtroom can become a second site of trauma. Time and again, constituents have told me about the misuse of “bad character” evidence, when a survivor’s past is wilfully distorted to discredit that person. That is not justice; it is re-victimisation. The Bill must change evidence standards so that no survivor’s trauma is ever twisted into testimony against them.
The Bill also gives us a long overdue chance to fix the way in which domestic abuse is handled in the family court system. I urge the ministerial team to go further, and to strengthen protections for the children of abusers. Survivors in my constituency are still forced into contact with abusers who intentionally exploit the legal process to maintain control. We know that the family court system was not built to withstand this kind of manipulation, and that abusers have learnt exactly how to weaponise that—and win. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—relies on outdated, prejudiced views of what a family should look like, prioritising contact with both parents even when one has a proven history of domestic abuse. This antiquated policy prioritises the family unit over the child’s best interests, even when the cost is the child’s trust, stability and wellbeing, so the Bill must go further.
Finally, the Bill can end a quiet injustice: the punishing of women simply for surviving abuse.
I am proud that this Labour Government are putting power back into the hands of victims, and I fully support the Bill.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the families of victims across this country who are here listening to us today, and the victims who are seeking justice through this Bill? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her strong articulation of concerns about rape and domestic abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her very strong speech. There have been some extremely passionate speeches today, with constituents’ views at their heart.
As a former police officer, I have seen the criminal justice system from both sides, and I can tell the House that it has fallen short in recent years—not just in prosecuting crime, but in supporting those who are most harmed by it. We have heard similar testimony today. This Bill is an important and necessary step towards restoring the principle that justice is not just about punishing offenders, important though that is. It is also about standing up for the most important part: victims. As I have said in Westminster Hall debates, justice delayed is justice denied. Given the previous Government’s record with regard to policing cuts, soaring court waiting times, the mismanagement of probation services and our prisons being left full, I am afraid the inheritance is dire, but this Government are trying to correct those mistakes. I will cover just three points, because I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak.
On victims’ rights, it is absolutely correct that we should have reasonable ways of getting a perpetrator into a courtroom, but the Bill needs to go further; I would support audiovisual recording of such things. We do that for the Supreme Court, where people are able to see sentencing. With victims’ consent, justice for high-profile cases should be in the public domain. I urge the Government to go further by allowing the rest of society to see justice being served, as I think we are now reaching that point in our technological development.
I welcome the fact that the Bill grants victims a statutory right—not just a courtesy—to be kept informed and to have their voices heard during critical stages of the process. I also support granting enhanced powers to the Victims’ Commissioner. As someone who worked as a police officer, I know that antisocial behaviour, from nuisance biking to graffiti and persistent noise, is a major problem in many communities across the country. The Victims’ Commissioner will have the power to stand up to local councils and other bodies of authority on behalf of people who have less of a voice in society. I welcome that measure, because I believe that victims of antisocial behaviour should be treated the same as any other victim of crime.
I welcome the time limits for sentencing reviews, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned. He will be aware that the Bill extends those limits; if a review is received in the last 14 days of the existing 28-day period, there will be an additional 14 days to act. Could the Bill go further? Of course it could, but this is a welcome step none the less.
Lastly, I will discuss the court backlogs and the impacts on communities, which I have raised in Westminster Hall debates. I welcome the powers in the Bill to improve sentencing powers for six offences, including unlawful subletting, breaches of restraining orders and violation of criminal behaviour orders. We need to get the magistrates to step in and work with that.
In short, there is a lot in this Bill that we should support. I encourage colleagues to vote for it today.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Government were elected on a promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first. I stood in my constituency to support our police to tackle crime, take back control of our town centre and crack down on antisocial behaviour. Today’s Bill, alongside the other landmark legislation introduced by this Government that I have voted for in this House, offers further progress on delivering on that mission for people in Mansfield. There are three parts of the Bill that I would like to highlight; they will be particularly welcomed in my constituency. First of all, there is the strengthening of the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. Under previous Governments, victims have too often been let down when navigating the criminal justice system, which has made them feel like an afterthought. It is encouraging to see victims at the centre of the Bill, which has been welcomed by victims’ organisations and charities. They recognise the legislation’s potential to make a meaningful difference.
Secondly, the Bill introduces the ability for judges to hand down sanctions to offenders who refuse to attend hearings, including a restriction on social visits and a longer sentence. There are numerous examples of murderers refusing to attend sentencing hearings, and that has led to recognition that we need to clarify the courts’ powers to compel attendance. We know that for some victims, the presence of the offender in court is extremely important for closure and resolution. I welcome the fact that the Bill will force criminals to understand and face up to the consequences of their crimes.
Sir John Hayes
At the risk of being repetitive, will the hon. Gentleman press, as I have done—I think the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) agreed with me—for lenient sentences to be dealt with more severely? That is, the Attorney General should have extra time to review those sentences. There is nothing worse for a victim than seeing the perpetrator of the crime given an unduly lenient sentence.
Steve Yemm
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important and salient point, and I thank him for raising it.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner on antisocial behaviour. I have spoken many times in Parliament about the need to do more to support the victims of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. Members will all know from their casework inbox that antisocial behaviour is not always a criminal justice matter, and that other agencies, such as local authorities and social housing providers, play an essential part in supporting victims. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to get the information needed to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to that type of behaviour.
In conclusion, the Bill will ensure that the criminal justice system serves victims. The previous Government allowed the prison system to reach the point of collapse, and all too often, victims paid the price. By contrast, Labour is fixing that mess and reforming the social justice system. Today I will vote for this landmark legislation, because I know that its measures will be welcomed back home in my Mansfield constituency.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Every day, we Members hear from our constituents that victims of crime have been sidelined, and left to navigate a system that often feels indifferent to their suffering. My decision about what to raise in today’s debate stems from a conversation I had in my constituency surgery a few weeks ago with a constituent who has asked to remain anonymous.
My constituent told me of an abusive relationship that she was in, which resulted in the birth of a child. My constituent ended up in court in a custody battle over her child. In the trial, she was accused of refusing the father contact. She told me how that horrific experience made her feel. She felt that the court system was used as a form of abuse by her former partner. Her claim against him was dismissed as being her word against his, and she asked me to look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I also heard about a constituent—who, again, asked to remain anonymous—who had been beaten by their partner, who then gained full custody of their child. These are just two of hundreds of similar stories that I have heard, thousands of similar stories that my constituents could tell, and millions of similar stories that women and girls—and, indeed, men and boys—around the country could communicate to us.
We are looking again at these laws today. Under the Bill, courts will be used to empower victims, alleged perpetrators will be required to attend court hearings, the victim contact scheme will help victims to navigate the legal system and will have a dedicated helpline, and automatic parental rights will be restricted in cases of child sexual abuse, exactly as they should be.
The Bill also includes measures to address antisocial behaviour, a subject on which I have received lots of representations from constituents, as I am sure colleagues from across the House will have done. At my constituency surgery on Saturday morning, an individual talked me through the horrific death threats that he had been receiving daily from his neighbour, who spent hours a day screaming through the walls of their semi-detached home at my constituent and his family. This behaviour left my constituent afraid to leave his home. Under current regulations, ultimately nothing was done, and this behaviour began to let up only when the neighbour decided to move away of their own volition. That is not good enough.
When the system fails, it is the victims who suffer first and who suffer the most. They deserve better, and this Bill is a critical part of that better future. Today, let us send a message that the days of delay, denial and degradation are over, and that from now on, our justice system will put victims first.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to rise in support of the Government’s Victims and Courts Bill, an important and overdue piece of legislation that puts victims where they should always be: at the heart of our criminal justice system.
For too long, victims in towns such as Horwich, Westhoughton and Bolton in my constituency have been treated as bystanders—forgotten once the police investigation ends, let down by poor communication and denied a voice in the system that should be shaped to uphold their rights. I am pleased that the Bill will go some way to fixing those issues.
Indeed, the Bill will give the Victims’ Commissioner tools to better hold the system to account and stand up for victims, and therefore to deliver on this party’s manifesto commitment made at last year’s general election. In particular, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s remarks on new powers for judges to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Too many families have watched in disbelief as those convicted of the most appalling crimes refuse to face the consequences of their actions in court. This legislation is about upholding dignity in the courtroom and giving victims the right to see justice done.
Crucially, the Bill will also help to tackle the interminable delays and appalling inequality of access to justice left by the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, for this Labour Government to sort out. It will remove legislative barriers that prevent qualified practitioners from being appointed Crown prosecutors, thereby making our system more efficient, flexible and, crucially, diverse. It will empower the CPS to recruit from a broader talent pool, ensuring that cases are prosecuted more swiftly and reducing unacceptable backlogs, enabling the Government to finally ensure quicker justice for my constituents in the magistrates court and the Crown court at Bolton.
Finally, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to close loopholes in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have been remarked on by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Bill will ensure that the Attorney General will always have at least 14 days to consider a referral, even if it is made at the end of the 28-day limit. These provisions will guarantee that victims and the public are not denied proper scrutiny of lenient sentences due to late submissions. This Bill is thoughtful, robust and, above all, victim-focused. I look forward to supporting it during its passage through this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front-Bench speakers for the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard powerful speeches that reflect the deep importance of the Bill, and the heavy responsibility that we all carry for delivering justice not just in name, but in practice. Like others, I pay tribute to the campaigners who have joined us, whom I was privileged to meet briefly earlier, and who are in the Gallery. They have all campaigned on behalf of their loved ones—Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredibly powerful contribution. To see Cheryl hear those words, knowing that they were going on the record, will have impacted so many Members today. I am sure that it will be something that Cheryl will never forget. We must not forget how difficult the campaigning has been. All campaigners have had to relive experiences and deal with the most unimaginable memories. They pay a very heavy price every time they have had to do that, and I thank them for it, and I know that other Members will do the same.
The Opposition welcome the intent behind this legislation. Measures to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and to remove parental responsibility from serious child sex offenders were committed to, and work was begun on them, by the previous Government. The provisions to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings come after we have seen one too many disgraceful examples in recent years of the most serious and violent criminals hiding from justice, and from the pain that they have caused. That must end.
We welcome cross-party support on this matter, but at present, the Bill leaves out an important principle. The decision to require an offender’s attendance should fundamentally be driven by the wishes of the victims and their families. It is they who must live with the consequences of the crime, and they who should be at the centre of deciding whether the person who harmed them should be made to face them in court. Justice must not just be seen to be done, but should be shaped by those it seeks to serve. We will push for changes to this legislation during its future stages to ensure that is the case. We also want to make sure that the correct balance is struck on the use of force. The Prison Officers’ Association is clear: notwithstanding concerns about prison officers’ equipment, they will not resile from taking offenders to court. The legislation needs to ensure that only in the most exceptional circumstances does that not happen.
We have heard concerning stories about parents having to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court to remove parental rights from serious sexual offenders, and I welcome the fact that the previous Government planned legislation to begin addressing that. We welcome our shared desire to act on this issue, but the Minister will have heard campaigners’ concerns that the approach in the Bill does not cut it. I welcome the Minister’s public commitment to considering how to strengthen it.
Last year, when in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting in the Gallery, supported an amendment for a much broader measure than the Government are proposing today. I encourage her to speak to her colleague on the Front Bench about how this measure falls short. The debate then was around whether the measure should apply to offenders perpetrating offences against any children, and about where to set the threshold. Our proposed measure was not perfect, but this measure is the worst of both worlds. It relates only those who have offended against their own children, and there is quite a high bar, in that they have to have been sentenced to at least four years. I think that we can do better than that.
We also welcome improvements to victims’ information rights and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. That role, which has been maintained by Governments of all parties for a significant time now, is incredibly important. Baroness Newlove, the commissioner, will look closely at the Bill, and will support victims and campaigners in their efforts to ensure that it delivers. She has also consistently raised a possible source of funding—funding is always a challenge for every Government Department: unpaid victim surcharges. The £1 billion-plus might help fund some of the work that we want to do.
Although there are measures that we welcome, there are changes that are being trailed as measures for victims, but that are nothing of the sort, such as the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have caused confusion even in the Chamber among Labour Members; for example, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) seemed to think that these are measures for victims. The measure on the unduly lenient sentence scheme is nothing to do with victims.
A total of 14,000 people signed the petition for Sasha’s law, which was set up by campaigner Katie Brett, who is on the Justice for Victims group, in memory of her sister Sasha. If the House will forgive me, I will detail what happened to her sister. She was murdered in 2013. Aged just 16, she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believe that her killer met the criteria for a whole-life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. Katie and her family did not know anything about the right of appeal, and even if they did, who really thinks most people are in the right state of mind to think about that sort of thing within 28 days of the sentence being passed? Katie is not alone. Ayse Hussein, another member of the campaign group who was also in the Gallery today, campaigns in memory of her cousin, Jan. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and also murdered Henriett Szucs and hid the bodies of both women in a freezer. He did not receive a whole-life sentence, and would probably leave prison one day. Again, her family knew nothing of the right to appeal.
When they saw that changes were to be made to the scheme, campaigners reasonably thought that the changes would extend the 28-day time limit for victims, but no: the Government want to give more time not to victims and families but to themselves. More time for Government means that they have longer to think about and reflect on these deeply personal and sensitive matters than victims will have. That is bordering on insulting, and I think the Minister will share my concerns. In Committee we will put forward amendments that require victims, not just the Government, to be given more time. I hope we will have the support of Labour Members who have committed today to supporting that measure, such as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal).
We welcome the creation of a statutory right for victims to have information about an offender’s release, but we want to know how this will be delivered, who will staff the helplines, how victims will know their rights, and what exactly they will be told. For some time, the Victims’ Commissioner has raised the question of whether victims should get to know the specific release date.
Sir John Hayes
To be clear, the current situation allows victims 28 days for a referral, and the Bill extends the period for consideration to 14 days. What we want is for victims to have longer, and it seems absolutely right that that should happen. It would be a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to table in order to back victims. Is that really too much to ask?
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend has laid out the situation correctly. I counted three Labour Members in the Chamber today who already support such a measure. I look forward to them voting in support of an amendment along those lines given what they have said today, but I might not hold my breath.
Let us be clear that victims of crime need more than just the measures in the Bill. They need a criminal justice system that works and delivers justice swiftly, fairly and consistently. That is where the Bill falls short. When we were in government, we toughened up sentences for the worst criminals. We began the difficult task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for offenders, which was introduced by Labour. We quadrupled legal aid for victims and enshrined the victims code in law. We dedicated £230 million to our tackling domestic abuse plan, including a quadrupling of funding for victims and support services, and we introduced tagging of domestic abusers.
Labour Members made a lot of promises in opposition, including on measures in the Bill. It is now up to them to deliver. The Bill might tighten certain laws and improve the experience for some victims, but it fails to address the elephant in the room. It does nothing to tackle the fundamental problems that victims face every day when trying to access justice. For all the good the Bill may do, it does nothing to address the mounting pressures on our courts after the Government spent almost a year dragging their feet instead of doing everything they could to get the courts operating at maximum capacity. Even now the Lord Chancellor is not pulling every lever available when it comes to court sitting days, as the Lady Chief Justice has repeatedly asked her to do. The truth is that victims are still waiting months, sometimes years, for their cases to be heard. Trials collapse, and offenders walk free—none of that is fixed by this Bill. Being a victim of crime is life-changing. The very least a just society can do is ensure that victims are respected, protected and supported through the process.
We also urge the Government to commit to greater transparency across the criminal justice system. Without reliable data we cannot have accountability, and without accountability we cannot have reform. We will press for the regular publication of statistics on court and hearing delays, trial backlogs, court occupancy rates and administrative performance. Victims and the public alike have a right to understand where and why the system is falling short.
Although we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, we will continue to work constructively to improve the legislation in important ways. We support many of its goals, but we will continue to ask the difficult questions: is it deliverable and enforceable, and will it actually make victims’ lives better as it intends? Let us make this legislation a genuine step towards a justice system that works better. Justice cannot be delayed, and it cannot be selective; it must be felt tangibly, fairly and swiftly by those who need it most. They deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a true privilege to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. I would like to start by paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, most of whom have been in the Gallery and whom I have had the privilege of getting to know over the past few months. As today’s debate has shown, the House agrees that justice is not optional. Criminals should never be allowed to hide away from it. I am grateful to all of the families for their tireless campaigning to bring forward measures on sentencing hearings. The changes are an important step forward for victims and a testament to their courage.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her very powerful words today. They were not just her words but the words of Cheryl Korbel, whose words will stay with me forever and whose words should have been heard by her daughter’s killer. This Bill is a legacy for Olivia and for all those who have been failed by the justice system.
As the Lord Chancellor has already outlined, this Bill has victims’ experience at its core. As the Victims Minister, it is an honour to meet victims and survivors every single day in this role. This Bill has been created with them at its heart. I echo the tribute from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to the Justice for Victims campaigners, who I have also had the privilege of meeting. Becky and Glenn Youens, Susan and Jeremy Everard, Katie Brett—whose story we have also powerfully heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan)—Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein, who is with us today, have all helped to change the law, and we owe them all a huge debt of thanks for that.
This Bill will make the justice system more efficient—it is a system, and it all needs to work for it to operate effectively—so that victims can begin to move on with their lives faster. I sincerely thank Members from all parties for the thoughtful, powerful, sometimes emotional, but mostly constructive way in which they have contributed to the debate today. Support and justice for victims should never be political. I stand here willing to work with anyone of any stripe and of any colour to make sure that we bring forward the strongest package available for victims.
The issues and the inheritance of our justice system have long been discussed in this place. It is well known to Members what a state our justice system was in when we came into office just 10 months ago, but this Government have begun to rebuild its foundations. This Bill will be just the beginning, not the end of our reform programme for victims. We have the independent review of our criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. That will lead to a more effective and efficient criminal courts system, improving timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved. We await the imminent outcome of David Gauke’s review into sentencing, which will address a number of the issues that Members have raised today.
Turning to some of the issues raised, I will respond first to my friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I am proud to work with him for victims in this place. He has always been constructive and is always seeking to do what is right. Although I cannot give him the commitment today, I am meeting him tomorrow morning, and we will hopefully have imminent news for him on a lot of the work we have been doing together. I also thank his fellow Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for all her work on court transcripts and specifically the pilot for sentencing remarks transcripts in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. Having spoken to victims and survivors, I know how vital that is for them. The pilot is due to end next week and we will soon be publishing our response and how we intend to take that forward. I look forward to speaking with her further on that soon.
Many Members spoke about the parental responsibility measures. I stress that the Government have heard the strength of feeling on this issue. Our focus must be on automatically restricting parental responsibility for offenders who have committed serious child sexual abuse offences—the most heinous crimes in society. We are taking that step today in this Bill for those who have committed these offences against a child for whom they personally hold parental responsibility, because we need to protect those in direct harm. I stress and echo the words of the Secretary of State that this is a novel and untested change in the law. The response from perpetrators is unpredictable, so we have chosen to focus first on cases of highest harm, because we do not want unintended consequences and we need to prioritise all vulnerable children who are going through the family courts. However, this is the beginning, as we have said, and we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. In the course of the passage of the Bill, will the Government look at amendments that could see the family courts end the presumption of contact and ensure we end this cycle of abuse?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is a champion for the cause of protecting children going through the family courts, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), whose contribution today was equally powerful. Meeting her constituent Claire Throssell, and hearing the story of Jack and Paul, will stick with me forever. I think about that on a daily basis.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the family justice system delivers the right outcomes for survivors of domestic abuse and their children. We have heard loud and clear concerns in the Chamber and from outside on the need to go further. A child’s welfare must always be the family court’s paramount consideration when making decisions about that child’s life. The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a review on presumption of parental involvement, and its findings, along with any recommendations, will be published shortly. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends, on that soon.
Right hon. and hon. Members across the House made many comments about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, welcoming measures in the Bill about extending the time limit for the Attorney General to look effectively at cases so that justice can be served. As they will know, the Law Commission is undertaking a review into the scheme as a whole, and I—and I am sure the Law Commission—would welcome their feedback on that. We will look closely at the findings of that review to ensure that any recommendations are carried out effectively.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—by the way, I have always liked her. I take at face value what she has said. Will that Law Commission review be in time to amend the Bill? That is key. If it will not be on time, how can we handle that?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to look at any Law Commission recommendations properly and effectively. Of course there will be time, because we are in the first year of a five-year Parliament and this will not be the Ministry of Justice’s only Bill. As I have said, the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government was in crisis, and we are beginning to put it back piece by piece, starting with our prisons, our courts, our victim support and family courts, looking at the system as a whole. Further legislative vehicles will come forward from the Ministry of Justice where recommendations that have been reviewed could be adopted.
I know that we are short on time, but I want to turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about the IICSA. I will put it on the record again—I think it needs to be said—that the Government are absolutely focused on delivering meaningful change for victims impacted by these horrendous crimes. Earlier this year, we published our plan for responding to the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse through the Crime and Policing Bill, on which I am proud also to be a Minister. We are strengthening the law by introducing a mandatory reporting duty to make it an offence to fail to report or to cover up child sexual abuse. We are also legislating in that Bill to make grooming a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences to ensure that that behaviour is reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.
We also plan to legislate to remove the three-year limit for compensation claims and shift the burden of proof from victims to defendants in the civil courts, as well as amend the law of apologies to encourage employers to apologise to people wronged by their employees. A legislative vehicle is currently being identified for that measure. I stress again that the Government are getting on with the job of delivering for those victims and survivors. We are not delaying; we are actively working at pace to ensure that justice will be served and support is available.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised the case of Rhianon Bragg. Again, I was proud to have the opportunity to meet Rhianon and to discuss her case. Through the Bill, we will be strengthening the victim notification scheme and opening it up to more victims, ensuring that timely communication is available. Victims have told me time and again that that is needed; this change will be testament to that. On her calls for Wales, she will know that, as a proud Welsh MP, I will always stand up for Wales and for Pontypridd. A justice system that covers England and Wales robustly is important, and I will ensure that it is there. I will meet the Welsh Government soon to feed back her specific concerns.
A number of colleagues mentioned bad character evidence. They will be aware that the Law Commission is looking into that, and we will carefully consider its recommendations. I stress again that I am willing to work constructively with right hon. and hon. Members on all the issues that have been raised. The Bill is one of many legislative vehicles that we will have.
The Bill stands before us as a legacy for the victims and survivors that I have had the honour of meeting in my 10 months in this role. These changes are long overdue. They will strengthen our justice system and help deliver the accountability and service that victims of crime want and deserve. I urge the House to give them its full support. I stand ready to work with everyone on that. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Victims and Courts Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Courts Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26 June 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Courts Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 17th June 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 9.45 am Crown Prosecution Service Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 10.25 am Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales; Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales; Victim Support Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 10.55 am Resolve; ASB Help Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 11.25 am Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 2.40 pm The Suzy Lamplugh Trust; End Violence Against Women Coalition; Women’s Aid Federation of England Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.00 pm Justice for Victims Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.20 pm ManKind Initiative Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.40 pm HM Prison and Probation Service Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 4.00 pm Ministry of Justice
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 June;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 12; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 13 to 16; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 26 June.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
The Chair
Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
We will now hear oral evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.45 am. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Sarah Hammond: Good morning, everybody. My name is Sarah Hammond. I am the chief Crown prosecutor for the CPS in Mersey-Cheshire and the CPS national lead for victims and witnesses.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Sarah Hammond: The CPS looks at every sentence that is imposed to see whether, in our view, it is potentially unduly lenient. If we identify that a case is potentially unduly lenient, we would ask for some advice from the prosecution counsel who appeared in the sentencing court. We would read that, and, if we still felt that the sentence was unduly lenient, we would put together a package of papers to send to the Attorney General’s office for consideration.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: Currently the responsibility for informing victims of the sentencing outcome from the hearing lies with the police witness care unit officers. Having said that, if there are questions that the witness care unit officers cannot answer then under the victims code they can refer the matter back to the CPS. We would then happily speak to the victim, explain the unduly lenient sentence programme, and signpost them to where they can access that and the steps around it. We have a guide for victims once they come into the criminal justice system, to explain what happens when a case comes to the CPS, and there is a section within that about when they feel a sentence is too short. We also have a presence in court at the sentencing hearing so, where possible, either prosecution counsel or a member of the CPS can speak to the victim about the sentence and answer any questions they have about potential challenges.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I am aware that the Law Commission is looking more widely into potential reforms of the law and criminal appeals.
Dr Mullan
Just to make you aware, the Law Commission’s current consultation paper says that it does not recommend any change to that time period, so I am interested in your views on that question specifically.
Sarah Hammond: Okay. A timescale of 28 days is challenging, but at the moment we feel it works quite well. As professionals within that environment we are well used to obtaining the information we need with a sense of urgency. There are quite good mechanisms in place. That said, if there is evidence that extending the timescales would make the process smoother or more efficient and give people who, as you say, probably have other things on their minds than appealing sentence the ability to do so, then the CPS would support that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I have not personally. I could make some inquiries into how often that happens and we could happily write to the Committee with some more detail around that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I think we would have to look at what the extent of the legislation is, but we would be happy to work together with the Government in relation to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
Sarah Hammond: We welcome the focus in the Bill on broadening the pool of professionals who are eligible to become crown prosecutors. Recruitment can be challenging. It is a competitive market out there, so I think measures that broaden the pool of people from which we can recruit will be really helpful. We have other measures in place that will assist with the recruitment of crown prosecutors. We have just launched a scheme called Go Prosecute for senior crown prosecutors, aimed at professionals who have perhaps stepped out of criminal law practice for a while for various reasons. We would offer them a 12-month contract, with a view to extension, to come back into the field of criminal law practice and would support them to do so.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sarah Hammond: It will allow us to recruit. We were very pleased with the settlement that we received in the spending review, which gives us the capacity to take the legal workforce to the levels that we really need to be able to prosecute cases effectively. The measures in the Bill will also allow for a more diverse workforce. It will allow people who have perhaps had different experiences and backgrounds in the profession to become Crown prosecutors.
As a whole, I do not think it can solve all the problems with backlogs and delays, and there is a duty on everybody in the justice system to ensure that we are maximising productivity and efficiency as well within the systems. We have just started a programme of continuous improvement, and I know that it is a priority for the Director of Public Prosecutions personally. We are looking at all our systems and processes to make sure that we are stripping out any inefficiencies and waste.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sarah Hammond: It is important to get a wide range of evidence. I have been working in the CPS for 27 years, so I have seen only one side of it, and there will obviously be lots of different aspects. As I said, if there is that wide body of evidence that suggests that people are being disadvantaged by that timescale, it is important to get all the information around that before any decisions are made.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Q
Sarah Hammond: As always, there is a collective challenge when a Bill becomes law just to work out how things will work in practice and how implementation will work. Take the restriction on parental responsibility. It will be important for the CPS to work with the Government, police and local authorities to obtain the relevant information about evidence of parental responsibility and put that before a judge to make the decision without causing any further delays in the system. Once the Bill becomes law, it is a case of working through some of the processes to make sure that the implementation is smooth and we have those clear processes in place.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Sarah Hammond: It will enable us to recruit more. As I have said, it is quite a competitive market out there. There will be more people eligible to become Crown prosecutors. That will include people who are qualified under the provisions relating to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. We also have a number of associate prosecutors who have worked for the CPS for many years and have great experience. However, I do not think that is the complete solution to it. While we can possibly recruit more Crown prosecutors, a system-wide approach is needed to tackle those backlogs and delays and give justice for victims.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Sarah Hammond: There is a balance between ensuring that we widen the service and not letting professional standards drop. We have a very comprehensive induction and training programme for Crown prosecutors. They have a 12-week induction programme when they join us. For those who join us who perhaps do not have experience of criminal law or have stepped out of criminal law for a while, there is also a separate course that serves as a refresher into the basic principles of criminal law. I am happy that there are some safeguards and training in there to ensure that prosecutors are of the standard we require.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Sarah Hammond: If I may, I will take the first question in two parts. I do not have that figure on the current recruitment rate with me today, but we can write in and let you have it. On minimum standards, we would have an interview process for people to become Crown prosecutors. There would be minimum standards for people to pass that interview stage, and we would not lower them just because we are broadening the pool of Crown prosecutors. It is important that professional standards do not slip.
I am not aware of any reason why private prosecutions would increase as a result of the particular recruitment issues, but if that is problem, obviously we will look into it, and work with our colleagues on that as well.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Q
Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Nicole Jacobs, Baroness Newlove and Katie Kempen gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Katie Kempen: Good morning. My name is Katie Kempen, and I am the chief executive of Victim Support, the leading victims’ charity for England and Wales.
Baroness Newlove: Good morning. I am Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: I welcome the fact that there is an extension as such, but the 28-day limit has not changed for the victim, and that is the worry. The extension is more in the backroom. I agree with it, because I do not want things to be rushed, but the limit has not changed for the victim, which worries me. Victims really do not know this information; it will be mentioned only if the prosecution lets them know about it. Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking. Really, that is the crux of why we have mentioned this. Nobody understands undue leniency in the first place, and it is then for the victims to look into it.
Also, at the end of the 28-day process, I have had victims put a request in, but the box has shut at 5 pm, and that is it. I think that is quite cruel to a victim as well. I think the limit needs to be a lot longer to give them time to absorb the sentence and understand it. When I say longer, I am thinking six months, because we give plenty of time to an offender, who has a legal advocate all the way through. I speak personally on this issue. I can assure you that it needs to be looked at again.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would echo that. I am stating the obvious, but with victims—certainly through the lens of domestic abuse—you have to appreciate some of the dynamics of coercion and control, including isolation from family and friends. Often, a lot of information is unknown and comes to the attention of friends, family and victims in different ways. There is so much there that has to be unpicked and understood.
I know we will go on to talk about this, but certainly support for victims throughout the criminal justice system, really needs improvement. It comes down to the most basic understanding of who is who, and what your rights are. That was the whole point of the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and this Bill is about improving on that. It is really true how disorienting the system is, and we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.
Katie Kempen: We would also support an extension. Our experience of working with victims who have gone through court is often that the process traumatises them and they need some time for decompression. They need time to speak to their advisers or advocates. We know that victim services are under pressure. Our advocates will be carrying other caseloads as well. From our perspective, to give the victims time to understand and process what has happened to them, and to be able to access the support and guidance that they need, 28 days is really difficult to work within, so we would support an extension. We have no issue with the extension that is within the Bill. We support that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: Again, from personal experience—after 17 years, and still going through the criminal justice system—I think that, once a person is convicted, you have to consider the whole environment of what the victims and families have sat in. I sat for 10 weeks in a courtroom, listening to everything, and I think we need to understand that the victim personal statement—I prefer “impact statement”, to be honest; it was changed under Gordon Brown—is their right to have their say. I do not think there is the right to keep redacting.
I am now a bit concerned because I am hearing that it is a piece of evidence, so they have got to be careful what they say. In all the years that I have been working in this area, I have never heard that before. For me, it is about having that voice—for example, hearing about somebody who has been brutally murdered. It is their opportunity. I am going to look further into this, as Victims’ Commissioner, but I think it is a right for the victims. It is in the victims code; it does not have any caveats.
I am very concerned to hear, when we meet victims, that something has been redacted three times, or taken out three times. There needs to be more evidence about this and how they are treated. These are the most appalling crimes, and I do not think it is acceptable. Otherwise, victims are just going to say, “Why bother?” The championing I have done over 13 years has been to ensure that the victim impact statement is the voice of the victim, which has been silenced all the way through.
Katie Kempen: The addition from our perspective is that the victims we support, by and large, find the whole process quite confusing, and they need support to get through it. We would welcome clear guidance, clear information and respect for the victim’s right to have their voice heard, in so far as is possible.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would agree. A lot of these answers are going to come back to the same principles: one of the things that we have not achieved is clear support for victims, end to end. There are contracts, or bits and pieces—I am sure Katie can speak to this—that are parts of the process. However, all those things feed in to one another. The victim impact statement is an example of where victims often do not understand what their rights are. They do not understand who to speak to if they are being told something they feel is unjust or they do not agree with. We could do so much more. One gap in the Bill that I wanted to mention concerns wider support for victims, in terms of building community-based support that could start at a much earlier point in the criminal justice process.
In the context of court delays, court backlogs and the sentencing changes afoot, this is a critical piece of legislation that could address some of those gaps. That would help victims very much, end to end. Some of the examples of injustice that we pick out would be much more comprehensively addressed. That is one of the things I would encourage you all to consider.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: First and foremost, you need to consider what the victims and families have gone through—the whole context. This is just one part of it. I am nervous when you focus on one section and do not look at the environment. Victims and families are sat in the courtroom for many months. They have listened to everything. They may have given evidence via the defence. They have a prosecutor that is not for them, but for the state, and may have let them down. This needs to be viewed in its context. I have always said that I wish judges would own courts, because defendants run them ragged. I have been to many courts over the years, and when you get a good judge, you really get that.
We are also talking, however, about families who do not understand the judiciary or the language. There needs to be a part of the hearing, when the defendant has been convicted, to say, “We need to speak to the families.”—but do not just do it on the day of the sentencing; give them the opportunity to digest, as you would with the defence and legal arguments, when nobody is allowed in. That could be private, where nobody comes in. It is important to recognise the whole context.
If the defendant is not there, put TV screens in the prison cell. When I worked in the courts, I went to prison cells when defendants would not come down, and we have been up and done that. It is about controlling the environment but, more importantly, it is for the victim, because the defendant seems to control this, which is so wrong when they have been convicted. We need to train the judiciary how to do this, and it is not going to be favourable to one side. Victims only get this time after the whole process, and I am concerned that they will not have the opportunity to digest it. They are emotionally drained and I think it could be rushed too quickly.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree with that.
Katie Kempen: Building on that, there is a need for a holistic exploration of what victims experience in the courtroom. Our report, “Suffering for justice”, referenced long waits for sentencing hearings and not being able to access special measures. The reality for victims in court is that they are standing outside court with the offender’s supporters and family, that they have to sit in the public gallery, and that they clearly feel they are being intimidated when the sentencing remarks come through. We welcome the sharing of the sentencing remarks with victims, ensuring that they understand the impact of them.
We agree that the victims’ voice needs to be at the centre of any sentencing hearing. Some victims may well want the offender to attend. In other cases I have attended, I have seen young people give their victim personal statements against people who have abused them, it was very difficult for them to be able to see the offender. I really feel that victims’ needs should be taken into consideration so that they feel they can have their say in that environment.
Baroness Newlove: May I just add something important? When offenders have been acquitted, as they were in my case—I say this because this is how it feels—the offender’s family may be in the public gallery. My family had to have police protection. It is about the environment in that sentencing court. It is not simplistic. I hope that the Government take on board the fact that there is all that going on: you having to digest a very important, very technical decision while you are being goaded and having to be protected.
Dr Mullan
Q
You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very aware of dysfunctions within how domestic abuse is understood in the family court. It is positive to clarify to the court that, with certain offences, allowing parental responsibility should be considered inappropriate. Even saying that, though, I am a bit cautious about a completely black-and-white approach. I agree with the provisions in the Bill, but you would have to think very carefully about the range of other offences—for equivalent convictions against other children, absolutely, but I do not know enough about what is being proposed in terms of the range of other offences.
While we are on the subject of family court, one of the long-standing clarifications needed from Government is about a presumption of parental involvement. The Government were looking into that literally years ago, when I was first appointed as a designate, and it has not been resolved. That should be either clarified through this legislation or just clarified full stop. In the family court, the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, which is adequate in considering the safety of a child, is often confused with a presumption of parental involvement. I believe that the safety of children, who are recognised as victims in their own right in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, should be paramount.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?
Dame Nicole Jacobs: As Baroness Newlove said, it depends on the victim and the family, and the context of the situation. For many people, it would be heartening to feel that there is an ability to compel someone to come to court to hear their sentence and the consequences of their actions, which have devastated the lives of those people. But I could also imagine, especially in the context of domestic abuse, situations in which the victim, or their family if they have been murdered, would find some of that difficult. You would have to understand those dynamics.
In the context of domestic abuse, for example, there could be a very clear notion that that would be the just thing to do. There could be another example where, because of the nature of the family—keep in mind that for domestic abuse, I am looking through the lens of the fact that the victim and perpetrator are very well known to each other; that is not the case for all sorts of other crimes—there could be dynamics that are more complex. That is why what both Katie and Baroness Newlove have said, about understanding that the victim and families will feel confident and engaged and able to speak, is really important.
We must also keep in mind, especially with domestic abuse, that there could be family members and people involved as victims who have radically different views. Again, there is a complexity to this that does not necessarily always come through in a very black-and-white provision.
Baroness Newlove: Again, I want to support the family. The decisions we are making here are for the professionals to make the courtroom run seamlessly, but it could happen instantly—if the defendant just does not come down, how are we going to manage the emotions on the day, as well as the emotions they have gone through on the journey? I really want to make sure that they are supported.
I see that there is going to be a penal order in prison. I could go on a bit about that myself, but I will not—that is out of scope. I welcome that provision, but am also concerned about how it is managed. If the governor of the prison sees that that is going to be detrimental to their health and wellbeing, it might not happen, and so then where is the transparency about that being delivered for the victim? I think we need to do further work and look at that, because there is very little communication to victims. Nobody knows what they do in prison. Victims are told what they are doing, but they get very little information. For me this is a step forward, but what happens at the end of the day is far more important.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I cannot underscore enough how important it is for this gap to be filled. It is exactly as you say; there are so many victims who, if they do not meet the criteria of the victim contact scheme, are literally not in the frame for any advice or support. Yet there are all these changes, whether that is an early release or just any information at all, such as the conditions of release. I get these calls at my office—I am sure we all do. They are very hard to problem-solve through; you have to find the right person within probation who may be able to tell you, and it is a huge gap.
I am really pleased about the provision adding offences to the full victim contact scheme, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment. That is really welcome. More people will be eligible for the victim contact scheme. I remind you of what I am told by probation—that victims who are eligible for the scheme do not always have contact because some of the contact details are lost or the fact that they are eligible for that scheme is maybe not known to them. That brings us back to the same theme: where is the end-to-end support for victims?
I think a helpline will really fill a gap. My question about the helpline is whether the resource is adequate. That is a question that needs to be answered, or at least there needs to be an iterative process, where we can see that and build on it. My guess is that the helpline will start feeling very much like casework. It will not be as simple as victims calling and saying, “Can you tell me some information?” or an advocate calling on their behalf. They will want to then say, “I do not think these conditions are adequate”, and they will have a lot of questions. There is a lot of logistics behind the scenes that I worry about, and whether they will have the access to the information they need.
I am sure I should hand over to Katie and Baroness Newlove, who see a lot of this happening too. The answer is yes; it is great to have the helpline, but there is a question mark in my mind about the resourcing and whether we will quickly learn that there is much more need for a caseworking approach.
Certainly, the biggest gap remaining for me is victims whose offender is in prison for something that is not a domestic abuse-related crime. That is the biggest difficulty in all this. Very often—say if it is a drug-related crime—it has “nothing” to do with domestic abuse, but they are a known perpetrator, and those victims need to be able to access the line.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very pleased about that. It is a big step forward.
Katie Kempen: I agree with Nicole. We support the extension of the victim contact scheme, and we think it is hugely valuable to have that access to information—victims tell us that all the time. As has been said, in the last year or so, it would have been an invaluable resource for victims to be able to access.
On Nicole’s concerns about resourcing, as an organisation that runs a helpline, I would say that up to £200,000 for the helpline feels quite optimistic. The operational challenges that we bump into include that people are often in mental health distress when they access these contact lines, so the calls take longer and you need your staff to be trained in safeguarding, data protection, referrals and so on, which all takes time and investment.
The other element from our perspective is the knock-on impact this will have on victim services. It is estimated that the phone call will last about 28 minutes, and we will then need to pick it up and explain to the victim what their rights are, where they can go from here and where they can get further information. Undoubtedly, we will need to give additional emotional support—the phone call is likely to be quite traumatic for them. We need to see additional investment in the victim services that will be picking up the additional demand that comes from the scheme, although I would say it is a hugely welcome step forward.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Q
Katie Kempen: We think it is clear and makes it quite accessible. From our perspective, if possible, we would like to see the eligibility for the victim contact scheme to go to all victims of domestic abuse. As Nicole mentioned, a person might not be convicted of a DA-related offence, but there is none the less an impact on the victim. You have referred to flagging as part of the sentencing review, and we think that could help. Where possible, we would like to see it extended. However, it seems as though the reforms will make it easier and clearer for victims to access support information.
Baroness Newlove: I agree.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would just underscore for the Committee that the inclusion of children is very important. I recently published a report on children, “Victims in their own right?”—that question mark was on purpose. One aspect of the report was mapping 700 services for children in England and Wales, and the fact that one in five say that they do not have adequate funding, which had led to curtailment.
If I had to name one of the largest gaps we have in victim services—I would say there are gaps across the board—it is the huge gap in relation to children. That goes back to this continual theme. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act, we have the duty to collaborate. I was a huge champion for that, and I am now very involved in its enactment, but it does not create any new funds for services for victims; it says to local areas, “You have a duty to collaborate on the funding streams that currently exist”.
I would say that a huge gap in this Bill is a duty to fund community-based services. Without wishing to embarrass Katie by talking about the incredible work that is done by Victim Support, there is a range of services that are the foundation of support for victims. They do not sit in core budgets like other kinds of public services do. That is one thing we have to fundamentally address for victims to have that kind of end-to-end support. I will not labour it any more, but I have to point out the biggest gap. It is great to have children defined, but what does that mean?
Katie Kempen: The reality for us is that the budgets for commissioning services are being cut, so the services that we can provide are being cut. The increase in national insurance contributions has obviously hit the sector really hard as well. We support all this work to improve the victim experience, but it needs to go hand in hand with a well-resourced victim sector that can take victims from the point of the crime occurring—even pre-charge and pre-contacting the police—right to the end of the criminal justice process.
Baroness Newlove: Can I bring it back to the information for victims? The one thing I am really concerned about is the importance of what information is given to victims, because it is very patchy. They are being told, “We cannot tell you whether the offender has been released”, and they cannot be told where the offender lives or what the offender knows about their exclusion zones. I truly welcome the fact that we will hopefully turn it into a restriction zone, because I have mapped my life out, and I have three offenders who know exactly where I am.
More importantly, the information takes too long and is very clunky. The victim liaison officer tries to do as much as they can, but I think this is an ideal opportunity—I am looking at the Minister—to let the victim know that, if the offender has been released, he does not live in the area; he lives 300 miles away. That gives comfort. I have met a victim who is petrified that the offender lives near her, because nobody will tell her where the offender is. We are not saying police must pinpoint where he is, but, if that offender lives 300 miles away, she can at least go out the door and go to the shops without feeling that he will be around the corner. That is really important. Why are we nervous about sharing information about offenders when offenders can know a lot about victims?
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Baroness Newlove: Antisocial behaviour is my drum. I absolutely welcome that the commissioner is now able to explore the treatment of victims of antisocial behaviour—I have been going on about that for many years—but there are still challenges that victims face.
I really like that it will allow an investigation of how the housing agencies and associations treat victims, because it is like ping pong with these housing associations—I welcome that. I challenged the Victims and Prisoners Act because victims should expect to be entitled to the right support under the victims code. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour should fall under the victims code. Trying to get people to understand the impact of antisocial behaviour as a crime—and it is a crime—is all down to how much the victim reports. That is where we need better understanding.
I also want a statutory threshold for ASB case reviews, and I want an independent chair for ASB case reviews, because I am tired of agencies marking their own homework. More importantly, I want the victim to be able to go to this, because you are talking about them and the impact on them, yet they are not invited. For me, that is really important. I welcome anything for antisocial behaviour, and I would like the Government to look at the report’s recommendations and see what else we can add.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Baroness Newlove: I certainly do. The media give out information, and I have learned more about my sentencing remarks because I never got them until very long afterwards. Every victim, not just those of sexual crimes, has a right to see those sentencing remarks, because it gives them time to digest. You leave the courtroom thinking that you know everything, but as your memory and emotions come, you start asking yourself questions.
Sentencing is very technical: you hear a sentence, then it is reduced if they have been on remand—there are boxed-off things. Also, as I found out, there are tariff reviews for juveniles, which even the probation service was not aware of because there are very few of them. If you look at the crime rate, you will see that we are getting younger offenders in prison. We have to prepare families for the tariff review, which means that offenders go to appeal to reduce their tariff, so you go through that.
It should not simply be a case of saying, “There are the sentencing remarks.” There are implications, and every victim has a right to see the sentencing remarks. It is about them, and it affects the decisions about what the offender will do, and it should be the victim’s right to have that information. They do not have any advocates to speak for them, and the prosecution pursue their own case. If the media can get things out there, why can we not give it to victims and families?
Katie Kempen: From our perspective, accessing sentencing remarks is an issue for victims. They would like to be able to access them. We welcomed the pilot and its continued roll-out.
I have a nuanced response because victims’ needs differ. If there is to be wider publication, we need to see whether any protection is needed for individual victims, rather than carte blanche, “Yes, publish them all.” A key issue is explaining the sentencing remarks to victims. Again, in our “Suffering for Justice” report, where victims did not have the sentencing remarks explained to them, it caused them real anguish and distress. They should be able to have the sentencing remarks explained to them, and where they do, it helps their recovery journey and brings closure. My answer is yes, with some nuance. We need the explanation, and we need to treat the victims like a human being who has gone through a traumatic experience.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Q
Katie Kempen: Yes. Particularly when looking at antisocial behaviour, we absolutely welcome the additional powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. Brutally, the Victims’ Commissioner knew what the issues were surrounding antisocial behaviour—the last time she was in office, she wrote a fantastic report that has still not been fully implemented and enacted.
At Victim Support we would like to see an ASB charter so that victims of antisocial behaviour have clarity on their expectations and rights, and on the responsibilities of each organisation. Victims are far too often ping-ponged between different organisations. They do not hear their rights in terms of the reviews.
As Baroness Newlove has said, there is a cohort of victims who slip through the net in accessing victim support services. Their case may not reach the criminal threshold that gets them to victims code rights, but they are still finding that their lives are essentially ruined by antisocial behaviour. Those cases are complex, difficult to resolve and take significant advocacy. We need some clarity on rights and responsibilities in that arena.
Baroness Newlove: I add a request to get rid of the term “low level.” The police start by thinking that antisocial behaviour is low level, and if you train your police officers with that narrative, they will not give respect to victims. Antisocial behaviour is horrendously violent to the individual. For my last report I met victims whose houses were nearly burned down, but the local authorities never came. I have met a victim of arson against their car, which nearly murdered the family because she was sleeping on the sofa—the police never came out, but the fire officers sat there for two hours.
We have to get away from looking at antisocial behaviour as low level, because it is the route for violence upon violence. I do not want to talk just about me, but my husband was murdered. Before that, it would have been treated as antisocial behaviour. If he had lived, it would have just gone through the system. If you leave antisocial behaviour, it is like a cancer; it will spread and spread.
That is where it helps communities, if you really want to get to the nub of all this. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am delighted about being able to go to a housing provider, but you are quite right about the implementation and accountability. This is going to take many attempts, but it has to start with the police to stop the ping-ponging. There is a human there who is feeling suicidal. You will act if they take their life, like Fiona Pilkington or David Askew did, and that is too little too late.
Jack Rankin
Q
Baroness Newlove: I broadly welcome it, with a bit of a caveat, as I am the victims’ champion. Currently, I have to explain to every victim who writes in that I cannot get involved in individual cases under the statute. That is not to say that I do not pass on the information to Ministers and ask them to help and support. I am very concerned about how we may class victims under two tiers, and that is what we have to look at—it will not be me, but the future Victims’ Commissioner.
I receive hundreds of letters, even in the House of Lords, and I am trying to separate them using three criteria. First, does the correspondence highlight a gap in the policy? That is about a victim’s right to a review, and if it is not right, I raise it with the Minister or the Attorney General. Secondly, does the correspondence highlight a failure to deliver in line with policy? I see cases that seemingly meet the ASB case review threshold, but the local authority has added further obstacles, which does not help.
Thirdly, and finally, does the correspondence highlight policy that perverts outcomes for victims? By that, I mean that the court orders compensation, which is deducted from criminal injuries compensation—that is another debate that I will not go into. In some cases—or in the majority of cases, if we are perfectly honest—the victim waits years, because it is a drip feed. If we are looking at funding, there is over £1 billion outstanding in unpaid fines and compensation. I would like the courts to act and get the money off the offender so that it goes to victims, who have to wait too long.
Those are the criteria I am looking at. It will take a while, but it is paramount that the Victims’ Commissioner sets guidelines. I hear that line, “Does not look at individual cases”, but my correspondents think I can, and it really hurts me when I have to say that I cannot as Victims’ Commissioner—it is all the jargon and waffle that we do. I ensure that victims truly understand that I will signpost their correspondence to the people in charge. I will show them, and they will get transparency in that way.
Jack Rankin
I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.
The Chair
I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Baroness Newlove: We are going to wait for Sir Brian Leveson’s report, because it does not matter what I say. It matters what Sir Brian comes up with. However, as my background is working with magistrates and Crown courts, I am looking at district judges, or DJs—who used to be called stipendiary magistrates. I want to see more of them, because I can assure you that if you have a stipendiary magistrate—and there are only two laypersons, by the way, and this is one—the professionals have to get their act together. It depends on what Sir Brian Leveson is looking at, and—
The Chair
Order. I am very sorry to interrupt, but we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Rebecca Bryant and Charlotte Hamilton-Kay gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Resolve and ASB Help. We have until 10.55 for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Rebecca Bryant: Good morning. My name is Rebecca Bryant and I am the chief executive of Resolve.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Good morning. I am Charlotte Hamilton-Kay and I am the deputy chief executive of ASB Help.
Dr Mullan
Q
The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property?
Rebecca Bryant: Compensation in relation to antisocial behaviour cases is currently quite vague. Often, if you are looking at cases that are resolved through an early intervention and prevention approach, you would be looking at more of a restorative justice element, and perhaps mediation, where there is no compensation and it is more about recognising the impact of the behaviour the person has perpetrated. Once you move into the legal action arena, we have to recognise that a lot of the people who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour may not be in a position to pay any compensation—although I recognise that, from a victim’s perspective, some sort of restorative approach would be welcome.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree with that. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that when we record it, and when certain agencies take reports, there is a real grey area in how it is classified. We struggle with the classification of crime versus antisocial behaviour. It is often dismissed as a misdemeanour or, as Baroness Helen said, it is low level, so we are not necessarily going to reach the threshold at which we can look at compensation. That is impactive for victims of antisocial behaviour, because it immediately makes them feel that what they have experienced and suffered is not as important or serious as other cases that might meet the criteria. We would really need to look at that before we could go that way.
Additionally, victims of antisocial behaviour often do not report what they are experiencing because they feel they are not going to be listened to or taken seriously. Introducing a compensation element would just complicate that at this stage.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: That is not something that I have come across at all. Restorative justice and community remedy can be either between the two individuals or group of individuals who are involved in the antisocial behaviour—bringing them together and doing a piece of work to recognise the impact of that behaviour—or something in the community itself, perhaps with higher visibility. There was a pilot last year around immediate justice and the impact on the community of seeing the behaviour paid back, if you like.
Restorative justice is often only one of the tools that we use to respond to antisocial behaviour. When we are talking about early intervention and prevention, we also use mediation and warnings, highlighting to the individual perpetrator the impact that the behaviour is having on the victim and the community.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think I would, but how long is that time? I think a victim of antisocial behaviour, community safety issues or even crime wants to see some closure, move forward and move past the incident that has happened. Having something like that hanging over them for an indefinite amount of time might not enable them to have that closure.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: The bonus of fines or penalty notices for antisocial behaviour is that we hope they act as a deterrent. If they are not working as a deterrent, it does not matter what amount of time we put on them: they are not going to have the effect on the perpetrator of stopping the behaviour. Yes, there needs to be culpability —we should not just have a “get out of jail free” card if we can wait out the clock—but we need to be realistic about what they are going to achieve.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: It is a really great step. We need more accountability, and oversight of all agencies involved in managing antisocial behaviour, and the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner, is a really great start to that. There is a huge postcode lottery and disparity across England and Wales in the way that victims of antisocial behaviour are supported, the way their cases are managed and what action is taken on different behaviours. Anything we can do to bring a nationalised approach would be really beneficial to victims.
Rebecca Bryant: I think there is a balance. We welcome the Victims’ Commissioner having the authority, and the co-operation element, but the arena of social housing, local authorities and antisocial behaviour is very crowded at the moment. You have the social housing regulator, which is currently looking at housing providers in relation to the consumer standard, which includes antisocial behaviour—their approach to it, the number of cases per 1,000 and the respondents’ satisfaction with how they respond to it. That is not just for housing providers; it includes local authorities with housing stock. That is one side.
You also have the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman, which both deal with individual people who are not satisfied with the response they have received from the agency we are talking about. We are very supportive of antisocial behaviour victims and approaches being at the forefront of the Victims’ Commissioner’s mind, and her or him being able to pull together responses, require people to respond and perhaps look at themes and areas where we can strengthen our support and guidance for agencies that work in this arena, but what will that actually look like? We are currently working on that with the current Victims’ Commissioner. At the moment it is quite vague. There would have to be a tightening up of what element she is going to look at, bearing in mind that the ASB case review, the housing ombudsman, the local authority ombudsman and the social housing regulator are all looking at the same thing.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Funded universal support for victims of antisocial behaviour. It has been made clear by not only us but the previous panel that antisocial behaviour is a very broad church and often includes criminal activity, but it is not recorded as a crime. We use antisocial behaviour legislation, as it is under the current regime and as it will be in future with the Crime and Policing Bill, as that stands, for the use or threat of violence, for example. We all know that using or threatening violence is a crime, yet we use antisocial behaviour legislation to respond to it. It can involve drug dealing, cuckooing properties, criminal damage—all those things are crimes.
If you are a victim of crime and you report it as a crime to the police, you will get an automatic offer of victim support. When you are dealing with an antisocial behaviour case, you might report it to the local authority or to a housing provider, and you do not get immediate access to victim support. We know from our own research and research from the Victims’ Commissioner, various different reports and colleagues like ASB Help that what supports a victim is having a named person who can support them through the process. That person can guide them through often very complex and difficult situations in relation to taking legal action, or if the perpetrator is vulnerable and has multiple issues around mental health, drugs and alcohol, and the significant delays in the civil justice system mean that the case may go on for a long time.
We need specialist victim support that is universal and independent. I should stress the independence because, often, when a complainant makes a complaint to a housing provider and a local authority, they will be part of a caseload of many. They will be given some support and guidance, and some people have specialist training to do that, but we would seriously support having an independent specialist to provide that kind of support—for example, Victim Support, which is commissioned and funded. It is very much a postcode lottery at the moment. There are some police and crime commissioners in the country who fund specialist ASB victim support, but they are few and far between. It really is a postcode lottery as to what you get where you live. That is what I think is missing.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I absolutely agree with that. We can talk about victims of a single instance of minor crime, which I do not say easily; it is the criminal version of “low level”. If, for example, someone smashed your plant pots on your front doorstep, that is a crime and you are entitled to support for it. But if you have been suffering sleepless nights for 12 months because a neighbour has kept you awake constantly, you are losing your job because you are falling asleep at work, and you have experienced a constant campaign, there is no one there. If there was a statutory agency to provide support, that could be life-altering for some people. It is a very important thing that we continue to campaign for.
With the best will in the world, a lot of the measures are a great step forward for victims of antisocial behaviour, but if we do not allocate the resources and ensure that the training and experience is there for frontline practitioners, then we are only as good as our weakest link. We need to ensure that we support our frontline practitioners who work in the field of antisocial behaviour to get the job right. If they do not have the resources to do the job properly, they are not going to be able to. If they have not got the training and the knowledge to understand the vulnerabilities and the different caveats of antisocial behaviour, they are not going to be able to do the job properly. That is immediately where we fall down. Unfortunately, the buck will stop with them, so we are dutybound to make sure they have adequate support to do it right.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I would say that the vast majority of local authorities and housing providers up and down the country resource their response to antisocial behaviour, but there has been a significant impact on that since 2008, with austerity and the cuts that have happened across local authorities. I believe that the toolkit itself is strong. There is a mixture of early intervention and prevention, which we absolutely know work. Around 75% of complaints around antisocial behaviour are resolved first time. When we are talking about taking cases to court, we are only talking about a small minority of all the complaints.
There is something there about us understanding the real picture of antisocial behaviour in the country. A million incidents of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police last year, but our YouGov survey suggests that over 50% of people do not report antisocial behaviour, so imagine doubling that number to 2 million, and then adding on top the incidents recorded by housing providers and local authorities: we are probably looking at more like 4 million or 5 million incidents of antisocial behaviour. It is a really significant problem; it is pernicious and causes great damage to communities and individuals alike.
There are certain things that we strongly feel should happen. We did some work with the all-party parliamentary group a couple of years ago, looking into the complexity of antisocial behaviour. We made a recommendation that there should be a pilot for a specialist housing court that could look at the complexity around antisocial behaviour. You are asking an ASB officer to be an enforcement person, a mediator, a victim support person, a mental health expert and a social worker.
We recognise that people who perpetrate antisocial behaviour can often be victims themselves and have had traumatic experiences—adverse childhood experiences—in their lives, which might be the root cause of their antisocial behaviour. We need to have something like a specialist court, and we need the judiciary who look at antisocial behaviour to be trained to understand the complexity, because we often find that judges are not necessarily trained in antisocial behaviour when they look at complex cases.
The resources required are wide. It is about not just local authorities and housing providers but the community safety partnership, because we know that a partnership response is what resolves antisocial behaviour. It is not about one single agency, and it is certainly not just within the auspices of the police.
Mr Brash
Q
Rebecca Bryant: We have long called for a campaign on antisocial behaviour to explain rights. That is one of the reasons why we have Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, when we talk about how to report and what people should expect when they report antisocial behaviour. I liked the idea from Victim Support that perhaps we should have a charter that explains people’s rights: you can ask for an ASB case review, you can make a complaint to the ombudsman if you are dissatisfied, and you can—if this element of the Bill passes—make a complaint to or request support from the Victims’ Commissioner.
Equally, we must remember that this is about stopping antisocial behaviour. Often when members of the public report antisocial behaviour, they are looking for a specific outcome. That outcome might be to evict the person who is the perpetrator, when actually, that is not our role. Our role is to stop the antisocial behaviour from happening. So there is always something, on behalf of housing providers and local authorities, about managing the expectations of the individual who is making the complaint and being really clear on what antisocial behaviour is, what you can resolve as an individual, and what we can do to support you as an organisation. We need to be much clearer about what people can expect from us as the agencies and our response.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Absolutely. I will make a couple of points. Rebecca has mentioned the ASB case review. The disparity in its administration across England and Wales is a real issue for victims. We released a report last year that showed there are some areas in England and Wales that, in four years, have still not held one ASB case review, and this legislation has been around for over 11 years. That is purely because victims are not aware of the case review’s existence. They are not able to make an application because it is not publicised. We have to ask why it is not publicised. Practitioners feel that it is a complaint process and will involve them being questioned on why they have made the decisions they have made in case management, and victims are really missing out on the opportunity to explain the impact of what they are experiencing.
As Baroness Newlove mentioned, we really need to standardise the threshold for an ASB case review application, so there are no additional caveats—it is three instances in six months and that is it. We also need to standardise how it is publicised and how victims are made aware of it, because a lot of people are still unaware. A report that you at Resolve issued in the last couple of years said that 87% of people were still unaware of this tool’s existence, so in 11 years we have not done a very good job of making people aware of it.
Finally, on the concept of a victim being able to express what they are experiencing, when we are talking about tenants, everybody experiences things differently. What might be really impactful to me could just go straight over your head. It is all about your personal circumstances and what your experience is, what your triggers are and what you happen to have been experiencing that day. We need to be very clear about what is antisocial behaviour, what is unreasonable behaviour and what is inconsiderate behaviour, and manage the expectations of what people can and cannot demand change to. Managing the expectations of victims is part of the support network. When they know what to expect and what can and cannot happen, and when they are not dealing with that unknown, it makes it a lot easier for them to cope.
Adam Thompson
Q
Rebecca Bryant: It is very difficult to see this Bill in isolation, considering we have the Crime and Policing Bill going through Parliament at the same time. We want to be in lockstep and to recognise that we need not only to support victims and communities, but to consider the drivers for antisocial behaviour—where it is happening and how we can better respond, whether that is through a legal toolkit or by putting checks and balances in place. For example, I gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week around checks and balances on ensuring that we recognise the human rights of individuals versus the community, and how we do that.
Having a spotlight on antisocial behaviour can only be a good thing if it is what the majority of people in the country say is a high priority. Having spoken to lots of Ministers, Governments and civil servants over the last 25 years that I have been working on antisocial behaviour, that priority has not gone away. When you look at our survey results on the impact of antisocial behaviour, one in seven people say that their mental health is impacted, and one in 10 actually move home because they are a victim of antisocial behaviour. Over 50% of people do not report it to us. Why not? Is it because they do not trust us to respond? Is it because we do not advertise how to report it to us? There is something there that we need to be think about, and we need to do more research into that.
With the Crime and Policing Bill, there will be mandating of data collection. For the first time since the crime and policing Act that is there at the moment, we will be gathering information on use of early intervention and prevention tools, and we will be able to evaluate what works, what we want to invest in and how we train our staff. We will look at legal action and whether the new respect order—as it will be once it has been piloted—works. What is the impact of positive requirements and what is the impact of sentencing? What is the impact of increasing fines as a deterrent?
At the centre of that, we will have the Victims’ Commissioner, advocating for individual victims of antisocial behaviour—in a different way, perhaps, from the way the ombudsman will be looking at complaints, the ASB case review looks at a response or the social housing regulator looks at things. The Victims’ Commissioner is actually advocating for the individual victim or the communities that are being impacted, and that can only be a good thing.
The Chair
I thank colleagues for the timeliness and focused nature of their questions. I thank the witnesses for sparing their valuable time this morning to come and give evidence to us.
Examination of Witnesses
Clare Moody and Assistant Chief Constable Genna Telfer gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Clare Moody: Good morning. I am Clare Moody, representing the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Genna Telfer: Good morning. I am Genna Telfer, representing the NPCC.
Dr Mullan
Q
Genna Telfer: That is a difficult question to start with. It is a tricky one. This would probably be better done through a victim survey of individuals who have been through the process. Although we would want to give people additional time to truly consider it, what might take someone two weeks to think about might take someone else 12 months, so what is the right timeline to put on it? I am not sure I can answer that from a policing perspective.
Obviously, our witness care teams keep victims informed and talk to them. That is absolutely something we would do. We inform them about the scheme, but we do not tell them whether they are eligible for it or not, because we think that would be better done by the CPS, which has a better understanding of how it all works. But in terms of the timeline, that is a difficult one to answer, because how long is a piece of string?
Clare Moody: I agree with Genna. I do not feel that I am qualified to say right now that if you extended this to three months or to two months—
Dr Mullan
Q
Clare Moody: I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks.
Genna Telfer: I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Genna Telfer: Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.
Dr Mullan
Do you want to add anything, Clare?
Clare Moody: In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Genna Telfer: As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.
Clare Moody: I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Genna Telfer: I think it will simplify it. At the moment we have two schemes—the contact scheme and the notification scheme—with different eligibility, so it will make it slightly easier. The helpline is a great idea, but it needs to be resourced properly, as with anything. If it is not, then we are setting an expectation for victims that might not be met, which might frustrate them further. A concern for us in policing is whether, if it is not resourced properly within probation, it falls back to policing to address, when we might not have the information or resource to do it. But in principle, absolutely, I think it is a great idea.
Clare Moody: Again, I agree with that. It is about simplification, clarity, support for victims, and the value that that adds. Of course, there will not be straightforward calls. Victims will be calling in and asking, “But what about this?” or “Can you tell me this?” to get more information. There will be complexity in the calls that come in and the response to them. There needs to be resourcing for that, and there may be a knock-on to wider victim services, because there will be questions that fall out of that and through to the victim services support sector.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Clare Moody: Those powers are welcome. One of the points about the new powers is the reporting. It is about aligning what is going on with those powers. Where police and crime commissioners have a responsibility for antisocial behaviour reviews, how does that align with the work of the Victims’ Commissioner? With all of this, it is about making sure that there is simplicity in the system for victims and that there is not duplication, and aligning things. For example, as police and crime commissioners, we do local reporting through the local criminal justice boards, and we report into the Ministry of Justice through that. How does that sit alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that there is not a multiplicity of reports and we are pointing in the same direction of benefits and changes that we need to see for victims?
Genna Telfer: Yes, it has to complement what PCCs are doing through the local criminal justice boards. Any additional support we can get to work with partners is welcome. As was described earlier, ASB is definitely not just an enforcement issue; it is the whole partnership piece. We welcome the additional powers around housing. As Clare said, it has to complement what is going on locally.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Clare Moody: I cannot comment on future spending and where that will go. We would share the view that resourcing matters for the helpline. The nature of services is that they generate demand. It is not just about services for the helpline; it is about wider victim services support. That is for funding decisions that are beyond my remit.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Clare Moody: As a police and crime commissioner, I am always going to ask for increased funding.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Genna Telfer: That is always a challenge. It is a challenge that we are trying to work through at the moment in terms of code compliance and how we share information through different agencies. There is a piece of work going on between policing, the MOJ and the CPS to try to work out how we align all our data—how we have the right people giving the right information at the right time, but also access to that data.
The first thing is whether the data is right. There is a whole piece of work going on in the MOJ at the moment around data auditing and checking. The second thing is how the communication is happening. We have just launched a joint communications framework between policing and the CPS, which gives our witness care units practical examples of what they communicate and when. In future, we would like, potentially, to look beyond that to go into probation and expand it further. There is another piece of work ongoing around technology and how that could assist us to do some of this. That is subject to funding, because none of that comes cheap, but absolutely, the intention is to try to align that as much as possible. There will probably always be some gaps when you are transferring from one agency to another, but as much as we can, we are trying to join it up, so that the victim gets the right information, ideally from the right place.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Genna Telfer: Yes, absolutely.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?
Genna Telfer: Obviously it is not something we are trained in, or something we do, so there would be a whole training implication. We do use spit hoods—that is probably as close to that that we get, in terms of putting something over someone’s head, but that does not affect sound and even those are quite controversial, so they are used quite sparingly. It is difficult, because if we did not do that, we are back to the disruption point and potentially removing people straightaway for contempt of court.
On the legality, I do not know—it is something that we would have to have a look into. If it were agreed, it would need to be checked whether it was legal, and then there would be a whole range of training. But that is not something policing would do; it would be the Prison Service involved in that, rather than us.
I can talk about my own experience. I was an officer safety trainer, so I have quite a lot of knowledge and, again, that would be really difficult to do. We use leg restraints, handcuffs and things, but to restrain someone effectively and to gag them to move them into a courtroom, I think would be really challenging.
Clare Moody: I go back to the point that I was making earlier about not making this a theatre show. I think that would somehow make it a spectacle, and it puts the perpetrator at the centre of all the attention. As I said earlier, this is about justice for the victims, and I think that there would be real problems with that. Adding to the points that Genna made about the practicalities of it, making a show of it, or making theatre in the courtroom, I do not think is the appropriate thing to do.
Jack Rankin
Q
Genna Telfer: Yes.
Jack Rankin
Q
Genna Telfer: It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.
Jack Rankin
Q
Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.
Jack Rankin
Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?
Genna Telfer: I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case.
Clare Moody: I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that.
Genna Telfer: I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Q
Genna Telfer: We obviously have really close working relationships with our partners. There should always be a number of people around the table trying to work out the best option to deal with these cases—from a problem-solving point of view, not just in the short term. Rather than just solving the immediate problem by, for example, moving people from one address to another, they might ask, “How do we manage this for the future?”
In my experience, I do not think there is an unwillingness from housing associations and local authorities to get involved. I think sometimes there are just challenges with being able to resolve some of the issues. The new power for the Victims’ Commissioner on the requirement to give a reasonable response as to why something has or has not been done will be really helpful, because it will provide more transparency and scrutiny of the problems we are trying to resolve. I do not think there is an unwillingness; I just think there are some challenges in the system that make it difficult.
Mrs Blundell
Q
Clare Moody: Not specifically on the legislation piece. I think it is about the agencies working together. We have an example in Avon and Somerset where there are police officers who co-locate with the housing association —they have a desk space in the housing association—and that close working has resulted in closer co-operation on how to manage difficult situations with tenants. There are practical ways you can do things that do not necessarily require the legislation to change, because they are already in place.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Genna Telfer: I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 17th June 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 17 June 2025 - (17 Jun 2025)
The Chair
Good afternoon. The air conditioning is doing its usual thing, so if anybody feels the need to strip off, please do so within reason. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? Looking around the table, I see that they do not.
Examination of Witnesses
Suky Bhaker, Andrea Simon and Farah Nazeer gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Farah Nazeer: Good afternoon. My name is Farah Nazeer, the chief executive officer of Women’s Aid.
Suky Bhaker: Hi, I am Suky Bhaker, the chief executive of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
Andrea Simon: I am Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision?
Suky Bhaker: Fundamentally, the challenge with the unduly lenient sentence scheme is that victims are not aware of it. Although increasing the timeframe would be beneficial, and increasing the timeframe for Attorneys General when it comes to reviewing the applications certainly would be, we need to address the underlying issues.
We need to get this on a par with offenders’ rights. Offenders are made aware of their right to appeal by counsel immediately, and it is often the witness care unit that informs victims. However, a lot of victims do not fall under that scheme, so would never know that they were eligible. That is what leads them to apply quite late. There are also exceptional circumstances where offenders are able to apply outside of the 28 days. That needs to apply for victims as well, so that there is parity for victims and offenders.
Andrea Simon: Although we are pleased to see that there are provisions around extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme time limit to 28 days in the Bill, we still think it is too short. Our members advocate that it should be extended further to six weeks for the Attorney General, and the 14 days to apply to the Court of Appeal should be extended as well. There definitely needs to be more time.
Getting advice from a criminal barrister is also quite important in these cases. Anecdotally, we have heard from member organisations that there is not enough time for a barrister to look over sentencing reasons. This can sometimes result in judges failing to apply, for example, the dangerous criteria to a sentence, so we think it would make a significant difference if that time was extended.
Farah Nazeer: I do not have a significant amount to add. Suffice it to say that victims—particularly of the abuses we are talking about, including sexual and domestic abuse—are deeply traumatised when they come out of that process, and need sufficient time to make a decision. They also need the right kinds of advice, and to know where to go for that advice. The pathways are often completely unclear and often victims are battling many other factors—ill health, trauma, managing children and all sorts of things. As colleagues have said, absolutely yes, but how about that wraparound support to enable victims to do that in the first place? Doing it is just not possible, even if the provision is there, if you do not have the support to do it.
We have often sought to support victims to apply, and they are just not ready at all in that first month. It is too traumatic—everything is just a fog, a haze. It takes time for that haze and that fog to clear, for your mind to be able to still and for you to think, “Actually, I’m willing to go round this a second time.”
Then the right support has to come into place—not just the legal support, but the emotional and trauma support, knowing that there is somewhere to place your children and knowing that the children will have support through the process. All that is equally important if a victim is to be able to claim justice.
Dr Mullan
Q
First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say?
Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is very much a crime of impact. At Suzy Lamplugh Trust, we predominantly work with victims of stalking and harassment and, as I say, it is a crime of impact, so the victim personal statement is paramount in terms of explaining the effects of the crime, particularly because a lot of them are psychological effects; it is not physical behaviours that we are seeing. We would argue that it is absolutely paramount that victims should be able to take that opportunity and to have the power to voice exactly what that experience has been for them. They are often left powerless within a system, and this is their one opportunity to be able to convey the impact.
Having said that, a lot of victims of stalking choose not to make such a statement because they choose for that information not to be shared with the perpetrator; often, perpetrators receive a sense of gratification in court on hearing about the impact. For us, there has to be a balance—perhaps in allowing victims to produce a statement but it not being available to perpetrators.
Farah Nazeer: I guess that something underlying this is that barristers or solicitors will often advise people to remove things irrespective, because of the way the courts will respond to it. That speaks to a wider and more problematic culture within the court system. I do not think that you can really look at one without looking at the other.
Dr Mullan
Q
Suky Bhaker: You need to take into account the risks for the victims. Some victims would very much like and want the opportunity for the offender to be there, but for other victims of stalking that occasion is an opportunity for the offender to have contact again with them. I guess that there would be concerns from victim survivors about the potential behaviours, or how that perpetrator might play out in a court setting.
Stalking is very much about communication, so putting the victim and the offender in the same room actually fulfils the gratification of the offender on some occasions. However, we absolutely recognise that there is a sense of justice for other victims and that they very much want that offender to be there. You need to take the victim’s view into account.
Farah Nazeer: I have nothing more to add to that; it is the same across all the crimes that we work with.
Dr Mullan
Q
There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not.
Suky Bhaker: We believe it should be extended to any child. Someone who presents a risk to their own children certainly presents a risk to other children. In fact, we would go further and say that it should be extended to include other forms of violence against women and girls as well as offences such as attempted murder.
Andrea Simon: I echo that. We definitely agree in principle with the aims to limit the parental responsibility of men convicted of a child sexual offence. That restriction should certainly be expanded to include serious sexual offending against any child and should not be limited to the individual’s own child. There is a lack of clarity in the proposals about what would happen if a stepchild was abused, for example, so we want to see those loopholes and inconsistencies closed.
Farah Nazeer: I agree. I would add that we think it should be extended further, given how long these things can take for those going through trial, those on bail, those awaiting trial or those being investigated—that is the reality of the vast majority of certainly domestic abuse cases. The consequences of ignoring that are dire. We have a report coming out next week that illustrates the impact on children in terms of harm and death when it comes to making these quite frankly unsafe contact arrangements.
Dr Mullan
Q
Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider.
Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital.
Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement.
Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.
Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences.
It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm.
It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
I want to take you on to the victim helpline and the victim contact scheme. Suky, the Bill will for the first time ever bring victims of stalking and harassment into the victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence. What difference will that make to victims and survivors? Could you outline the importance to victims of being able to access timely communication?
Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is about fixation and obsession, so we are often looking at repeat offences and breaches. Receiving timely information about what is happening to the offender through the helpline and the victim contact scheme is essential, because it is a safety mechanism—it is a risk-assessing tool that lets the victim know how they can keep themselves safe—so it is really pivotal that the scope is increased.
Perpetrators of stalking get sentences of about 14 months on average, and many fall under one year, so it is really important that the scheme covers them. Of course, that does not address the systemic issue of whether that is the right sentencing, but it is at least a mechanism whereby victims can receive that information so that they can carry out safety planning and risk management.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Andrea Simon: Although we think it is a step in the right direction—we recognise that the Government have good intentions to extend the victim contact scheme—we think, on the eligibility and scope, that not all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls will be covered. We are not entirely reassured by how viable the helpline will be for many victims. With the helpline, in particular, the onus is on the victim to get in touch and make contact. The responsibility is not on, say, the probation system to inform victims of what is happening. We believe the correct reading of article 56b of the Istanbul convention, which talks about measures of protection, is that the state should actively inform victims when a perpetrator is to be released. People should not have to proactively reach out in order to get that information through a helpline, which we know will be utilised by some, but not in every case.
We also have concerns when it comes to survivor participation and licence conditions for perpetrators, because some survivors only have access to the helpline and potentially do not have the same level of entitlement as those under the victim contact scheme. We would like some clarity about how, when incorrect information is held or there are changes in circumstances, victim-survivors will be able to provide that information and how it can be fed through into the management of perpetrators. There is a slight lack of clarity about who will be informed and where that information will go, and I just think we have to be really clear in the public communications about the helpline, and about the victim contact scheme in general, to make sure that the public understand it, are aware of it and know how to take it up.
We are also keen to see these measures interact with the sentencing review recommendations and what is forthcoming. Of course, one review recommendation that the Government have taken up is to have the domestic abuse flag as an identifier, which is very welcome, but we would like to see the victim contact scheme essentially extended to everybody, because we know that domestic abuse offences are quite often not flagged up. The flag will help in the future, but not every index offence involves coercive control—for example, it might be criminal damage or some other kind of assault. We are worried about people who will not be able to access the information or access the scheme, so we think it should be extended more widely so that there are not gaps that people can fall through.
Farah Nazeer: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I think the helpline is a really strong idea. It is a move in the right direction, but nobody is supported by a helpline when their perpetrator is coming out, so you are having that conversation with the helpline and assuming that the helpline will meet the needs of the expanded victim cohort. Then a victim needs to go to a service. They need regular, routine casework support to support them through the trauma of having somebody come out or maybe come out earlier than expected—all kinds of things. Without the services to support the intentions of the helpline, we will not see that ambition of true victim support realised, so those two things have to work in tandem.
Andrea Simon: We would also recommend that advocates have access to the helpline as well. It is very important that, particularly for those supporting some of the most marginalised survivors, they can access information via the helpline. We would like clarity about their inclusion in the scheme.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Q
Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest.
Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.
Alex Brewer
Q
Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome.
Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim.
Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap.
I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve.
Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors.
The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning.
There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them.
We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice.
The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?
My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.
Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists.
I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors.
There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.
Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver.
Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.
We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency.
I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill.
Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen.
I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.
On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Q
The Chair
Very briefly, if you would, as we are running out of time.
Farah Nazeer: I think it will help. We work with loads of women who are in that setting, and when you are in that setting, you need more than one way to contact someone. It could be an email, a phone call or straight afterwards—there are lots of interventions. Again, these kinds of issues do not afford themselves a silver bullet, so having multiple interventions to ensure that the survivor knows is really important.
The Chair
Thank you very much to the witnesses for your time this afternoon; we are most grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Justice for Victims, and we have until 3 pm for this panel. We have Mr Glenn Youens online—can you hear us, Glenn? Would you like to start by introducing yourself?
Glenn Youens: My name is Glenn Youens. I am one of the members of Justice for Victims. My four-year-old daughter, Violet-Grace, was killed in a hit-and-run in 2017 by Aidan McAteer in a stolen car. Along with Paula and a few other people, we have set up this group to hopefully give a voice to victims and involve them in this kind of thing. We want to give an actual voice to victims to say how we feel that we have been treated by the justice system.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Paula?
Paula Hudgell: I am Paula Hudgell, and I am part of the group as well. I am the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell, who I am sure a few of you know. He was abused by his birth parents at 41 days old, and he was at death’s door. As a result of his absolutely horrific abuse he lost both his legs, along with other injuries.
Dr Mullan
Q
Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that.
There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience.
Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement.
Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could.
That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly.
Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: Yes, we absolutely agree. We feel that the victims should be asked about the sentencing hearings, but we also appreciate that in some cases—although you want to see the perpetrators and you want to be there to see them sentenced—some of the perpetrators really do not behave, and they can actually cause more harm to the victims and their families by being there. I know it says it is down to the judges, but the victims and their families really should be consulted on how they want to proceed.
Glenn Youens: I would say the same as Paula: it really should be down to the families. For judges, it is another case, another part of their job, but the families are the ones living that reality. If they want to see the perpetrators in court, they should be able to; if they do not want to, they should be able to put that forward. I do not think that anyone can make that decision apart from families. It is important that they are given the option. It should not just be what the judge thinks; there needs to be a conversation with them, letting them put their point across properly. Some people might want to see them; some people might not. It is really important that the families, the victims, are considered properly, and that it is not just, “This is what the judge thinks.” It needs to be a conversation with the victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: Yes. As long as it is what the victims themselves or their families actually want, then yes, I think they should be compelled to be there. Obviously, it is slightly different, but with our VPS in a parole hearing they refused to listen to it. I do not agree with that, because you cannot see how that person reacts. It should not be down to their rights; it should be down to a discussion with victims as to whether they want it. Yes, I agree with forcing people.
Glenn Youens: I think it is down to the families. In our case, Aidan McAteer and Dean Brennan asked if they could not come to court; they wanted to do it by video link. And the judge said, “No, you have to be there. You have to attend.” For us, that was what we wanted. At the end of the day, these criminals chose to do what they did; they chose to be there. Among the victims, nobody chose to be there. The victims should be looked after and made to feel that if that is what they want, then that is what we will do, because they are the ones who have been pushed into this.
A lot of people do not have experience in court and do not have experience of the criminal side of stuff; they have been dragged into it. The least the courts can do is to make them feel as comfortable as possible. If that means the criminal being there and acting up, shouting up, doing what they want—if they still want to see the criminal’s face when they receive proper justice, the criminal should be made to attend. Whether that they should be restrained or had time added on to their sentence, they should be made to do it. What the victims’ families feel should be done for them.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: It is very difficult when you have been through a trial or a sentencing. Your emotions are everywhere. It is so draining—it just takes over your whole life.
A lot of the time, the information is not given that you can actually appeal a sentence. Twenty-eight days is not long enough. People are going through a bereavement. As one of our group pointed out, “You have 28 days to take a T-shirt back to the shop—28 days to make a decision over that!” You may not find out until the last minute. It is very, very difficult.
Also, a lot of the time you do not know the process, unless you are from a legal background. Sometimes you are not told and that information does not filter through. Yes, it should be a lot longer, because your emotions are all over the place when you are in that situation.
Glenn Youens: As Paula said, and as Katie said in our group—“Twenty-eight days? You get longer to decide if you like an item of clothing or not.” Becky asked the CPS about how we appealed the sentence, and we were actually advised on the day not to appeal it, because it was felt that if we did appeal it, the criminal could get less time in prison. That was our first experience with it.
After that, we were planning Violet’s funeral; we had to go from there and plan our daughter’s funeral, and then we had 28 days to try and appeal the sentence. Your head was not in the right place. We did not open post for about four or five months after that. We did not answer the phone to people, because we were trying to put our life back together. But then to realise that, as you say, you have 28 days to appeal it—it is not enough time for people like us and other victims. Their first thing is trying to put their lives back together again. Then, when you are strong enough to realise, “I can go through this court case—I can go through this again,” to be told, “It’s too late now.”—I just do not think that is acceptable for families.
Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to go to the sentencing of somebody who has killed your loved one, it is really hard to express how you feel in the next few days, weeks or months. I was off work for seven months before I returned to work—it was seven months before I felt like I could go back to any kind of normality. Yet you are only given 28 days to decide whether you want to go through that court case again, and also to decide whether that is worth doing when there is a chance that he might get a lesser sentence than the already insulting sentence he has been given.
That needs looking at. It needs to be done properly, and the families need to be consulted, because I am pretty confident that most families you will speak to will agree that 28 days is not long enough to do anything in that situation.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Alex Brewer
Q
Paula Hudgell: That is a difficult one, because I do not really know about it—sorry.
Glenn Youens: I do not think that we know enough about that side of it, but I think anybody who has been affected by a crime is a victim.
The Chair
That was nice, short and pithy, if I may say so; I wish some of my colleagues were as succinct. There are no further questions, so thank you both very much indeed, Glenn and Paula. I know how difficult this must be for you, and I very much appreciate your giving your time today. What you have said will be very important in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Mark Brooks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Mark Brooks: My name is Mark Brooks. I am chair of the trustees of the ManKind Initiative charity. We are a specialist by-and-for service for male victims of domestic abuse, and we work with colleagues across the sexual violence sector and related sectors.
Dr Mullan
Q
I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach?
Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.
Dr Mullan
Q
Mark Brooks: For it to act as a deterrent, we think it should apply in all cases. We want far-reaching consequences for anyone who commits those crimes, so we think it should be extended.
Dr Mullan
Q
Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?
Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.
Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.
Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.
Alex Brewer
Q
Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children.
On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.
Alex Brewer
Q
Mark Brooks: It is not so much in the Bill, and the Minister knows our position on this, but there continues to be an issue with how male victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and other crimes are seen by society and, importantly, within the justice system. We know that the present and the previous Victims’ Commissioners support the position that male victims of domestic abuse should not be classed as victims of violence against a woman or a girl. A son, as covered by the Victims and Courts Bill, has been characterised, classed and defined by successive Governments as a victim of violence against a girl, even though he is obviously a boy.
The same issue applies to male victims of domestic abuse. Successive Governments have officially classed them as being victims of violence against a woman. We are asking that “violence against women and girls” be changed to include male victims. When the Bill is enacted, any male victim covered by it should no longer be classed as a victim of violence against a woman or a girl. That has to change; it is quite Orwellian, aside from anything else, as it is clearly incorrect.
We therefore need to get more male victims recognised in their own right. They would then have more access, more understanding and better support to be able to come forward and benefit from the measures in the Bill. This is a wider political issue. Just to reiterate, we want to keep the violence against women and girls strategy and definition, but we want a parallel view for male victims.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Q
Mark Brooks: We believe it is right that a perpetrator, or somebody who has been sentenced, should be forced to be present at court, including at sentencing. It is important that victims not only see that justice is being done in terms of sentencing and the court experience, but feel that it is being done. Seeing the person being convicted in front of them, with their family and the wider community, is absolutely essential, so we support the measures on that in the Bill.
In terms of it being a spectacle, the bottom line is that we must act in the interest of the victim, the person who has had the crime committed against them. They must be the priority, so we are in favour of the measures put forward by the Government.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Q
Mark Brooks: I work in wider policy around men’s health and I have been helping the Government on the men’s health strategy call for evidence, which is out now. In terms of language, I often see literature in which men are not visually present, so it is important that men in all their shapes, sizes and guises are visible. Also, there needs to be more outreach, often targeting where men go, not where you think they should go. Leaving things in libraries and GP surgeries, for example, will not reach men. We need far better promotion online and through community groups, barbers and sports clubs—Facebook is also really important for men—basically reaching out to where men go.
There is a huge growth in community-based support charities for men, which have grown exponentially in the last five years—things like Men’s Sheds, Andy’s Man Club, Talk Club and so forth. Some of them are in the room next door, giving a presentation about the men’s health strategy, so use those. The justice system and the people within it can be smarter in reaching out to non-statutory organisations.
Jack Rankin
Q
Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.
The Chair
Mr Brooks, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.
We are coming to the penultimate panel, and it is quite likely that the final panel will be punctuated. If so, since the Minister will be on the Front Bench for the business to come in the Chamber, I do not propose to call her back—I hope that is satisfactory. Hopefully we will get everybody in and the two remaining panels will not be interrupted, but I am expecting a vote shortly before the hour, so it is quite possible that they will be.
Examination of Witnesses
Kim Thornden-Edwards and Chris Jennings gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Kim Thornden-Edwards: My name is Kim Thornden-Edwards, and I am the chief probation officer in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
Chris Jennings: My name is Chris Jennings. I am an area executive director in HMPPS, with operational responsibility for prisons and probation in the south-west and what we call south-central. I also have a national victims policy team sitting under my command—that is really why I am here today, rather than the first part of my job.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: I have operational responsibility for 15 prisons, so I have some expertise, but I have never been a prison officer and do not have personal experience in that way.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: Yes, I would say we are skilled in that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: With the appropriate training and resources, I guess it would be possible.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Q
Chris Jennings: We have staffing challenges in different ways in the Probation Service. Victim liaison officers are a particular group of staff that we recruit through a particular route. It is not the same route that we recruit probation officers through, and that is not the same route that we recruit unpaid work supervisors through. There are different role types within the service, and some of them are under more pressure than others. VLOs are not one of the areas where we are under most pressure, despite your description being absolutely true for some of the other areas.
There is also a geographic spread of where we are under pressure operationally; it is not the same everywhere. Some places are very well resourced and some are less well resourced. Those combinations lead us to a place where we do not think that resourcing should be the thing that holds us back from making a success of this. Of course, we have to pay close attention to it, because if the numbers go up more than we anticipate, we will need to make sure that we resource that adequately, but we are not hugely worried about it at the moment.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: The victim contact scheme is a discrete service, so we do not transfer staff across or expect people to do a multiple brief on it. It is a discrete service that we recruit to separately. Our recruitment of victim liaison officers has been on an upward trajectory over the last 10 months. The banding and grading, and therefore the salary, of victim contact officers also increased last year, so we anticipate that there will be further uptake in terms of recruitment. Across the Probation Service, most grades saw an increase over the last year, so we are generally on an upward trajectory for staffing. You may be familiar with the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that we will look to recruit a further 1,300 probation officer staff during this financial year. We anticipate continued significant growth of probation areas over the period of the spending review.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Chris Jennings: Yes. We are very used to dealing with the impacts of all those sorts of crimes in our world. It is the bread and butter of what we do. We will need to make sure that we give people the appropriate skills and training and do not throw them in at the deep end, but we are well used to doing that and we have the skills to do it. I have no reason not to be confident that we can make that work.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: We are also building on a service that is delivering good outcomes currently. In 2024, so very recently, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, which provides our external scrutiny, found our statutory victim work to be outstanding for three of our regional inspections. We also had an inspection in 2023 of general victim services that found the services to be good. We are building on a good level of service delivery currently and victim liaison officers who are doing a good job. We are very concerned to ensure that their training remains relevant and pertinent to the specific issues that the victims who use our service are often involved in. There is dedicated training for domestic abuse.
We are also concerned, as the service, and particularly the helpline, expands and extends, to ensure that those who deliver the helpline will be involved in the most appropriate training, including domestic abuse and a trauma-informed approach. We will build in those training requirements at every juncture and for every member of staff involved in the scheme.
Tristan Osborne
Q
My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim?
Chris Jennings: Maybe I should pick up the first question. Depending on how a perpetrator appears before the court—whether they are beaming in from prison via video link or attending in person at court—there are different responsibilities in terms of who undertakes the potential restraint of the prisoner. If we deliver somebody to court, court officers take custody of that person and look after them in the dock. I am less able to speak about the skills of the court staff, because it was many years ago that I worked in the court service and I do not feel up to date.
If you are in prison and beaming in via video link, I guess—to an earlier question—it would be possible to train prison officers who are already skilled in some forms of control and restraint in a different way. My instinct would be, although I am not perfectly qualified, that for court staff that would be quite a leap.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: On your second question about a switch from exclusion zones to restriction zones, we are currently working through the finer detail of that policy change and its impact and implications. We will take stock and determine what policy change is required to enable staff to make the change, what practice and operational guidance and instructions will be required, and what training element will be required, should that be necessary. We will be working through all those potential implications to this change. Our staff are very well versed in exclusion zones and understanding those. I am confident that they will be able to understand the change in emphasis and what some of the implications are, and will be able to bring the necessary degree of professionalism, integrity and foresight to those arrangements.
Chris Jennings: Our relationship with the police will be key, too. We work closely in partnership with them on these sorts of things. That will be required during this change, too, to maintain those close operational relationships on the frontline.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
I want to come back to the point about compelling attendance at sentencing hearings. The Government’s Bill states that a relevant officer may,
“for the purpose of delivering the offender to the courtroom, use reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate.”
That is in relation to the existing use of force policy framework and the relevant Prison Service orders that apply to it. Do you agree that, when you look at the use of force framework, the words “necessary”, “proportionate” and “reasonable” relate to the whole spectrum of use of force, from the very lowest level, such as a guiding hold, right to the top level, and therefore the word “restraint” in the amendment tabled by the official Opposition does not detail what existing restraint would be used that is not already covered in the current policy framework?
My second question is this. I have never heard or seen gagging in any Prison Service policy, so from your operational experience, what implement would you suggest would be used for gagging and how would it be applied?
Chris Jennings: In reverse order, that is well beyond my area of expertise, because, as you rightly identify, that is not something that is in use in the service at the moment. Perhaps, in some unfortunate hostage situations, other prisoners may deploy such techniques, but not our staff, so I am not qualified to offer a perspective on what sort of equipment may or may not be appropriate.
On your first question, again, I am not an expert on use of force—I have not done the jobs you have done to get to the role I am in now—but I think that the description you gave of the policy is accurate. That way that you described it is what it means at every level; that would be my interpretation.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Q
Chris Jennings: I was the director in Wales for four and a half years, until 18 months ago, so I know working in Wales quite well. It is one of the better staffed areas, despite colleagues’ perspectives to you being right; there will be some carrying heavy workloads, I am sure. The distinction is between the probation officer caseload and what we ask VLOs to do. They are not the same thing. As Kim described, they are ringfenced activities. There is obviously communication between the two sets of staff, but they are not the same thing.
The overall probation caseload in some areas is definitely something that we are more worried about, but not as it pertains particularly to the VLOs. That is why we are perhaps reasonably upbeat about it. It is not one of the areas that we are under most pressure on, so I think we will be able to absorb it. There will be some national things, such as the helpline and ensuring that we resource that on a national basis. My national team have a key role to play in providing the training, support and guidance to VLOs out there.
Switching my hat back to my other day job, operationally, between me and my regional probation directors, we will have to ensure that we are paying full attention to implementing the Bill well, given how crucial it is to confidence in the justice system and making sure that we are providing the support that victims deserve. I do feel confident about our ability to do that.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: I certainly endorse that. Again, it is about the discrete element of the victim liaison officers. In terms of general staffing, I absolutely acknowledge what you are saying. The Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that there are capacity issues in the Probation Service, and workloads are currently too high. We have a comprehensive plan to mitigate that. Part of that is around growth. The Lord Chancellor announced £700 million of additional funds for probation by the end of the spending review period, so we will be able to look at growth with that funding.
We are also looking at ways to improve our processes and use of technology. Those are things that our probation staff on the frontline are saying to us are real hindrances to their ability to do the best job every day, which they absolutely want to do. They are time hoovers, too. The time that staff want to spend with people on probation and on licence, to protect the public and effect the changes that we need to see in their behaviour, is being eaten up by bad tech and poor processes. Alongside growth, there is absolutely a commitment to make those changes as we go forward.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. What you have said will be very useful in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Alex Davies-Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself?
Alex Davies-Jones: I am Alex Davies-Jones, the MP for Pontypridd and the Minister with responsibility for victims and tackling violence against women and girls in the Ministry of Justice.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it?
Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration.
With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement.
I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.
Dr Mullan
Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to clarify the Government’s thinking behind why we have kept this measure quite tight. It is important to say at the outset that there are other mechanisms to remove parental responsibility from offenders and perpetrators, and those mechanisms will still remain, such as the family court process.
What this measure does is quite novel: it removes parental responsibility at the point of conviction in the criminal courts, and it is an untested measure in doing so. It is important that we can see the impact this will have on victims, survivors and, first and foremost, children. It is important to stress that perpetrators will be able to appeal this through the family courts, and they will be able to apply for legal aid through the system as a result of this.
Therefore we feel that, at this point in time, it is important to keep such a novel approach quite tight. That is why we have chosen to restrict it to offenders who have been committed of any sexual offence against their own children and been sentenced to four years or more. We are not saying that we would not be open to expanding it in the future, but, as I think we heard quite clearly throughout the evidence sessions today, we must consider the impact this could have on the family court system as it currently stands.
The family court is under immense pressure. Sadly, another element of the criminal justice system that we inherited from the previous Government is the immense pressure from the backlog. You also heard about the issues that currently stand within the family court, and how many victims and survivors, particularly victims of domestic abuse, feel that it retraumatises them. I would not want to put any other victims through that process, and that is why the Government have chosen to target this measure, as a starting point, at that specific cohort. We feel it is a novel approach; it has never been done this way, and so we have chosen to be quite specific with it.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: There is a mechanism available to remove parental responsibility via that route, currently through the family courts. I am aware that that would require the other parent to take the perpetrating parent to the family court, and I have been made aware that it is not easy to do that, but that route is available. That is why we have chosen to keep this measure quite tight at present.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Because there are sadly quite a lot of sex offenders in this country, so extending the measure to any sex offender could bring waves of people into scope. We are not saying that that is not appropriate, but this is a novel approach and those perpetrators can have parental responsibility stripped through other means. I am very cautious about putting extra strain on the family courts, given the issues that they face. At present, we want to keep it to any sexual offence where the perpetrator gets four years or more in prison and it is against their own child, in order to keep that child safe from the perpetrator.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to come back to you to clarify that point, but I am happy to do so.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Thank you for that question. We have built on the previous Government’s measure to compel perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings. The previous measure was merely an extra two years on their prison sentence. As you have stated, and as victims have told us, for someone serving a whole-life order or life imprisonment, an extra two years on their sentence is not really an incentive to come to court.
We listened to the Pratt-Korbels and other families who have been through this horrific situation, and have done something quite novel. For the first time ever in this Bill, judges will be given powers to issue sanctions on perpetrators once they are in prison. We have not listed those sanctions on the face of the Bill because we do not want to be prescriptive. A whole range of measures is available, and we feel that listing them in the Bill would be too restrictive. By not doing so, we enable judges to use every tool at their disposal to issue sanctions in prison. They include, for example, limitations on access to a gym, to work programmes or to television. We are looking at visit restrictions, and salaries can be taken away if the offender is in a work programme. All that can be looked at in the round; those are all available to a judge as part of a sanctions programme.
We want perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings in person. You heard how important it is to victims and survivors to have them there in person to hear justice being done. We have looked at all the practical ways in which that can be done. We have worked with stakeholders, including the judiciary and prison governors, and we felt that this is the best course of action.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action.
In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: To repeat my answer to Anneliese, the measures in the previous Government’s Bill, which fell before the general election, would have only added an extra two years on to the sentence of a perpetrator who failed to attend their sentencing hearing. The measure in this Bill goes significantly further. For the first time ever, judges will have the ability to sanction perpetrators in prison who fail to attend their sentencing hearing or are disruptive while in the courtroom. If the perpetrator does attend the sentencing hearing, but proceeds to disrupt it, the judge will be able to apply the sanctions. That is a measure in the Bill.
We are also providing prison officers with the ability to conduct reasonable force to get the perpetrator to attend the sentencing hearing. That is a measure in the Bill. Our Bill is markedly different, and that is because we have listened to victims and survivors about what they wanted and felt was appropriate to ensure that there was culpability and accountability.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful for that question. It is important to note that the criminal justice system is a system: it only works with every element of it slotting together. Therefore, the Bill does work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House. There are a number of measures in that Bill around respect orders, giving police the power to seize off-road bikes without a warrant, and new powers in this Bill, working in conjunction with the Victims’ Commissioner, on a duty to collaborate involving different agencies, for example. All these fit together, and it is important that we look at this holistically.
There were a number of measures that were raised today, and a number of witnesses raised measures that are not in this Bill. I stress to Committee members that a lot of work is happening behind the scenes. I am happy to discuss the work that is being done on measures raised as not necessarily being in this Bill, because we have got a number of reviews taking place in the MOJ at the moment. You will all be aware of the recently published sentencing review, and there is a courts review being conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. All this needs to fit together holistically; it cannot be done in isolation. There will future legislation coming forward as well, so it is important not to pin everything down in every Bill just because we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to fit and be rightly considered and reviewed before we do so.
Alex Brewer
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I suppose that could be considered, but the family court is currently the route that is available to someone to appeal. By preventing an appeal, you would get into a whole swathe of issues, and you could be in a very difficult situation if there was no route to appeal. We are aware of the issues in the family court and, as I have just said, it is important to not take this Bill in isolation. A lot of work is being done in the Ministry of Justice to look at how we improve the family court, not least through the work we are doing on pathfinder courts and ensuring that the voice of the child is centred in proceedings considering children. It is very difficult, but I do not envisage any mechanism where you could introduce a measure such as this and not have the right to appeal. Given that the family court is the most appropriate route for that, and where they hear those proceedings, it would not be practical to create a different mechanism. I do not see it fitting and being realistic in any other way.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Minister; brilliantly timed. That brings us to the end of today’s session with seconds to spare, I think.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 19th June 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 19 June 2025 - (19 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary remarks and reminders for the Committee. I have had requests to allow jackets to be taken off; Members have the Chair’s permission if they wish to do so. All electronic devices should be switched to silent, and no food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or alternatively pass on written speaking notes to colleagues in the room. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak in any debate.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or similar, issues. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the Bill’s existing clauses.
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I should say that he has asked to talk more generally in his opening remarks; unusually, because it is the first speech, I will say yes. This is a narrowly drawn Bill with narrowly drawn clauses but, as it is the start of the debate, I will allow discussion to go a little wider.
Clause 1
Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 13 in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim or their family if a victim is deceased.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to open the first debate on the Bill in Committee as we begin line-by-line consideration. As you explained, Mr Stringer, I thought it might be useful to list the Bill’s measures to provide a wider context for the amendments as we consider them one by one.
First, the Bill will make provisions relating to victims’ experiences in the administration of justice. Secondly, it will create a statutory power for judges to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and, if they do not, to give out sanctions that take place in prison. Thirdly, it will restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders who are sentenced for four years or more for an offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. Fourthly, it will expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, meaning more victims will be able to access it.
Fifthly, the Bill will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers so that they can investigate individual cases in certain circumstances, request information from local authorities and social housing providers, and publish an annual report on compliance with the victims’ code. Sixthly, it will increase flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors, and set the rates at which prosecutor costs in private prosecutions can be recovered from central funds. Seventhly, it will amend the time limit within which the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. Finally, the Bill will amend magistrates court sentencing powers for six either-way offences, bringing them in line with other offences.
The Opposition have not sought to amend, and will not seek to oppose, a number of the Bill’s measures, and I am sure there will be cross-party support for many of them, but we wish to push the Government to go further in other areas.
The first group of amendments relates to the provisions that are meant to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearings. It is important to lay out the value of offenders attending such a hearing. Open and transparent justice is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is often said that it is important not just that justice should be done, but that it is seen to be done.
There is something tangible and direct about an offender being present in court to hear all the elements of the sentencing hearing at first hand, in front of victims and their friends and family, the offender’s own friends and family, and potentially the wider public and the press, who help to share what happens more widely. In particular, victims and their friends and family may want to see it happening. This will often be true of the sentence itself, and the remarks that reflect back some of the impact of a crime, but it will be particularly true for the parts of the sentencing hearing when we hear directly from those affected by a crime.
Victim personal statements, commonly known as victim impact statements, are a crucial reform of our justice system that tries to give a voice to victims and their friends and family. As we will consider later in proceedings, they might not be working as well as they could be, but they remain incredibly important. Many people want to see the offender hearing those statements, and want to know that the offender cannot escape the consequences of their actions or from hearing directly from the people they have impacted. The statements may be read out by the victim themselves or by their friends and family. The authors may or may not be present. We heard evidence from Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims about the positive impact of victim personal statements in her experience of the judicial system.
I am sure we have all read and heard about recent examples of offenders having derailed the process, escaped accountability and robbed victims and their families of its healing power. In the evidence session the hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about the case of her constituent Olivia Pratt-Korbel, whose killer refused to attend the sentencing, and whose mother Cheryl has campaigned hard to right that wrong for others. I have met and spoken with Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigned for something to be done in memory of her cousin Jan Mustafa. The Minister and I have met and spoken with other campaigners.
Kyle Clifford raped his former partner, Louise Hunt, who was 25, and used a crossbow to shoot both her and her sister Hannah, who was 28, having already fatally stabbed their mother, 61-year-old Carol, at the family home in Bushey. He was given a whole-life order—which I will return to—and refused to attend his sentencing.
As MPs, we know that behind every case reported in the media will be cases that are not. But the experiences of those people are no less important, which is why the previous Government committed to introducing powers to try to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearing. I am pleased that this Government have agreed with that in principle.
Although I welcome the aim, the shadow Justice team have looked afresh at how best to achieve the right outcome and tabled good-faith amendments to make it more likely that we achieve it. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and I are both committed to never being shackled by historical thinking and approaches when it comes to ensuring that we deliver for victims and their families, and we are doing that in two vital ways.
Amendments 13 and 14 would introduce a duty to consult the victim or their family as part of the enaction of the powers in clauses 1 and 2. I talked earlier about the different people and groups that derive a benefit from the offender attending the sentencing hearing, but of all those with an interest in seeing that happen, victims and their families can be considered the most important. Although the evidence we heard was clear that not every victim would want an offender to be there, and not every victim would want to see force used and risk the disruption of proceedings to make it happen, some would.
The representations we heard from victims groups almost universally supported the idea that the process should involve consultation with victims and their families. All agreed that it would be a welcome reform. Consultation is part and parcel of what the Government do day in, day out; I am sure the Minister has spent many hours reviewing and reading consultation results. The law often requires meaningful consultation before the Government or many arm’s length bodies make significant decisions. As MPs, we all undertake our own consultations, in which we give constituents the chance to let us know their views on something that affects them.
Surely a Bill about victims—named as it is—should reflect its commitment to delivering for victims and would want wherever possible to orientate its measures to victims. A measure on consultation would do just that. Specifically, the amendments would require consultation on occasions when a judge is minded to make a decision to deny victims and family members the opportunity to see the offender at the sentencing hearing. In that scenario, it is important that victims and family members can at least know for certain that the judge was not ignorant of how important it was to them and how they would feel should the judge decide not to compel the offender’s attendance. They would be able to explain their views to the judge directly. Victim personal statements were introduced to give a voice to victims when determining sentences; we are saying victims should also be given a voice on another important matter.
The proposed change is modest but important. Just like victim personal statements, it would not dictate the outcome—a right to be consulted does not constitute a right to decide—and it would not encroach on judicial independence, as the decision rests with the judge. The pain that can be caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing is profound. Families can feel indirectly silenced, robbed of their moment to see justice done. We should at least ensure that victims are afforded the right to know that decisions about them are not taken without them. The amendments are about respect, participation and dignity. No decision that can have a profound impact on a victim should be taken without first simply speaking to them.
I ask Members of all parties to support our amendments, knowing that doing so will demonstrate a commitment to victims and their families, and ensure that their voices are heard as part of the process, as we seek to ensure that attendance at the sentencing hearing becomes as close to mandatory as we can possibly make it. I know that will be a commitment everybody shares.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the shadow Justice Minister for introducing the amendments he tabled, and the Government appreciate his support of the Bill in principle. The amendments would place a statutory duty on judges to consult victims or their families before deciding whether to use their powers under the measures in clauses 1 and 2 to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing.
I want to stress that victims and their families have been at the forefront of this legislation, and clause 1 will help to ensure that their voices and the impact of the crimes they have suffered are heard and understood by the perpetrators. We anticipate that, in making decisions, judges will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes and views of the victims and their families. However, mandating a duty to consult victims risks undermining judicial discretion and the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts in front of them.
Judges will of course consider any representations put to them by the prosecution on behalf of victims and their families, but they must also take into account the safety of prison and court staff, the efficiency and fairness of proceedings and the risks that a disruptive or resistant offender may cause further distress to victims and delays to justice. Retaining judicial discretion in such cases is therefore crucial to ensure that courts can make decisions in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including those of victims and their families. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I understand the Minister’s desire to ensure that all the things she listed remain the purview of the judge, which is why the amendment makes it clear that they will. Nothing about consultation removes the judge’s ability to decide the factors that they wish to consider, to hear representation from others and to take in mind the safety and wellbeing of court staff and other people in the court. A duty to consult is simply that: a duty to ensure that victims are taken into account.
I draw the Minister’s attention back to victim personal statements. Prior to them being a statutory requirement, people would have made the same arguments. Of course, the judge would have provided an opportunity to consider what victims had to say, but we were clear that such an opportunity was too important, and that we needed to ensure, on a statutory basis, that the victims and their families had the opportunity to say what they wanted about the impact of the crime. I do not think this is any different. A consultation provision would guarantee that victims have a voice as part of the process, while retaining judicial independence to make the ultimate decision whether someone attends a sentencing hearing.
The Opposition will not withdraw the amendment. We think this issue is important, and I cannot reasonably think that Members will be able to explain to their constituents why they did not want to guarantee that a judge would simply have a conversation with a victim or their family about whether someone should be compelled to attend a sentencing hearing.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, leave out from “force,” to end of line and insert—
“so long as it is not grossly disproportionate.”
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“41C Power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender
(1) This section applies where during attendance at a sentencing hearing an offender is disruptive of court proceedings.
(2) The Judge may order the offender to be restrained and gagged to reduce their disruption.
(3) When a Judge is minded not to make an order under subsection (2) and instead remove the offender from the court room they must consult the victim or their family if the victim is deceased.”
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to open this further debate on clauses 1 and 2. In our debate on amendments 13 and 14, we considered how we could improve the way a decision is taken. It is disappointing that Labour MPs did not feel they wanted victims and their families to have a statutory right to be heard in relation to that decision. Amendments 15 and 16 relate to how the decision will be enacted.
A decision, no matter how considered, is of little use if the tools to make it a reality are inadequate. In a further clear demonstration of our commitment to bringing renewed thinking to policy, the shadow Secretary of State and I will always seek to ensure that the balance between criminals and the victims and their families is always tipped in favour of the victims and their families, as far as is reasonable.
Members will, I hope, know that legislation that provides legal protections for those who exercise force, as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, has been on our statute books for some time now, via section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what “grossly disproportionate” means?
Dr Mullan
I direct the hon. Lady to the statute book and to the case law that has evolved around that phrase. If the courts, this Government or our previous Government did not think it was a meaningful distinction, I do not know why we would have it on the statute book. It was introduced to provide the greatest possible benefit to those using force, in terms of legal protection and understanding that they would not be unfairly or unduly judged as a result. As I said, it has been on the statute book for quite some time. It is a legally recognised phrase, as distinguished from “reasonable force”.
Alex McIntyre
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the short answer for his response to the hon. Member for South Devon is no?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. It surprises me that Members think it is a novel concept when it has been on the statute book for quite some time.
We want to ensure that the individuals tasked with using force to bring offenders to court have the legal protections they need in order to act with confidence. We do not want offenders to think that all they must do is attempt to resist violently in order to escape the outcome sought by the families who have campaigned for a change in the law.
Although the notions of additional time to serve and prison sanctions may change behaviour in some cases, we must reflect on the sort of people we are dealing with and the sentences they serve. We should expect a willingness to offer violence from the sort of person who will barge into a family home and shoot into it without any thought to the family in it, as the perpetrator who killed Olivia Pratt-Korbel did. Do we really think that a man who is willing to violently murder three people with a crossbow, and who is never getting out of prison, would be particularly perturbed by not being able to go to the gym or watch TV? These are the sorts of people we are dealing with, and if we do not make physically forcing attendance our main goal, the Bill risks failing in its aims.
Some victims and families might prefer that someone gets punished if they do not attend, but what many of them will really want is attendance. Our amendment would make it more likely that we achieve that. I urge Members who do not want to look back on a missed opportunity, which will lead to offenders again and again not attending hearings, irrespective of the measures in the Bill, to support the amendment.
It is one thing to bring an offender to court, but we have to consider how they will behave. Amendment 23 would give judges the power to restrain or gag disruptive offenders in the courtroom rather than remove them entirely. Crucially, if a judge is minded not to issue such an order but instead to remove the offender, the amendment provides that they must consult the victim or their family. If offenders learn that all they need to do if they are dragged into court is scream and shout and disrupt proceedings, what do Members think is really going to happen? Is the sort of man who brutally murders two women and stores them in the freezer, as the killer of Jan Mustafa and Henriett Szucs did, and knows that a long sentence awaits him really going to be impacted by a short addition to his custody time?
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Member believe that people capable of such violence would be equally violent with a probation officer or a police officer taking them to court?
Dr Mullan
I absolutely believe that people will be violent, which is why we tabled amendment 15 to ensure that officers are able to use the level of force necessary to compel offenders to attend. If we do not do that, what are we going to achieve? The kinds of offenders who have brought this issue to our attention will be more than happy to resist physically. Are we really saying that the purpose of these measures is just to punish people? I do not think it is. I think their purpose is to get people into court for their sentencing hearings. In combination, our amendments would ensure that that happens, or at least make it significant more likely.
Caroline Voaden
We absolutely agree that it is preferable to have the perpetrator in court to face justice and hear their sentence. However, I listened carefully to the evidence of Baroness Newlove, who said that we want to avoid this becoming a spectacle and all about the offender. The sentencing hearing is the moment when the victim hears what sentence the offender will get for the crime that they have been subjected to. It is about the victim, and justice for them; it should not become some circus sideshow for the offender to create havoc in the courtroom. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a point at which it is not beneficial to bring the offender into court to create such a sideshow?
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. If Members wish to catch my eye, I do not think they will have any difficulty, but we cannot have interventions turning into speeches.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member raises an important point. That is why amendment 23 specifically includes a duty to consult victims and their family members on the use of the power. We heard evidence, which I had anticipated, that some victims and their families will not want to see the offender. That is why the judge should consult them and, if that is their clear and settled view, take that into account when making the decision. The point is well made, and that is why our amendment takes that issue into account.
I have spoken directly to several people involved in these types of cases. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. She was absolutely clear that even if exercising the power in the amendment meant someone disrupting proceedings and creating a spectacle, as the hon. Member for South Devon described, she would want to see it happen, and there will be many other people who feel the same way. For those who do not, there is no pressure for it to happen. That is why we have said that the judge should speak to people about the power before using it, for the important reasons that the hon. Member gave.
I return to the point that I fear that we will end up worse off because we will have told the public, “We can get these people into court,” but actually the worst offenders will just not come or resist. That is why we need to increase the level of force and ensure that they cannot just make a noise to get out of the whole process. The people on whole-life orders, for example, are some of the worst offenders, who we most want to see in court. They are the ones who would be least bothered by the sanctions, and they would just make a noise in order to not have to be in court.
If we overcome that first hurdle, as a result of our amendments on the use of force, and get offenders into the dock, we also need the power to ensure that they cannot just scream or shout their way out of it. I have to say that I was genuinely shocked by Labour Members’ questioning on this measure during the evidence sessions. Restraint of people through force is practised in a wide variety of settings by a wide variety of people on a regular basis. I have no doubt whatsoever that the practice can be extended to our courts.
As much as I respect the training and expertise of aeroplane crews, I do not consider them to be uniquely qualified in the ability to restrain people in a chair. I urge Members to reflect on any initial resistance that they may have to this measure. Do they sincerely think that what aeroplane crews can achieve up in the air is not achievable in a courtroom? Common sense tells us that this measure is eminently achievable. I was pleased to hear evidence from a senior police officer and a senior staff member of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—and, indeed, to hear the Minister herself accept—that it is possible in principle. I am confident that the majority of the British public will agree with us, and I wonder how Members who choose to vote against the measure will explain that action to their constituents.
I will deal briefly with how someone might be gagged —that is to say, silenced—by giving a simple example. I only need to do so briefly, because it really is a very simple matter. In August 2018, a US judge, John Russo, asked for a robber, Frank Williams, to be silenced after he refused to be silent and continued to disrupt the court’s proceedings despite being issued with 12 warnings. Based on their questioning during our evidence sessions, I know that Members struggle to conceive of how that might be done, so I will alleviate their concerns and tell them how it was done: they just placed some tape over his mouth. The US legal system is quite clear about the legal right for an offender to be restrained and gagged. Members can, should they wish, look up the relevant rulings in the US judicial system.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I am struggling to see how a piece of tape can silence somebody. Somebody with respiratory conditions, or whatever, might even suffocate as a result. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the medical reasons for not gagging somebody?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely, and it would be for the judge to decide in all circumstances whether it is appropriate. I will be happy after this sitting to send the footage from that case, and the evidence of someone successfully being gagged by having tape placed over their mouth. This is really simple stuff that is being done in other parts of the world and I do not understand why Members find it so difficult to understand.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The hon. Member is clearly suggesting using physical restraining techniques in a court setting. Does he agree that those techniques could be used in any other part of court proceedings, including, perhaps, during the trial itself? We would be setting a precedent for our system here. It would not just be about sentencing; you are arguing that we can use physical restraint, including gagging, within the court setting, which is not currently what we do in our courts.
The Chair
Order. Let me lay down some ground rules. Can we try to stick to parliamentary language? In this case, “you” means me, and I am not arguing anything.
Dr Mullan
If the hon. Member wants to suggest where else such restraint might benefit victims and their families, I will absolutely support his case if I think it is legitimate. As I have said, my focus and the balance I want to strike is, as far as possible, in favour of victims and their families, and it is not about overly concerning ourselves, outside of clear medical reasons, with the rights and wellbeing of the criminal, who at this point has been convicted. This is not rocket science. Putting a bit of tape over someone’s mouth is effective. It is done in other countries. I really do not see why Members find it so difficult to understand.
Earlier, I touched on the matter of victims’ and their families’ views about this measure. I have heard directly from family members of victims who accept that this sort of approach could be disruptive but still support it. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. Another member of Justice for Victims, Katie Brett, suffered the loss of her sister Sasha, who was raped, stabbed more than 100 times and had her body set on fire by her killer. Katie would have wanted him to be restrained and gagged, if that was what it took.
I could go on, but I think that the point is made. I am, of course, mindful that not everyone will feel that the way that we have included in our amendment the requirement to consult victims and their families is appropriate, given earlier votes against that approach. However, I think that our amendments, in combination, will provide an effective measure that balances what some victims will want against what other victims may not want.
Members will have to decide who they want to get behind: the kind of people who seem to feel uncomfortable about restraining and putting tape over the mouths of rapists, child abusers and murderers; or victims and their families who want to see that done. The choice is clear, and we on the Opposition Benches are clear what measure we will support.
Alex Davies-Jones
Amendments 15 and 16 would change the circumstances in which force may be used to bring an offender to court. They would effectively extend those circumstances to situations in which disproportionate—but not grossly disproportionate—force is required to secure attendance.
Based on the debate we have had, it might be beneficial if I explain how the system currently works. The use of force by prison officers is currently justified, and therefore lawful, only if it is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We are quite deliberately legislating to permit the use of lawful force, which is a test that is well understood and used throughout the criminal justice system. I remind hon. Members that the previous Government used the same test in their attempt to get this measure passed.
Prison and prisoner escort staff are trained to employ the lawful use of force and are experienced in making judgments about the circumstances in which the use of force is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. They are also trained in the use of existing approved techniques for moving reluctant or resistant prisoners safely around the prison and court estate. In recent cases, such as that of Nicholas Prosper, we have seen how they effectively employ the same techniques to restrain offenders and bring them to court to hear justice being done.
Clearly defined boundaries for the use of force, which are well understood by custody officers, ensure that escorting staff are not subject to unreasonable or unmitigated risks when bringing offenders to court. Where it is deemed unsafe or unreasonable to use force, prisons will discuss with courts how best to proceed. Where attendance is considered necessary, the court can consider making a direction for the offender to appear via live video link. That option is more manageable for the prison to enforce and minimises the potential for impactful disruption to proceedings, which can, as we have heard, lead to a spectacle in the court.
An offender who is deemed too violent or disruptive to attend court in person or by live link would, under these measures, be found in contempt of court and subject to a further prison sentence or other punishment. We are going further than the previous Government and ensuring that, where offenders do not take responsibility and face victims’ families, they are punished.
Offenders should not be forced to attend court if it would risk the safety of custody officers or court users, or disrupt proceedings, causing undue distress and further delay to victims and their families. Our measures strike the right balance in requiring that the use of force must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary, ensuring the safety of all court users and minimum disruption to court proceedings.
Amendment 23 would give judges the power to order a disruptive offender to be restrained and gagged in court during their sentencing hearing. It would also introduce a duty on the court to consult victims or their families before making a decision to have the offender removed from the hearing instead. The Government appreciate that an offender’s refusal to attend their sentencing hearing, or their disruptive behaviour during that hearing, can cause anger and upset for victims and their families, and we heard that during the evidence sessions. That is why the measures in the Bill reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearings and behave appropriately in court. They give judges the powers they need to do what is right in each individual case.
Decisions on the use of restraints to manage offender behaviour are a matter for prison officers and prison escort staff. They will make decisions about the use of force depending on the circumstances of each individual case. The use of force must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and restrained prisoners must be brought to court using approved techniques in our prison system for moving individuals safely. Gagging prisoners is not an approved technique in our prison system and is unlikely to be considered a lawful use of force in these circumstances. Its use may in fact increase the risk of violence or disruption to the point where officers would have no choice but to remove the offender from court. Amendment 23 is therefore unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes.
We will not allow offenders to achieve the outcomes they intend of continuing to traumatise victims and families or disrupting proceedings, by not attending court or causing a circus or spectacle. Should a judge deem it necessary, the offender will be removed and the judge can add an additional sanction to punish them properly. Forcing disruptive prisoners to remain in court at any cost would jeopardise officer safety and delay proceedings and could cause unnecessary distress for victims and their families. Is that what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle intends with his amendments? They are unlikely to achieve the intended objective of the Bill, which is to ensure that offenders face up to their crimes and hear the impact of their actions on victims and their families. A more productive and realistic approach would be to punish the offender for disobeying the order to attend their hearing and failing to show any respect for victims and their families or the court.
The measures in the Bill were produced in consultation with families; they asked for them and we listened. Our measures give judges the option to punish any adult offender who, following an attendance order, becomes disruptive in court and is removed from the hearing, by ordering up to two additional years in prison, an unlimited fine and/or the imposition of numerous potential prison sanctions. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw his amendment because of the risk of unintended consequences and the prevention of justice for victims and their families.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for her response. She says that judges will have the powers they need. As I think I clearly explained, those powers might be helpful in some circumstances, but for the very worst offenders—the kind that have been in the news and have caused us to think more clearly about this issue, in particular those on whole-life orders, for whom a sentence extension means nothing—
Alex Davies-Jones
I implore the hon. Gentleman, in his efforts to ensure that offenders face families and justice, to explain why none of the additional measures that he proposes were in the previous Government’s Bill.
Dr Mullan
As I have said very clearly, I am a shadow Justice Minister now, and the new shadow Secretary of State and I make justice policy. I am not afraid to go further than previous Governments, and I will not be restrained by what they did. I did not make those previous policies; it was not my decision how they were enacted. I am confident that the public will respond positively to our attempts to go even further on these measures.
As I was saying, the worst offenders, who are in our minds when we consider these offences—those on a whole-life order, for example—do not care about a custody extension because they cannot have one. They are never getting out of prison, so they are never paying a fine. The Minister listed examples of sanctions, which included not being able to watch TV or go to the gym. Do we really think those are the sorts of measures that will have hardened, violent criminals quaking in their boots? I do not think they are.
The Minister said the measures in the Bill were developed in consultation with victims. I have absolutely no doubt that victims will welcome them—the sanctions, prison time extensions and fines. They are all welcome sanctions and will be appropriate for a whole range of victims, but some of the very same victims that she consulted—I spoke to two of them—would also welcome a further strengthening of the measures. If all a criminal has to do to get out of being in court is make noise—that is literally the test we are putting before ourselves today—there will be very many of them who are happy to do that in order to ensure that they do not have to face the accountability of the system.
The Minister talked about what is legal now. We are legislating—we are making the law—so it is up to us what is legal. We can make the decision that something is legal. I have given a concrete example of another jurisdiction where the sort of restraint that we propose is used successfully—it has not been tried and found not to work; it is used successfully. There is absolutely no reason not to assume that we can make it a success in certain situations in this country.
Our amendment 23 would not compel the judge to act—there is no compulsion. The judge would remain able to decide, but they would be given the clear power to act in this way if they think it is appropriate in all the circumstances. I am confident in the validity of the amendment and the positive impact it would have on victims and family members who were willing to see it used and felt that the potential disruption to the court proceedings was a price worth paying.
As the HMPPS staff member and the police officer we heard evidence from attested to, such a change in policy would take training and resource. Of course, we would expect the Government to develop training in support of the enactment of the measure. A lack of such training right now is no reason not to make the power available to judges.
I am conscious of the time, and the fact that we might wish to push this measure to a vote at a further stage, so I will not seek a Division today. However, we remain convinced of the legitimacy of this measure and will ensure that it is voted on at a later stage so that the public can understand which side Government Members are on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I just want to say a few words about the provisions in this Bill on attending sentencing hearings and related prison sanctions, because this issue is incredibly personal to me. I do not think we would be sitting in this Committee today, with this Bill in our hands, without my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who have fought hard to make this happen.
Many of us will know Cheryl’s story: just quickly, for the record, her nine-year-old daughter, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, was tragically shot and killed in their own home in 2022. As if that was not horrific enough, the man who killed her, Thomas Cashman, did not turn up to court and did not attend that sentencing hearing, which meant that Cheryl did not get to read her victim impact statement out to him. There was confusion at the court; she did not know what was happening, and it came very late in the day. This has been a source of pain, because she felt out of control and that she had a lack of agency.
In my first surgery, Antonia and Cheryl came in and told me about their case, and I have had the pleasure and the privilege of supporting them. I want to thank the Government and put on record today that I have been in every meeting with them, with the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and this Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was not just consultation; it was Antonia and Cheryl’s suggestion about sanctions and attending the sentencing hearing that put this measure in the Bill. I thank the Government for listening to and acting for people. I know that there were other families on the frontline who were listened to as well.
This measure is because of those family members, and I pay tribute to them. This is what a Government can do when they really listen to people and act in that reality. That is why we have this Bill today.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful speech. I place on the record my thanks to her and her constituents for all of the brilliant work that they have done in ensuring this measure becomes law, and to ensure that no other families have to face what her constituents and, sadly, many other families have had to face.
I will speak to both clauses 1 and 2 at the same time, as they are very much linked. In recent years, as we have heard, several murderers—most recently Lucy Letby and Kyle Clifford—have refused to attend their sentencing hearings. That causes victims’ families significant further distress. It can be seen as a final insult, denying the families the opportunity to see the full administration of justice for their loved ones and allowing offenders to avoid having to hear and confront the consequences of their horrific crimes. The provisions in clause 1 and 2 recognise the impact that such behaviour has on victims and their families in compounding their trauma.
Clause 1 inserts proposed new sections 41A and 41B into a new chapter 2A within part 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Proposed new section 41A introduces an express statutory power for the Crown court to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. It makes clear that an offender who refuses to attend their hearing without reasonable excuse commits a contempt of court, meaning that adult offenders are liable for an additional two years’ custody and/or an unlimited fine, or, in the case of a child offender, a maximum penalty of £2,500. That also applies to offenders who, following an order to attend, commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result.
Proposed new section 41A makes it clear that, for adult offenders, reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, can be used to give effect to the court’s order to deliver them for their sentencing hearing. The final decision on whether to use reasonable force will remain with the prison and escorting staff. Children will not be subject to reasonable force for this purpose, in line with existing policy.
The second part of clause 1, proposed new section 41B, goes further than ever before by introducing a new power for Crown court judges also to impose prison sanctions on any adult offender who is subject to an attendance order and commits a contempt of court by refusing, without reasonable excuse, to attend their sentencing hearing, or who attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct. That can be instead of or alongside any other punishment imposed by the court.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that, unamended, this measure will simply require an offender to make a lot of noise in order to get out of all the things that she is saying about them actually being at the hearing? Sanctions are there, but in terms of them actually being at the hearing, all they will have to do is make some noise.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention, but I disagree with the hon. Member. We have seen most recently cases in which offenders have been brought to court despite their reluctance. The prison officers and court staff have been able to get them there with the use of reasonable force. Then they have started to disrupt proceedings, but once the judge has explained to them some of the measures that are available currently—not these sanctions, because we have not yet made this law, but those measures that are currently available—that has resulted in the sentencing hearing being allowed to go ahead. What the hon. Member says is not always the case.
Alex Davies-Jones
We need to be careful on what we deem as noise. If, as we have heard in the Committee’s evidence sessions, an offender is beginning to make the sentencing hearing a spectacle or a circus and that is causing more distress to the victims and their families and preventing the course of justice, the judge will have the power to remove the offender from the court. However, with our new measures, the judge will have the power to impose these sanctions on them in prison, issue the unlimited fine and impose more time in prison. That will still be a measure even if they attend, cause a spectacle and have to be removed. They will be punished, and that will be explained to them if they continue to carry on.
I go back to the Armed Forces Act and the effect that these new measures will also have on service courts, because that is important. We need to remember that justice is done in a number of courts in our country and not just in the Crown court. Offenders before service courts who commit a contempt are liable for a fine or 28 days’ service custody—or, alternatively, the offence may be considered by a civilian court for the purposes of contempt of court proceedings. Where an offender is ordered to attend a service court from prison, but fails to do so or—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said—attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct, they may similarly receive a prison sanctions order.
I recognise that these provisions may not guarantee that every offender will attend their sentencing hearing when so ordered or that they will not create a spectacle during the sentencing hearing. However, these measures reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearing and behave appropriately. We need to ensure that justice is seen to be done by victims, their families and the wider public, to create trust in our justice system. The measures will ensure that offenders are appropriately punished for failing to do that. Judges will retain the discretion to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them. I therefore urge that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces
Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”—(Dr Mullan.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Brewer
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”
This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 6, line 1, leave out
“of 4 years or more”
This amendment would ensure that where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 6, line 2, leave out
“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”
This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.
Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
“10CA Duty to consider make prohibited steps order where serious sexual offence committed against any child
(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) to a term of imprisonment or detention of less than 4 years, for a serious sexual offence committed against any child.
(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.
(3) A prohibited steps order must be made if the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to children of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.
(4) In making that assessment, the court—
(a) must take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence,
(b) may take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of any other offences of which the offender has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world,
(c) may take into account any information which is before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) forms part, and
(d) may take into account any information about the offender which is before it.
(5) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to a conviction by a court includes a reference to—
(a) a conviction of an offence in—
(i) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or any other court or person authorised under any of those Acts to award a punishment in respect of any offence), or
(ii) any proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;
where ‘conviction’ includes the recording of a finding that a charge in respect of the offence has been proved), and
(b) a conviction of—
(i) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or
(ii) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059),
where ‘conviction’ includes anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is to be treated as a conviction).
(6) The order must be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
(7) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—
(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or
(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
(8) Further, the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—in respect of any child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility—the Court is of the opinion that—
(a) the removal of parental responsibility is not in the best interests of that child; and
(b) there is no significant risk to that particular child of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), each child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility must be considered separately.
(10) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—
(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or
(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more, but see section 10D.
(11) Sections 1, 10 and 16 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.
(12) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.
(13) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.
(14) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.
(15) In this section ‘serious sexual offence’ shall have the same meaning as that in s.10C.
(16) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.”
New clause 13—Restricting parental responsibility of certain offenders—
“After section 10B of the Children Act 1989 insert—
‘10CA Duty to make prohibited steps order where serious sexual or violent offence committed
(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (“the offender”) to a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more, for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for a child.
(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.
(3) The order must—
(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and
(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—
(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or
(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—
(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or
(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more,
but see section 10D.
(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.
(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.
(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.
(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.
(10) In this section—
“life sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment, detention or custody for life, or during His Majesty’s pleasure;
“serious sexual offence” means an offence listed in Schedule ZA1;
“violent offence” means an offence of homicide, assault or robbery.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.’”
Alex Brewer
It is very clear that a child of a sex offender is at risk, regardless of whether the sex offender has committed that offence against their own child or another child. The amendment would seek to broaden the provisions for removing parental responsibility from children of sex offenders.
I would like to share some of my professional experience. I used to work in a domestic abuse charity, where I ran a women’s refuge and had safeguarding responsibility for the families that have fled violent and often sexual abuse. There were numerous occasions when we had to facilitate parental contact by enabling a mother and her children to meet the perpetrator of that abuse, which was court mandated, even though they had fled that abuse, supposedly to a position of safety. As a person with safeguarding responsibility, that puts professionals in an impossible situation, but that is nothing compared with the position in which it places the parents, who have to take their child to a position that is desperately unsafe.
We would seek to broaden the measures in clause 3 so that somebody who is convicted of a serious sexual offence, regardless of the length of the sentence and of who that sexual offence was committed against, would not have parental responsibility for their children. If they have been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, their own child is at risk. At the moment, the children of sex offenders are at more risk than other children in society. We believe this is a very important measure, and it needs appropriate resource allocated to it.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of our amendments 17 and 18. As has been said, the Bill currently requires prohibited steps orders, which remove parental responsibility, only for those receiving custodial sentences of four years or more, and only if they have parental responsibility for the victims of those offences. In the evidence session earlier this week, the witnesses were absolutely clear that this provision, as currently drafted, is too narrow.
Amendment 17 seeks to widen the court’s duty to protect children from those convicted of serious sexual offences. It would move the threshold and ensure that anyone imprisoned for a sexual offence triggers the court’s duty to protect children by considering a prohibited steps order. We believe that is a more appropriate line to draw for this measure, which is essentially when an offence reaches a level of seriousness that hits the custodial threshold.
Amendment 18 is of even more vital importance, and it was also strongly supported by the witnesses in their evidence. It would close a troubling loophole in clause 3—although I am not sure whether “loophole” accurately describes it; it is an enormous omission. At present, the duty to make a prohibited steps order applies only when the child victim is someone for whom the offender has parental responsibility. That is an unacceptable narrowing of protection, and the logic of this measure is indefensible.
The Government believe that it is right to remove parental responsibility for someone who is convicted of a very serious sexual offence against a child, but only if it is against their own child or a child for whom they have parental responsibility. That makes no sense, and it is no surprise that the witnesses were universally against it. Amendment 18 would ensure that anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence is subject to a prohibited steps order, regardless. Again, I ask Members to think about how they might explain their position on this amendment to their constituents.
Amendment 24, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is essentially aiming for the same outcome, but perhaps we have a slightly different interpretation of where we place the threshold. Amendment 24 specifies “serious sexual offence”, while we have used the custodial limit as the trigger in attempting to achieve the same outcome. It is something that we could commit to looking at in future stages of the Bill, if we can secure a better understanding of how we distinguish between serious and non-serious offences.
We are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat aims, and I think we have a shared aim on not just the threshold, but particularly the fact that this measure will be enacted only when the child who has been the subject of the crime is one for whom the person has parental responsibility. I do not see the logic in drawing the line in the way that the Government have, separate to any questions about the level of severity.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments: amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato); amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde); and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.
Amendments 17 and 24 seek to remove the four-year custodial threshold for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. The restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious and far-reaching measure. It must be applied with care and in a manner that is a legally robust, while also protecting the most vulnerable. The requirement for a four-year custodial sentence provides a defined marker of seriousness.
This thresholds aligns with existing sentencing frameworks. Section 244ZA and schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specify a list of serious offences, including child sexual offences, that are considered serious enough to warrant that the offender must serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than the standard half when they are sentenced. The amendment would lower this threshold and require the Crown court to make the prohibited steps order when the offender is sentenced for any period of imprisonment or detention.
I want to be clear that any offence against a child is unacceptable and one of the most heinous crimes in society. Restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious step and not a decision to be taken lightly. That predetermined marker of seriousness ensures that any order made by the Crown court happens automatically only where the offender has committed serious and grave offences against a child who they are supposed to look after.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has a wealth of colleagues around her who are covering these issues, including—as I understand it—the Home Office Minister responsible for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). What does this Minister say to the Home Office Minister about her previous position that a provision of the kind that the Government have drafted was too narrow? Has this Minister spoken to her colleague about that, and does her colleague personally agree with the measure as currently drafted by the Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know, having been in Government before the election, how Government collective responsibility and consultation with other Government Departments work. The safeguarding Minister and I are responsible for the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls, which commits to halving it within a decade. Of course, the family courts are playing an integral role in that, and we seek to build on it. I will talk more about that shortly. Where we need to go further, this Government will.
We have used the statutory framework because it reflects the Government’s view that the offences are exceptionally serious. It is therefore appropriate that the same threshold be used to determine when an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility should apply. I understand and appreciate the rationale but, because there are existing processes to seek the restriction of parental responsibility, it is essential that there is a threshold and a clear marker for it to happen automatically.
Alex Brewer
There are mechanisms in place, but they put undue onus on the non-offending parent. Does the Minister agree that the onus should be shifted to the offending parent?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree that the current situation in the family courts is difficult, and it can be traumatic for parents who are seeking to have a parental order removed. That is why we have taken the measure in the Bill. It is a new approach, through which we seek to remove parental responsibility on automatic conviction in the Crown court. As I said in oral evidence, this is not something we do lightly, but we feel that it is necessary in order to protect offenders’ and perpetrators’ own children from the most serious offences. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for North East Hampshire to consider what further work we can do to reform the family courts. The Department is working closely on that, and we know we need to get it right in order to protect all children from these crimes, whether or not restrictions to parental responsibility are sought via the family courts or automatically, with this measure, in the Crown court.
Amendments 18, 24 and 8 seek to expand the circumstances in which the Crown court should make a prohibited steps order to include cases in which the offences were committed against any child. Again, it is important to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families. Those affected have my deepest sympathies, and it is they who we must have in our minds when we debate the measure.
The current provision is carefully targeted. It ensures that automatic restrictions on the exercise of parental responsibility apply only when there is a direct and recognised relationship between the offender and the child victims. Our focus on offenders who have committed a serious child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility is based on a desire to tackle the cases involving child sexual abuse with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. This is, as I have already said, a novel and untested change to the law, and the response from perpetrators is unpredictable. We know that perpetrators often seek to use the family courts, as we have already heard, to further traumatise victims, and they could therefore seek to appeal the removal of responsibility.
Caroline Voaden
Does the Minister agree that somebody who has been convicted of a serious child sexual offence against a child for whom they do not have parental responsibility still poses a danger to their own child?
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree with that point. It is important that we recognise, as I have stated, that there are other measures to remove a person’s parental responsibility for their own child through the family courts. I stress that this is a novel approach. We need to look at the justice system as a whole; we cannot consider our various courts in isolation. The measure being carried out in the Crown court could make an impact on the delays that exist in the family courts, thanks to the backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. I do not wish to exacerbate that, or to traumatise any other children and families who are going through the family courts, by further increasing that backlog. For that reason, we wish to keep the measure quite small and novel, as it is untested at present; however, once we have seen how it works, there is the possibility perhaps to go further in the future.
Dr Mullan
We all recognise that this is a novel measure. I do not think that anyone is suggesting introducing a blanket measure. For example, we have used the custodial threshold as a narrowing measure and the Liberal Democrats have used a serious sexual offence as a narrowing measure. The Minister is talking about the balance that needs to be struck, but surely the balance is not being struck correctly when the decision is that only a child for whom someone has parental responsibility brings this measure into scope. Surely that is not the right balance, despite the weighing exercise that I appreciate the Minister has to undertake.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to note that a line does need to be drawn, as the hon. Member has recognised; there does have to be a balance. In the previous Government’s version of the Bill, there was a different threshold, which was child rape of any child. We have changed that.; in this version, the measure is any child sexual offence where there is four years or more in custody, but only of the offender’s own child. As a Government, we have determined that as the necessary threshold. That is different from the previous Government’s threshold, which was only child rape. I think that recognises the difficulty in drawing a balance here.
We need to take a more limited approach for the time being, especially initially, to ensure that, as I have already said, the family court is not overwhelmed by endless appeals from perpetrators causing even more traumatisation to victims, and especially children. This is essential so that other victims and families with cases in the family court are not detrimentally impacted.
Our intention with clause 3 is to tackle the cases with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. That is why we have chosen to focus the measure in the way that we have. It is important that we properly understand the impact any additional family court proceedings will have on the children and families involved. The cohort in scope of this measure is at the highest risk of immediate harm from the perpetrator, which is why we have chosen to focus on that cohort. This does not prevent an application being made to the family court for parental responsibility to be restricted in other circumstances, as is already available.
Amendment 8 suggests using the Crown court to gather evidence on the best interests of the child and the level of risk the offender poses to the child. Doing so would place a significant new burden on the criminal court, meaning less capacity to hear criminal cases and even longer waiting times for those seeking justice. The proper forum for that consideration to happen is the family court, where the judge can hear from all relevant professionals and have access to any necessary reports before making a decision that will always be based on the best interests of the children involved.
We are already going further than the previous Government did with their Criminal Justice Bill. Those proposals were limited to child rape; our measure includes not only child rape, but a broader range of child sexual offences. Most important of all, the previous Government talked of change, but failed to deliver. We will deliver this change to protect children. We all have a huge amount of sympathy for families in these circumstances, and I want to do all we can to support them in getting the right outcome for their children.
New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, seeks to expand the instances where the Crown court will be under a duty to restrict the exercise of a perpetrator’s parental responsibility at the point they are sentenced to 10 years or more for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for the child.
I reassure the hon. Member that there are already clear powers in the family court to restrict parental responsibility where it would be in the best interests of the children involved. If a parent or other interested party wishes to make an application, they can do so. Where relevant, the family court is able to and will remove parental responsibility or restrict it to the point that it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way.
The existing law is clear that in every case, the court’s paramount consideration must be what will be in the best interests of the child. We cannot rule out that sometimes it may not be in the child’s best interests for parental responsibility to be removed or restricted, particularly where the child is not the direct victim of the offence. However, as the Lord Chancellor and I have said, we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure. While we cannot support new clause 13, we remain committed to ensuring that the law robustly protects children. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work to strike the right balance on this issue.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can continue to develop this important legislation in a way that is principled and practical and gets the balance right for children.
Alex Brewer
I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand that this is a novel approach and I welcome the measures in the Bill as a first step, we believe that they do not go far enough and still leave children at risk.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Brewer
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 6, line 19, after “justice” insert—
“or of a child and the non-offending parent”.
This amendment would mean that a judge could have discretion to decide not to make a prohibited steps order when it was not deemed in the interest of a child and the non-offending parent.
This is a small amendment that would continue to put children at the heart of this Bill. There are times when a court should not make a prohibited steps order in relation to a child. In the evidence session, we heard from many charities that children are not sufficiently heard as victims of crimes, and that their voices are not carried forward. We would like to include a small amendment that would put children and the non-offending parent at the heart of that decision making in the courts.
Alex Davies-Jones
Amendment 25 was tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for whom I have much respect, and seeks to amend clause 3 to allow the Crown court discretion not to make a prohibited steps order in cases where it considers such an order not to be in the best interests of the child or the non-offending parent. Let me begin by acknowledging the intent behind this amendment. It is of course right that we consider the welfare of children and the rights of non-offending parents in all decisions made by the court. However, the Government cannot support this amendment for several reasons.
The clause as drafted already strikes a careful and considered balance between protecting children and respecting judicial oversight. We have included a narrowly defined exemption to allow the Crown court the flexibility not to make a prohibited steps order, which is a section 8 order under the Children Act 1989, where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. That provision is intended to cover exceptional circumstances where the Crown court does not consider it to be in the interests of justice, which may arise from unusual facts or a case that is particularly complex. It ensures a degree of flexibility without undermining the core safeguarding purpose of the provision in the Bill.
The family court is the appropriate forum for determining what would be in the best interests of children and navigating the complexities of individual family circumstances. It is uniquely equipped to consider the full facts of each individual case, drawing on the expertise of all relevant professionals and supported by any necessary reports. That enables the judge to make a fully informed decision, one that is always guided by the paramount principle of the child’s best interests. The Crown court simply is not equipped to carry out that detailed consideration.
Legislation already provides a route for family members to bring an application to the family court, so it can consider whether the order should be varied or discharged and whether a more tailored order or other family court orders are required, and ensure that any order is consistent with the best interests of the child or children involved in the individual circumstances. This avenue is still open for families where the Crown court has made an order under the provisions of clause 4.
Alongside that existing route into the family court, we are also providing a clear new route in certain circumstances. If the offender is acquitted of the relevant offence, or their sentence is reduced to less than four years—I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify this point, because it was raised when I gave evidence to the Committee—the local authority is under a duty to bring the matter back before the family court. This ensures that decisions remain responsive to the best interests of the child, without compromising the initial safeguarding intent of the judge. The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system protects children from further harm from such offenders. The provisions in clause 3 are a vital part of that commitment.
I also place on record the Government’s commitment to consulting on a new victims’ code, specifically with the intention of addressing concerns, raised by the hon. Member for North East Hampshire, regarding how we can ensure that child victims are at the centre of the justice system. As she has said, for the first time ever, children are considered victims in their own right for crimes such as domestic abuse, in law; but, as we know, in practice that sadly is not the reality for many child victims. Therefore this Government are determined to go further. Under our new consultation on the victims’ code, which we are hoping to launch later this year, we will make it a key focus to ensure that the code works for all victims, with a particular focus on children in mind.
I understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Eastbourne has tabled this amendment, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for North East Hampshire are reassured that there are already strong provisions in place to ensure that the family court can consider the interests of the children involved in these types of cases, and their families. As such, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 25.
Alex Brewer
I thank the Minister for her assurances. As with our previous amendment, I look forward to working with her on improving the family court. However, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, women’s and children’s charities, and victims strongly urged us all to ensure that children and non-offending parents are at the heart of the criminal justice system, so I believe that this is an important amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “not” to end of line 25 and insert
“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.
(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”
This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.
I will keep my remarks brief. As we have said, these measures require balance and consideration for all parties concerned. We were surprised that the Government’s proposed measure would not cause a prohibited steps orders to automatically fall away if someone is acquitted of an offence. It might seem obvious to say this, but if someone is acquitted of an offence, they are innocent. They have not done anything in the eyes of the law, so I struggle to see why we would continue to insist that, if they are subject to a prohibited steps order, the onus is on them to get it removed.
On the other side of things, if a prohibited steps order is in place and has not been challenged, and someone remains guilty but is on a lesser sentence, the balance falls in the other direction and it should remain in place. Although she may tell me that this was our position in government too, I am interested in hearing from the Minister why the Government do not feel that it is appropriate for such an order to be removed if someone is acquitted.
Alex Davies-Jones
The amendment seeks to amend the process in clause 3 if an offender has been acquitted or had their sentence reduced on appeal. The Bill provides a clear route for considering a prohibited steps order following an appeal that has resulted in an acquittal or a reduction in the offender’s sentence. In such cases, the relevant local authority will be under a duty to bring an application to the family court to consider whether the original order should be upheld, varied or discharged.
The drafting of the amendment is deficient and risks creating confusion. It would provide that any prohibited steps order made under proposed new section 10C of the Children Act 1989 would cease to have effect where a person is acquitted, effectively discharging the order. In practice, there would be no order in place to discharge the original prohibited steps order, and therefore no documentary evidence that the order had been discharged. Compounding that, the amendment would retain an obligation for the relevant local authority to make an application to the family court to consider the prohibited steps order, under proposed new section 10D(2), and yet there would be no order for the family court to consider, because it would have ceased to have effect.
In short, the amendment would not make sense in practice and would risk creating confusion in a context where clarity is particularly important.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for that feedback. Perhaps we need to consider how the amendment is drafted, but does she accept the principle? There is no other example I can think of where someone is acquitted of an offence, because they are innocent, but they remain subject to any provisions whatever that were related to the conviction. Perhaps the amendment needs to be redrafted, but surely the Minister agrees in principle that someone should not be subjected to a consequence of a conviction that has been overturned.
Alex Davies-Jones
We need to remember that for a criminal case to have been brought, the child or another party will have made an allegation of serious sexual abuse committed against that child, and that will have been followed by criminal proceedings and an initial guilty verdict. The relationship between the child and the accused parent may have completely broken down during that process. When the family court reviews the case, the judge will undertake a holistic review of all the circumstances, including the acquittal, before deciding what is in the best interests of the child.
We must also remember that the prohibited steps order does not form part of the sentence when it is made by the Crown court. The order is not part of the punishment, or an additional punishment, for an offender; it is a tool to protect children who have been the victims of a dreadful crime, and their families. Even where the individual is acquitted—I have huge sympathy for those who are found innocent and acquitted—it is likely that the case will have gone through lengthy proceedings, and complex family dynamics will be involved. We must keep in mind the overarching aim of protecting children and doing what is best for them. That is why the order will not be automatically discharged following a successful appeal.
I think it is important that if there is a successful appeal, there is a clearly defined process during which the best interests of the children involved are considered, which is why we have put that measure in place. We understand that following a successful appeal, it is important that decisions about a prohibited steps order are made quickly. That is why the process already included in clause 3 requires the local authority to make the application within 30 days of the acquittal. By placing the duty to make the application on the local authority, we are reducing the burden on the families involved, at what will already be a difficult and potentially traumatic time. Moving the proceedings to the family court centres deliberations in the correct forum. The family court will consider whether varying, discharging or, indeed, upholding the order will be in the best interests of the children involved, which I am sure we can agree is what we all want.
Mike Wood
I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.
Alex Davies-Jones
That goes to the heart of why we have kept these measures as niche and tight as possible—because they are quite novel. We are restricting parental responsibility where an offender has been found guilty in a Crown court, with a jury and a judge, of any sexual offence against their own child for which they will be sentenced to four years or more in prison. That is incredibly traumatic for the child and family involved. The person will have already been found guilty. This is not similar to cases in which someone is acquitted and a prohibited steps order can be removed immediately. We have to consider the impact on the child. These are offences that the perpetrator will have been found guilty of, in a court of law, against their own child.
Mike Wood
As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily answer that point. We are not saying that we would not remove the prohibited steps order; of course there will be a route to remove it. If the offender or alleged perpetrator is then acquitted through the Court of Appeal, there should always be a route to do that, and there will be within 30 days. However, the correct route for doing that is the family court, which will have all the reports available to determine the best interests of that child’s welfare, given everything they have been through, rather than the Crown court, which is not equipped to make that assessment.
Dr Mullan
Can the Minister give me any other example in our legal system where someone who has suffered a consequence directly as a result of a conviction that is then overturned is required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows from that overturned conviction? I cannot think of any. If someone is exonerated, everything falls away. This measure is specifically linked to someone being found guilty; if they are then essentially found not guilty, they will have to take further steps. Nobody else who is essentially found innocent has to do other things to get things removed from them.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Minister cannot think of any and, off the top of my head, stood here right now, I cannot think of any either, but that goes to the heart of the reason why we need to keep these novel measures quite tight—it is because of their potential impact. Primarily, my interest, and the interest of the Government, is to protect children and child victims, and I put my faith in the family court system to do what is in the best interest of the child following an acquittal, given everything that that child—that victim—has been through. We must remember that if the perpetrator is acquitted in the Court of Appeal, there is still a child victim and a crime that has been committed against that child.
Dr Mullan
With respect, there is not a victim. The person has been acquitted, and there is not a child that has suffered anything, any more than if the person was found not guilty in the first place. I respect the Minister’s comments on how the amendment might be better drafted, but the Government have to accept that they are introducing an extremely unusual interpretation of what happens to someone when they are found not guilty, compared with every other bit of the justice system that I am aware of. Someone who is found not guilty is innocent; the court has decided that the accusation made did not transpire.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is exactly why we have included a route to remove the prohibited steps order, and we feel the appropriate route for that is the family court. That is the measure in the Bill, and it still stands that that is the safest route to protect the welfare of the child in the circumstances, given what—I was going to say, “I can only imagine”, but I cannot even imagine it—will be an immensely traumatising and awful experience for everyone involved. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
The Minister made heroic efforts to explain the logic and context of how we ordinarily deal with these matters. We think the prohibited steps orders are an important enhancement for the safeguarding of children, but I cannot imagine a scenario, even in circumstances in which the offence has not been found proven, in which the children the Minister talks about will not have had the involvement of social services and other steps taken to ensure their wellbeing more generally.
This measure is specifically about parental responsibility, and I find it difficult to understand why the Government are setting a precedent that an innocent party should be required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows specifically from their conviction. I appreciate the feedback on the drafting of the amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but the Government need to think very carefully about the precedent they are setting in relation to what happens to innocent people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 19th June 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 19 June 2025 - (19 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 7, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 9.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 7, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 16.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 7, leave out line 20.
This amendment, along with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that there has to be a review by the family court in all instances where a prohibited steps order is issued.
Dr Mullan
We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.
The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.
Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.
We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.
Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.
As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.
First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.
In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.
This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.
Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.
The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.
On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.
The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
We have already debated these clauses at length. I do not wish to labour the Committee or subject it to my voice any longer than necessary. The spirit of the clauses has been debated on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
New clause 11—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—
(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,
(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and
(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for tabling new clause 11, which would expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, ensure timely and sensitive communication under the scheme, and require the Secretary of State to publish a report covering key data on the scheme. I am pleased to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment will already be eligible for the new victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence length. I am also pleased to say that bereaved families whose loved ones have died as a result of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving will also be eligible for the scheme where the offender has received a sentence of 12 months or more.
I wholeheartedly agree that victims of violent, sexual and dangerous driving offences that have resulted in a sentence of less than 12 months should also have a clear route to request and receive information about their offender. That is why the Bill guarantees that these cohorts can request information through a new dedicated victim helpline, and where appropriate, they will receive the information. We think this is the right approach. It targets resources and delivers proactive contact through the victim contact scheme to those who need the information most, while still providing a new dedicated helpline for all victims to request information.
Turning to the second part of the new clause, the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right that victims deserve timely communication that is sensitive to their needs, but this is properly a matter of guidance and practice, not primary legislation. The upcoming consultation on the victims code offers an opportunity to consider how we can improve the delivery of the victim contact scheme, and I would welcome all Members’ engagement with that consultation once it launches.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 11 would give access to the victim contact scheme for victims of violent and sexual offences where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months. I think the Minister said that such access is included under the provisions of the Bill.
The new clause also mentions access for
“victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment and…death by dangerous driving”.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. New clause 11 would also require the Government to produce annual reports on the uptake and accessibility of the scheme, increasing transparency and accountability. We believe that it is important to know who is using the scheme so that we can know who is not accessing it. That will help us to improve the scheme, and to widen access to those victims who, for whatever reason, have not heard about the scheme or managed to access it.
On the training for the people managing and running the helpline, could the Minister give me some reassurance that there is funding and capacity available to give adequate training in gender-based violence and the effects of stalking and sexual violence on people, and particularly women, who may be quite scared about the potential release of an offender and what that means?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I can happily and wholeheartedly reassure her on the last point. She will have heard the evidence given the Committee by colleagues in the Probation Service, who were quite forthright about the trauma-informed training provided to call handlers, which is so vital in such cases. They are well used to that, and we have provided additional funding and resources to enable training to continue so that they are well equipped to deal with the increased caseload that the expansion of the scheme and the new helpline will provide. On the annual report, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that there is a duty under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to provide an annual report on victims code compliance. The victims code includes the right to information—the right to be notified—so that will be included in the compliance report.
However, I take on board the hon. Lady’s comments about the need to make sure that victims are aware of the scheme, and that they are able to apply to it. All that will be brought into the victims code consultation that we will take forward later this year, to ensure that we bring more victims up to speed on what their rights are and what they are entitled to under the criminal justice system. We have a long way to go to ensure that victims are aware of their rights on the whole—not just rights to communication and contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Commissioner’s power to act in individual cases relevant to public policy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.
I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.
Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.
The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.
To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.
Dr Mullan
Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.
I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause places a duty on local authorities and social housing providers, where they are engaged with victims of antisocial behaviour, to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. Antisocial behaviour is more than merely a nuisance. It can erode personal freedom, harm mental wellbeing and, ultimately, shatter the feeling of safety and belonging that defines a home.
Antisocial behaviour is not, however, always a criminal justice issue. Local authorities and social housing providers often play a key role in supporting victims and in finding a resolution. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a duty for certain criminal justice agencies responsible for providing those victims code services to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That duty does not apply to local authorities or social housing providers, so there is a gap in terms of ensuring that the commissioner has the tools to do their job effectively for victims of antisocial behaviour. This duty will close that gap and ensure that the commissioner is able to access the right information to identify the systemic issues, make more informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to antisocial behaviour from a victim’s perspective.
Dr Mullan
Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.
My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.
I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.
It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.
The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:
“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”
The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of Crown Prosecutors
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 7.
Clause stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Clause 9 supports that aim by increasing CPS recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help to increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors.
Currently, the CPS is restricted as to whom it can appoint as Crown prosecutors, because of an unnecessary legal requirement. That legislative barrier, set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold a general qualification. That definition excludes certain legal professionals, including most Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEX—criminal practitioners. Those legal professionals hold the right skills and the specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown prosecutor role, including rights of audience, but they do not meet the “general qualification” criterion. That restriction limits the Director of Public Prosecutions’ ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent. It also reduces the CPS’s flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.
The purpose of clause 9 is to remove the requirement for a general qualification under sections 1(3) and 5(1) of the 1985 Act. In so doing, it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals, such as CILEX practitioners, as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. It is important to stress that the removal of the “general qualification” criterion does not change the reality that prospective applicants must hold the necessary practice rights and meet the required competency standards in order to become Crown prosecutors. Rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation also remain protected as reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.
This change reflects the modern legal services landscape. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common and professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system. By removing the unnecessary legislative barrier, the clause also supports the recruitment of a more diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors. The measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional; however, it gives it the flexibility to do so where appropriate and ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the Director of Public Prosecutions’ control.
Government amendments 1 to 7 are technical amendments to address an unintended consequence arising from the previous drafting of the removal of the statutory exemptions in the 1985 Act—it happens to the best of us, Mr Stringer. Although the policy aim was to ensure that only suitably qualified individuals could act as Crown prosecutors, we have since identified that many existing CPS barristers currently rely on the statutory exemption in section 1(6) of the Act to conduct litigation without separate authorisation from the Bar Standards Board. That exemption is appropriate, because those barristers act under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions when conducting litigation. The amendments ensure that the exemption remains in place, preserving the status quo for those who already rely on it, while removing it for other legal professionals, who do not meet the relevant qualification requirement but are now eligible to be designated as Crown prosecutors. This approach avoids unintended barriers for those barristers, supports the CPS’s operational needs and maintains the policy intent of enabling a broader, properly qualified pool of Crown prosecutors.
The amendments will ensure that the clause operates as intended, broadening access to the CP roles while maintaining appropriate safeguards and supporting the CPS to meet its recruitment needs effectively. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a
“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.
We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.
I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out
“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”
and insert “such a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.
This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out
“persons appointed under subsection (1)”
and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In 2020, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the private prosecution sector, resulting in the publication of a report, “Private prosecutions: safeguards”, on 2 October that year. I thank it for its diligent work and carefully considered recommendations. It made a number of recommendations to address the systemic issues highlighted by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and the Ministry of Justice has recently concluded a separate public consultation on the regulation and oversight of private prosecutors more generally. We are carefully considering the responses to that consultation, and will in due course publish a Government response on the steps we are taking to improve practice in the private prosecutorial landscape, including legislation if necessary.
Separately, the Justice Committee made a recommendation about the costs recoverable from central funds by private prosecutors. It found that there is a disparity between the compensation available to a private prosecutor seeking to recover their expenses from public funds and a defence practitioner whose client is in receipt of legal aid. A private prosecutor can apply to the court for an order of payment from central funds of an amount that offers reasonably sufficient compensation for their expenses. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes reasonable sufficiency and, as a result, cost orders for private prosecutors tend to be at least five times higher than the rates available to legal aid lawyers, often for acting in the same cases.
The Select Committee referred to evidence that the current cost regime for private prosecutions may give rise to perverse financial incentives, which are unlikely to lead to a just system. The Committee therefore recommended that the Government should review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions to reduce the disparity between payment rates for claims made by private prosecutors and defendants from central funds.
Dr Mullan
I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.
The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.
I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.
I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.
Alex Davies-Jones
On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.
Dr Mullan
The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 24th June 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 24 June 2025 - (24 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted apart from the water in front of you. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to them or pass the relevant notes to the Hansard colleagues in the room. Members are reminded to bob if they wish to speak.
Clause 11
Reviews of sentencing: time limits
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 11, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
“(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit ‘28’ and insert ‘56’”.
This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 11, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert
“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year”.
This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.
Amendment 11, in clause 11, page 12, line 29, leave out “28” and insert “56”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, in clause 11, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) In accordance with the provision under sub-paragraph (1) the Crown Prosecution Service must write to the victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of the sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review of sentencing.”
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 9. It would require the CPS to write to a victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review.
Mike Wood
Before any observers start panicking that the shadow Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, has really let himself go over the weekend, I should say that he sends his apologies to the Committee, although it is not clear whether that is for his absence due to illness or for lumbering Members with me this morning.
I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 9 to 12. In the last sitting, we spent considerable time considering the role and involvement of victims and their families in the sentencing process. We spoke about measures aimed at making it as meaningful as possible by both involving them and trying to ensure that offenders are present. Disappointingly, we were unable to secure changes that we believe would strengthen the voice of victims and their families.
Across the criminal justice system, we have seen considerable effort made to improve the experience of victims and their families, including through the introduction of screens, the pre-recording of evidence, the work of organisations such as Victim Support, and the many ways in which the Victims’ Commissioner has expanded the rights of victims and their families and the services available to them. However, there is cross-party agreement on the need to go further. We welcome many of the measures that the Government are introducing, including through clause 11, but victims and their families are not just interested in what the processes of the criminal justice system are like. Although the views of victims and their families are not the only ones we should seek, we really want them to have a fair and reasonable experience of the justice system, and to consider its outcomes to be fair and reasonable.
The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides victims, their families and others with a route to redress when they feel that the outcome does not represent justice. However, it is clear from the evidence we heard last week, and from victims’ family members whom the shadow Minister and I have spoken to, that the current scheme is woefully inadequate. Witnesses who spoke for victims during our evidence sessions, as well as the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, all agreed that the current time window is simply not fair.
As Paula and Glenn from Justice for Victims said, echoing what Katie Brett from the group had originally said, 28 days is the same amount of time people get to return something to a shop. There is an inherent unfairness, because there is an exceptional circumstances clause under which a criminal gets no time limit—none at all. The Bill will amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but only for the Government’s Law Officers—not in relation to victims and families. We can see no good reason why we should not act now, with legislation before us, to improve the scheme for victims and families too.
Our amendment 10 would allow victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, to request a review up to one year after sentencing. Giving them time to act would show that we understand that this can be a deeply traumatic time for many people. Many of us will have had victims come to our advice surgeries soon after sentencing, but outside the 28-day period in which we are able to offer any help. When we have spoken to victims, it has been clear that, first, they were not aware of that, and secondly, because of their state of mind after the trial and sentencing, they were not focusing on such things immediately. Therefore, it is reasonable to extend that period.
Katie Brett started a petition to change the law, which has gathered more than 14,000 signatures. Katie is doing that in memory of her sister Sasha, who was brutally murdered; she was stabbed more than 100 times, raped, and her body was set on fire. Katie has every reason to believe that her sister’s killer should have received a whole-life order, but will never get the chance to legally test that. Ayse Hussein, also from Justice for Victims, had a similar experience, and the group is campaigning for a change in the law.
I am sure the Minister will say that the Law Commission is looking into unduly lenient sentencing and that we must let it do its work, but anyone reading that review will see that it is primarily about criminal appeals from the viewpoint of offenders. The consultation document makes it clear that the Law Commission does not think there is anything wrong with the way in which the ULS operates at the moment, and it is not clear how it can possibly reach that view. Why does the Minister need the Law Commission to tell her and us that this needs to change? The Government are giving the appearance of being dependent on reviews to make up their mind on quite simple principles, but particularly anything significant in the judicial sphere. Here is an opportunity to be bold, and to apply good instincts, which I know the Minister has and am confident would be similar to ours on this issue. We hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Amendment 12 addresses the equally important issue of awareness. Of course, a short time window creates a greater risk of someone never being made aware, but either way, we need a more robust mechanism of notification, so that victims know of the possibilities. The amendment would introduce a new duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of sentencing that they can apply to the ULS. This is about enforceable rights. A legal right means little if the person entitled to it does not know that it exists. Victims deserve to be told what their options are clearly and promptly. The amendment would ensure that no one missed their opportunity for justice simply because no one had bothered to tell them. Surely we do not need the Law Commission to tell us that this is the right thing to do.
Finally, amendment 9 would make a straightforward but crucial change—to increase the time limit for referring a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme from 28 days to 56 days. This is about achieving simple fairness by extending more broadly the Government’s measure to award more time to their own Law Officers.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims?
We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said:
“Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.”—[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.]
During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that
“we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.”––[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.]
Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I place on the record our well wishes to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and welcome the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, in his place today.
On amendments 9 and 11, let me start by thanking the Justice for Victims campaign and, in particular, Katie Brett, whom I met again recently and whom I commend for her tireless campaigning for reform of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in honour of her sister Sasha.
As the Opposition Whip mentioned, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals, and it has launched a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit. The consultation is open to all and has been extended to 27 June. I urge him and anyone else with an interest to submit their views, if they have not already done so. The Government will review the recommendations by the Law Commission and act if necessary. Parliament intended the ULS scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. Therefore, we will holistically consider the review’s final recommendations following publication of the report.
On amendments 10 and 12, we recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral within 28 days. We heard about the impact that that is having on them directly in our evidence sessions last week. That is why anyone can ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal. That is open to not just victims or relatives of a victim, but members of the public, the Crown Prosecution Service and parliamentarians—I myself referred cases to the Attorney General and Solicitor General when I was a Back-Bench Opposition MP—thereby taking the burden off victims and their loved ones.
The Court of Appeal is less likely to increase a sentence after more time has passed, because of the double jeopardy risks of sentencing an offender twice. Particularly if enough time has passed that the offender has already completed their sentence, the Court may actually reduce an extra sentence in order to reflect that. That means that an extended time limit would have a more limited impact and, worse, it would create false hope for victims, leading them to delay requests to review and then retraumatising them, with uncertainty hanging over them for up to a year after the trial, when they are trying to move on with their lives. For that reason, it is important that sentences are certain and not subject to change for too long a period.
Let me be clear: it is imperative that we provide better and clearer communication with victims by criminal justice agencies, including in relation to how and when information is given to victims and their families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme after sentencing. We heard loud and clear from victims last week about how the lack of communication and of awareness about the scheme was one of the issues. Under the victims code, the police-run witness care units are required to tell victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme when they provide a victim or family with information about the sentence. We have already commenced the obligation in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on those who provide victims code services to comply with the code unless there is a good reason not to do so. That ensures that agencies, including the police, are held to account for providing victims and their families with the service that they should expect. Once the new victims code is in force, we will also implement the code awareness duty, placing a legal responsibility on criminal justice agencies, including the police and the CPS, to promote the victims code to the public and victims of crime and ensure that every victim and their family are aware of their rights.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not wish to prolong proceedings unnecessarily. We welcome the Opposition’s support for the clause.
The Chair
Wonderfully brief—thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Terms of imprisonment for certain offences on summary conviction
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 12 is a technical measure. It would bring the maximum penalty for six triable either way offences, when dealt with summarily in a magistrates court, in line with other triable either way offences. For those six offences, the maximum penalty that a magistrates court can issue is currently specified as six months. The clause specifies that the magistrates court maximum penalty for those offences is
“the general limit in a magistrates’ court”,
which since November has been 12 months for a single either way offence. That will mean that if magistrates courts’ sentencing powers are changed again in the future, the six offences will also be subject to that change. Correcting that inconsistency will ultimately help to avoid confusion and error in sentencing relating to those six offences.
Mike Wood
The clause is a sensible measure updating the sentencing provision for certain offences on summary conviction. It will replace the fixed six-month maximum term with the general limit in a magistrates court. The change affects a number of serious offences, including breaches of sexual harm prevention orders, criminal behaviour orders and restraining orders. Those are not technical breaches; they often represent a continuation of harmful, coercive or threatening conduct, and it is right that magistrates should have the greatest possible flexibility to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness and risk involved. The clause brings consistency to how the offences are treated and allows magistrates to use the full extent of the sentencing powers available to them. Although we will be watching closely to ensure that the expanded powers are used proportionately and in ways that genuinely improve public protection and victim confidence in the system, we agree that the clause is a sensible provision, and we will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 4
Court transcripts of sentencing remarks
“(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”—(Mike Wood.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 12—Access to free court transcripts for victims—
“(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—
(a) sentencing remarks,
(b) judicial summings-up,
(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”
Mike Wood
The new clause seeks to address a critical gap in transparency and accessibility in our criminal justice system: the publication of sentencing remarks from the Crown court. Sentencing remarks are the moment when justice is spoken out loud; when the judge explains not only what sentence is being passed, but why. For victims, families, journalists and the public at large, the remarks are essential for understanding the rationale behind a sentence. They provide clarity, accountability, and allow the public to see that justice is being not only done, but explained. Under the current system, however, the remarks are often buried, available only on request, behind paywalls or subject to lengthy delays, and generally at significant financial cost. That feeds a sense of injustice and confusion, particularly when sentencing decisions are controversial or appear lenient. It also limits public confidence in our courts. People should not have to be legal professionals or pay fees just to access the reasoning behind a judge’s decision.
The new clause would change that. It would require that all sentencing remarks made in the Crown court be published within two sitting days and that those publications be freely accessible to the public. That is not only a matter of open justice; it is a basic democratic civil right. Open justice is not served if court processes and explanations are inaccessible to the very people they affect most directly. Victims deserve to know how their case was resolved. The public deserve to see how justice is applied in their name, and journalists deserve timely access so that the courts can be reported on accurately and fairly.
This is a modest ask with significant democratic weight: two days to publish and no barriers to access. We should expect nothing less from a modern justice system that values openness, trust, and public understanding. It ties into our earlier amendments, because these remarks would help someone understand whether they should consider a referral to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I hope the Government will support the new clause to deliver the basic right for victims, their families and the general public.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 12. We agree in principle that victims should have access to the court transcripts—indeed, it has been a long-standing campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). That is very important for victims, especially if they have been subject to coercive control, gaslighting or sexual abuse; victims at the end of the court process may be left questioning, “Was this my fault?” or, “Did this really happen to me?” We have heard from victims that having the transcripts gives them the peace of mind and validation that they need.
We disagree with the Opposition, however, on two fundamental points. The first is the requirement that the court transcripts be provided within two days. We think that is completely impractical, and that two weeks is much more reasonable. Secondly, we do not believe they should be made public. Many people commit crimes who have been coerced into them, or there may be retaliatory crimes; we think making court transcripts public presents an unnecessary public shaming of a criminal, whereas providing them to the victim provides closure and clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for new clause 4, which would require transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available to the public within two sitting days of being delivered. Introducing that provision would place a significant financial burden on the criminal justice system in a challenging fiscal context, diverting valuable resources away from the wider system, potentially including other victims services. The release of any Crown court transcript requires judicial oversight to ensure that the reporting restrictions have been adhered to and that other public interest factors have been considered. For transcripts of all sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available within two sitting days would have significant operational and resource implications.
Alex Davies-Jones
With respect, it is very different. These are court documents that can be used in a court of appeal. What we say here is clarified. We email our speaking notes to Hansard. Our comments are checked. The resources are far vaster than for a Crown court in England and Wales, sadly. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison.
Those court transcripts need to be as accurate as possible and legally sound, because people’s lives hang on the line—for want of a better phrase—in terms of whether they are free to go or sentenced, and therefore it is important that they are accurate documents. This new clause would overburden a court system that is already in difficulties, thanks to what we inherited from the previous Government.
However, as I will come to in my remarks, we are looking to make progress in this area. We have extended the pilot for transcripts, and we have made that permanent for RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—victims, because we recognise how important it is for victims to have them. We are looking at a way of doing it, but the timeframe given by this new clause is just not possible or workable under the restrictions that we currently have within our court system.
Similarly, new clause 12 would introduce a statutory entitlement to all victims of crime to request certain specified court transcripts: transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, bail decisions and conditions relevant to the case. As with new clause 4, providing those free of charge within 14 days of making that request would have significant cost implications and place a significant burden on the courts and the judiciary.
However, as I have said, I want to reassure members of the Committee that the Government are working to improve access on court transcripts and ensure that free provision is focused on victims who need it the most. Bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request a judge’s sentencing remarks for free, and between May 2024 and 2025 the Ministry of Justice ran a one-year pilot that enabled victims of rape and sexual offences whose cases were heard at the Crown court to request a free transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks in their case.
Victims of these offences were chosen because of the particular trauma that attending court can cause for them, resulting in a particular benefit in receiving a copy of the remarks—delivered in a sentencing hearing that they might find it difficult to attend for very understandable reasons—given the impact that those remarks can have on their recovery and in helping them to move on with their lives. Following that pilot, we are pleased to announce that victims of those offences will be able to request free transcripts on an ongoing basis. We are also exploring opportunities for the use of artificial intelligence in reducing the future cost of transcripts, and there is no doubt that the Government are taking action on this important issue.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members. I am happy to work with them, as we have with Members across the House, to ensure that we get this right, but it is important that we get this accurate, and get it right, because there is a lot at stake in providing these court transcripts. Therefore, it is important that we do it holistically, rather than just immediately, because of the impact that that could have.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but it does seem that, particularly with the use of AI, as she has said, releasing an initial transcript need not be overly onerous. Obviously, after having got that initial release, the measure would allow for a definitive recording to be produced at a later time if an appeal was to be based on that. I do think that making these transcripts available is in the public interest, so we would like to press new clause 4 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 calls for a review of court delays and their impact on victims to be conducted within six months of the Bill becoming law. Clearly, the impact of covid on our Crown courts in particular is still being felt within the system. Prior to covid, the Crown court backlog was actually lower than it had been under parts of the previous Labour Administration.
Due to significant investment in recovery efforts to try to address the backlog since the pandemic, including a provision for Nightingale courts and uncapped sitting days, the previous Lord Chancellor was clear that our last provisionally agreed sitting days were to be seen as a floor, not a cap. We support the calls from the Lady Chief Justice for more sitting days, and regret that the Government have only gone part of the way towards meeting the capacity that the Lady Chief Justice said was available within the court system.
Moving forward, it is important that we keep up the scrutiny to ensure that the court system is operating effectively and in the interests of victims. Delays in the court system are not just administrative; they retraumatise victims, reduce conviction rates and push people out of the justice process altogether. This review is urgent and overdue. If we are truly to put victims first, we must understand and act on the toll that these delays take. The Opposition believe that this review will help to focus efforts on reducing those delays to a minimum.
Alex Davies-Jones
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to assess within six months of Royal Assent the impact of court delays on victims. As the hon. Member will be aware, thanks to his previous Government, this Government inherited a record and rising court backlog. Between 2010 and 2019, the Conservative Government permanently closed more than 260 court buildings as part of a wider estate consolidation. Additionally, historical underfunding has resulted in challenges across the estate, with an estimated £1.3 billion maintenance backlog.
As of December 2024, the Crown court outstanding caseload was over 74,000 cases. Sitting levels have never been higher, but even that is not enough to keep up with the increasing backlog of cases. I recognise the human impact that this can have on victims as they navigate those delays. The recent report by the Victims’ Commissioner truly brought to life the impact of the outstanding Crown court caseload on victims, victims services and the wider criminal justice system. It is clear that more must be done, and that fundamental reform is necessary to address the court backlog.
That is why the Lord Chancellor asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose a once-in-a-generation reform. The review is aimed at achieving a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness and swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved. The review will also consider the most appropriate and proportionate ways of dealing with cases before the courts, as well as how processes through charge to conviction or acquittal could be improved to maximise efficiency. We expect the review of the report on options for long-term reform in the coming weeks and findings on court efficiency in autumn 2025.
Mike Wood
We support the work that Sir Brian is doing, but do not feel that the new clause would contradict or otherwise impede that work. We also do not think that we ought to wait for the conclusions of Sir Brian’s work before acting. For now, we will leave the new clause as a probing amendment, but we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Victim personal statements
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.
(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.
(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”—(Mike Wood.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause addresses the rules on victim personal statements, about which we heard much in the evidence sessions. There is clearly a desperate need for reform to allow victims to properly and accurately communicate the impact that crimes have had on them. Our new clause introduces a right to be heard for those victims and for families making victim personal statements. We heard appalling stories of traumatised family members, such as Becky and Glenn Youens and Jeremy and Susan Everard, who were told that, no, they could not say what they wanted—they could not say anything derogatory about the guilty offender.
Victim personal statements are not appropriate platforms for gratuitous abuse, but the focus needs to be on allowing the voice of victims, rather than worrying too much about the hurt feelings of the convicted offender. The new clause would ensure that victims can speak freely with the most minimal restrictions possible. We can fairly ask the judge to consider what can and cannot be taken into account for sentencing rather than removing or censoring everything in advance. It is time that we uphold the voices of victims and provide them with the platform and the dignity that they deserve.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for new clause 8, which would require the Secretary of State to issue revised guidance on victim personal statements to change the legal position on what they can include. First, let me say that I recognise that victim personal statements are a powerful tool for victims and their families to have their voices heard, and give them the opportunity to tell the court about the impact that a crime has had on them.
The victim personal statement is also important for the court’s sentencing decision. It provides evidence to assist the court in determining the seriousness of the offending as part of a sentencing process. It is right that victims have the opportunity to be part of that. However, it is also right that that be done fairly, which means that the usual rules of evidence must apply.
The hon. Member should be assured that I have heard from victims and their families on their concerns about their experience of the personal statement process. I have already committed to those families that I will look into the matter further. However, his drive to bolster the victim’s voice risks weakening the role that it can play in a sentencing process.
On a practical point, I do not believe the new clause will achieve the desired effect. The criminal practice directions provide the legal basis for a victim personal statement in the context of sentencing. Criminal practice directions are issued by judges, not Ministers. The legal position is then reflected in publicly available guidance. The Secretary of State for Justice is not responsible for any of that guidance, nor have they previously issued any such guidance.
Changing this guidance or issuing new guidance will not change the legal position as set out in the criminal practice directions. That is why I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause, and to work with me to better understand victims’ experience of victim personal statements and how these issues might actually be addressed in a courtroom, while ensuring that the criminal justice system operates safely and fairly for all.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her response. This is an extremely important matter that needs to be dealt with in this legislation. I think she said that she wishes to proceed with something that broadly achieves our aims, but which addresses her concerns about the drafting. If she will undertake to work with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, before Report to find a form of drafting that satisfies the new clause’s objectives without what she clearly sees as defects in its proposed wording, we would obviously be happy to work with her and not press the new clause for now. Hopefully, we will have something that we can agree to on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Sentencing guidelines on court fines
“Within 18 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Sentencing Council must revise relevant sentencing guidelines so that the court must award compensation to a victim to the value of items stolen when imposing compensation for the offence of theft, burglary, fraud, or any other crime that has resulted in a financial loss to the victim.”—(Mike Wood.)
This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to revise sentencing guidelines so that a court must impose compensation commensurate to the value of stolen items when issuing fines.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in the way in which financial justice is delivered to victims of theft, fraud, burglary and similar offences. It does so by requiring the Sentencing Council to revise its guidelines within 18 months of Royal Assent so that courts must impose compensation that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the victim. Right now, victims of crime are far too often left bearing the financial burden of the offence, while the offender, even when convicted, is handed a compensation order that does not even begin to redress the damage that has been done, either directly or indirectly.
The result is an insult added to injury. Offenders walk away with a light financial consequence, while victims are left out of pocket and out of luck due to the crimes committed by others. The new clause would shift that balance, not punitively but justly. It would make it a duty, not a possibility, for sentencing to account for what was actually taken or lost. This is not an unfamiliar concept. Courts already have the power to impose compensation orders, but the inconsistency and infrequency with which they do so undermines public confidence in the system. Let us be clear: all the ordinary processes remain in place for pursuing outstanding payments, but why should we not recognise what is actually owed? If someone has a change of circumstance, it may well be that they could quite readily pay what they owe.
Most importantly, this is about victims. It is about restoring faith in the idea that when someone suffers a loss through crime, the justice system stands behind them—not just symbolically but materially by seeking, as far as possible, to provide restitution. The new clause proposes the straightforward but meaningful step of revising the sentencing guidelines so that, where there is a proven loss, it must be reflected in compensation. That is not just fair; it is the very least that victims should be able to expect. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.
Alex Davies-Jones
New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, would require the Sentencing Council to revise its sentencing guidelines so that courts must award compensation to victims to the value of the items stolen when imposing compensation for the offences of theft, burglary, fraud or any other crime that has resulted in a loss to the victim. I have considered the proposed new clause, but I do not consider it helpful in view of the current legislative position, which I will briefly explain.
Courts can impose a compensation order to require an offender to make financial reparations to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. This includes any financial loss sustained as a result of items stolen in cases of theft, burglary, fraud or any other crime resulting in financial loss. Compensation may be ordered for such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence and representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of the single compensation order handed down to an adult offender.
The court must also consider the financial circumstances of the offender, in so far as they are known, to ensure they have sufficient means to pay. To do otherwise would create a pointless system of chasing down money that people are unable to pay, causing a cycle of unnecessary harm and emotional distress to victims.
The Sentencing Council has already issued explanatory information on compensation, which outlines these matters to aid sentencers when considering or issuing compensation orders. The proposed new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, would limit the flexibility of sentences by mandating through sentencing guidelines that compensation must be awarded to the value of the items stolen. The Government are satisfied that the current process allows courts to strike an appropriate balance between seeking reparation for the harm caused to victims and knowing that it is actually enforceable so that victims are not left waiting for unrealistic debts to be paid to them. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her comments, but there is an imbalance in the system. Whereas convicted offenders may appeal against a sentence, victims do not have a similar ability to appeal against a failure to award full compensation. The new clause ought to be the presumptive starting point for compensation. Full compensation should usually be awarded, so we will press this matter to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause seeks to close a loophole in the recovery of unpaid court fines. At present, the Limitation Act 1980 imposes a six-year time limit on recovering debts, including fines handed down by the Crown court. Criminal fines are not ordinary civil debts. They are the product of judicial sanction, often imposed in response to serious offences, and reflect the principle that individuals must be held accountable for their actions through the justice system. The new clause would ensure that Crown court fines do not simply expire with time. It would give the Secretary of State the power to pursue unpaid fines without restriction, sending a clear message that justice delayed must not become justice denied. For victims and communities, the payment of court-ordered fines is about not only financial restitution, but accountability and the credibility of our criminal justice system. The Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, has long identified this as an opportunity to secure funding, and we all know the tight constraints on expenditure.
Alex Davies-Jones
The new clause implies that there is a time limit on the Government’s ability to enforce unpaid fines imposed by the Crown court, and seeks to remove it. I reassure all hon. Members that this is not the case. There is no such limitation on the ability of the criminal courts or His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to enforce unpaid fines.
We take the recovery and enforcement of fines very seriously, and we are fully committed to ensuring that financial penalties are paid. HMCTS has robust methods in place for doing so, including taking money from a defendant’s benefits and salary, and seizing and selling goods. Courts also have powers to send offenders to prison for non-payment of fines and other monetary orders. The new clause also seeks to empower the Secretary of State to initiate proceedings to recover unpaid fines. However, civil enforcement mechanisms such as charging orders and bankruptcy are already available, and other well-established enforcement options, including deduction from earnings and benefits, are already in place.
Some offenders will do everything in their power to evade payment. They will move home or provide a false address, and there are processes in place to track them down using tracing tools and any legal routes for securing information gathered by other Government Departments and agencies. Bailiffs can be instructed to collect unpaid sums, and we have just launched a consultation on bailiff regulation, including a 5% uplift in fees to support early-stage recovery. We are also investing in the replacement of outdated IT systems to further improve the efficiency of enforcement arrangements.
I support the intention behind the new clause. It is, of course, essential that fines imposed by the Crown court are collected and enforced. There is no time limit on our ability to enforce fines that remain unpaid, and for good reason. Prolific offenders can rack up substantial fines, which they may pay back through deduction orders or other enforcement orders over many months or years. Offenders may be serving time in prison for other offences, which means that any fines that remain payable during that period will not be enforced until they are released.
We carefully monitor performance on the enforcement of fines. In 2023-24, HMCTS collected over £671 million in financial penalties, of which £10 million was for offences committed before 2017. We rigorously pursue money owed, no matter how old the debt. On average, by the time a financial penalty is five years old, 80% of the total imposition will have been collected. The actions we are taking will further improve performance in this area. For those reasons, we urge the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Mike Wood
Given the Minister’s comments, we are content not to press the new clause to a Division at this time. Again, we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing
“(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) the following information regarding the sentence passed—
(a) offence type,
(b) sentence length,
(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—
(i) nationality,
(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,
(iii) visa route,
(iv) visa status,
(v) asylum status, and
(vi) country of birth.
(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.
(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”—(Mike Wood.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It would introduce a new statutory duty for courts to provide structured data on sentencing outcomes, including key information about individuals’ immigration status.
Transparency on crime is critical not only for building public trust in our justice system but for ensuring that we have the right tools in place to understand and respond to the realities of criminal offending. The new clause would create a clear, accountable framework for collecting and publishing sentencing data that sits at the intersection of the criminal justice and immigration systems. By requiring His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to gather and publish that data quarterly, we would enable policymakers to detect patterns, assess outcomes and develop evidence-based responses. Crucially, it would also strengthen the ability of immigration enforcement to make fair, informed decisions on removals, deportations or protections—decisions that must balance public safety with legal and humanitarian obligations.
Ultimately, the public have a right to this level of transparency. For too long, assumptions have filled the void left by incomplete data. The new clause would replace speculation with facts, and in doing so it would promote more informed policy, more effective enforcement and greater public confidence. I commend it to the Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise the importance of transparency when publishing data on foreign national offenders. The hon. Member will know that we inherited our current data collection and publication system from the previous Government. It is interesting that the Conservatives are now keen to make changes, after 14 years in office in which they could have done it themselves.
The Lord Chancellor has been clear. This is important to her and we are reviewing what we collect and publish, and should we decide it needs to change, we will of course enact that. More broadly, we are working to strengthen data collection at court, and we are exploring how we can improve the sharing of immigration status data across the criminal justice system.
We are committed to continually developing the data we publish. We already publish data on the number of self-declared foreign nationals in prison and under probation supervision, and we publish detailed ethnicity data of those prosecuted in court. Recording such data for everyone convicted and sentenced in court, including those for lower-level convictions—those that result in a fine, for example—would represent an additional burden on an already stretched system, but it would also inevitably give rise to a substantial data quality risk.
Courts have no mechanism to verify or validate information provided, nor do they have any mechanism to compel such provision in the first place. The new clause would impose an obligation without any consideration of the infrastructure necessary to deliver it. For those reasons, we are unable to accept the new clause, but we will continue to look at what more we can do to improve the accessibility of information relating to foreign national offenders.
Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. It is worth noting that, since 5 July 2024, more foreign offenders have been returned than in the same period 12 months before under the previous Government. For all the Conservatives’ rhetoric, it is this Government who are getting on with the job.
Mike Wood
Given the Minister’s disappointing response, we will wish to have a fuller debate on Report. I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote now, but we will almost certainly do so at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clauses 13 to 16 contain standard provisions that confer powers to make consequential amendments, to set out the Bill’s territorial extent, to make arrangements for commencement of the Bill’s measures, and to set out the Bill’s short title.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is customary at this stage in proceedings to say a few words to mark the end of our deliberations in Committee. I welcome that the measures in this Bill command a substantial degree of cross-party support, and I am pleased that the Bill has had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by members on both sides of the Committee.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, including the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle—I wish him well in his recovery—for their careful consideration. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have served so diligently on the Committee and made such thoughtful, valuable and powerful contributions.
I thank you, Dr Murrison, and your co-Chair, Mr Stringer, for keeping us in very good order. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston. I thank the Clerks and the MOJ officials, particularly Rachel Bennion, Zara Bernard and Hayley Newell, for all of their work. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to soon.
Mike Wood
On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Clerks, officials, Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters. I also thank you, Dr Murrison, and Mr Stringer for your work on this Committee.
There is much that is very positive in this Bill, which is why His Majesty’s official Opposition are pleased to support it. Obviously, there are various points on which we think the Government could and should go further, and we will seek to make the Bill even better on Report. For now, I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions over the past week. I look forward to returning to this debate on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.