Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Today, it is an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and introducing it with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to—no pressure.

In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the Act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general. So this Second Reading has felt, at times, a little like a reunion. It was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his place before—I think he will return—and to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston.

Of course, I have to say it one more time: we all miss Lady Newlove so much. Those of us who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year’s Bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy. It is therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this new Bill.

I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first Section 19 statement on the cover of the Bill. This is, of course, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to state their view of a Bill’s compatibility with human rights. Noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion. I hope she took pride in that, not least because, as a criminal barrister and, indeed, a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it is perhaps in the realm of victims’ rights in particular that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom.

Briefly, on defendants’ rights, I was heartened to see my noble friend’s body language in the face of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the proposals on jury trial. Panto season is upon us and the SW1 rumour mill is working with full force, so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be dropped into the Bill at Lords Committee. I was, and am still, heartened to see the body language and, no doubt, we will have it from my noble friend’s mouth in her summing up.

Of course, defendants’ rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention. The drafters of that convention referred to Article 6 as the “English article” because of things such as the presumption of innocence in particular—but this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime.

I remember that, when I was a young Home Office lawyer in the early 1990s, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants, sometimes for days on end, at the Old Bailey. They were cross-examined about their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering, until the commission, as it then was, in Strasbourg, suggested that it might be degrading and inhuman treatment and a new torture for the victim, who was usually a woman—it need not be, but it usually was. It took Article 3 of the convention and a Labour Government’s response to make sure that that should never happen. That is just one example of the many ways in which positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights have animated and accelerated the development of victims’ rights in this country like never before. I put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the heat and noise around human rights debates in this country at the moment.

In a similar vein, I welcome Clauses 3 to 5, on restricting the parental responsibility of sex offenders who have abused children. There were similar attempts last year, but these measures go further. The House, and in particular my noble friend, will be very comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area, as is my noble friend in the context of criminal trial. So, that is very much to be welcomed. I agree that the Explanatory Notes are incorrect but, mercifully, Clause 3 is very clear that it is a crime against any child, not just a crime against one’s own child, that meets the test and triggers the new mandatory requirement to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility.

I also welcome the provisions on the victim’s right to make disclosures in the face of the abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive information. These provisions seem to go further than before, which is important. Perhaps in summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison between Section 17 of the 2024 Act and the new provision on non-disclosure. It seems to me that the presumption is now much more in favour of disclosure, and not just to a very limited collection of individuals such as lawyers. The new provision is more open and in favour of public interest disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, which is more in line with amendments that I tabled and supported, along with others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the comparison between the old and the new provisions. I see this as an improvement and more presumptively in favour of disclosure.

I particularly welcome more teeth for the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims’ code. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to plead for a victims’ code with teeth. Maybe we could seek even more teeth—who knows? At one point I even tabled an amendment that would have created a new consolidated victims’ code. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the Public Bill Office, but it was rebuffed by the last Government. What I am particularly heartened by is the duty in this Bill on the Victims’ Commissioner to report on compliance with the victims’ code. A code with no teeth would be in danger of cruelly raising victims’ expectations that were then not met.

I wonder if my noble friend could explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest could on occasion involve intervening in high-profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts. That would be a good use of the Victims’ Commissioner’s time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims’ rights were in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and the Government that the Victims’ Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be able to intervene in that case? That would be incredibly helpful as part of giving teeth to both the commissioner and the code.

I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know there is some debate about whether they go far enough, but I support them.

I noted my noble friend’s comments on private prosecutions. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill are about costs in certain cases, but I noted—I wrote this down quite carefully—that in her introduction she talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution. That is of course an important right. I think of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and how important it was not just for her and her family but for the whole country that she persevered not just with campaigning but with a private prosecution. That demonstrates graphically the importance of the right of an individual who has been wronged and neglected by the authorities, in the context of policing and prosecution, to bring a case.

However, the other side of the equation is some corporate private prosecutions, about which I am concerned. The Post Office is the most obvious example. That was not an individual who had been wronged; it was a corporation prosecuting for private profit. I have been slightly sceptical about whether it is a right that should be afforded at all to private corporations as opposed to individuals. I just throw that into the air for consideration, but it is not in any way to distract or divert from my support for the Bill. I hope we can give it a safe and speedy passage while allowing enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.