Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

289: Clause 82, page 98, leave out lines 3 to 11
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the court to dismiss an action in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse on the grounds that the defendant would suffer substantial prejudice.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 289 is a probing amendment through which I am seeking the Government’s justification for the substantial prejudice provision in Clause 82. By way of background, Clause 82 removes the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims in cases relating to child sexual abuse. As such, it implements recommendation 15 of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse chaired by Professor Jay. The inquiry found that most personal inquiry claims relating to child sexual abuse are not only modest in value, but in many cases do not result in compensation being paid. The reason for the high rate of failure is that a significant number of those claims are prevented from proceeding as a result of the limitation period on bringing forward a claim under the Limitation Act 1980. That Act permits the three-year period for claims resulting from sexual abuse as a child to begin from age 18, therefore expiring at 21, but many survivors do not feel comfortable with coming forward and telling people what happened until much later, never mind gathering the courage to bring a lawsuit against their abuser. The result is a lack of justice for those who have been abused as a child, and it is welcome, therefore, that the Government have decided to bring this forward.

However, there is possibly an issue with the drafting of Section 11ZB, which is inserted by this clause. It establishes the situations in which the court must dismiss an action for injury arising from child sexual abuse. It states that for all cases brought after the commencement of this clause, the court must dismiss the action if the defendant can prove that a fair hearing cannot take place. However, for any case that started before this new clause comes into force, the test for dismissal is set considerably lower because in this instance, the court must dismiss the claim if the defendant can prove that they would suffer substantial prejudice, and thus the proceedings are inequitable.

This goes further than was recommended by the Jay inquiry. Its report referred to

“the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible”.

The only test the independent inquiry wanted was that the test of whether a fair trial can take place applied to all past and future cases. I know there is concern that the ability of the court to dismiss actions due to substantial prejudice placed on the defendant will create uncertainty for survivors of child sexual abuse and delay access to justice. This has the potential to undermine the purpose of the recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and might not provide the certainty and support survivors deserve.

I reiterate that this is simply a probing amendment, and I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on why the Government have gone further than recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I repeat a declaration of interest I made at Second Reading: that I have appeared as a barrister in a number of the leading cases about limitation of the law of tort. The purpose of limitation periods is to give a claimant a fair chance to decide whether to bring a claim, but also to place some sort of time limit on claims. Limitation periods vary according to the cause of action—for example, defamation claims have to be brought within one year. Personal injury claims have always been in a special category. The normal limit is three years or, in the case of a young person, three years after attaining the age of majority. But because some personal injuries manifest themselves only some time after they have been caused, particularly those relating to disease claims, the law has responded by postponing the starting date to reflect something called the “date of knowledge”.

What constituted knowledge was difficult to encapsulate in statute and gave rise to a lot of litigation, particularly in the context of what are generally known as historic claims for child sexual abuse. But these difficulties were largely overcome by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court a complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. Although the section gave various sensible guidelines as to matters to be taken into consideration, the discretion was expressed to be entirely unfettered.

One difficulty of the law remained. In claims for deliberate acts of assault, there was a finite six-year limitation period, rather than a three-year extendable limit for claims in negligence, so some claimants did not have the advantage of Section 33. This problem was overcome by the decision of A v Hoare in 2008— I was one of the unsuccessful defendants in that case—when the House of Lords decided that, whether the claim was in negligence or in assault, there was still a discretion to disapply the limitation period.

The only question that remained was whether it would ever be too late to bring a claim in the light of Section 33. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a much-missed Member of your Lordships’ House, made this observation:

“If a complaint has been made and recorded, and more obviously still if the accused has been convicted of the abuse complained of, that will be one thing; if, however, a complaint comes out of the blue with no apparent support for it (other perhaps than that the alleged abuser has been accused or even convicted of similar abuse in the past), that would be quite another thing. By no means everyone who brings a late claim for damages for sexual abuse, however genuine his complaint may in fact be, can reasonably expect the court to exercise the section 33 discretion in his favour. On the contrary, a fair trial (which must surely include a fair opportunity for the defendant to investigate the allegations …) is in many cases likely to be found quite simply impossible”.


That passage was in fact referred to in the conclusions of IICSA, which decided that the three-year period should be removed, but that there should be

“express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show a fair trial is not possible”.

The Government responded to IICSA’s report and did not support getting rid of limitations. The Government acknowledged the importance of Section 33 and made this point:

“A limitation period also encourages disputes to be resolved timeously thus promoting finality and certainty. Both are key cornerstones of the legal system. As such, the Government’s opening position, ahead of consultation, is that it does not support this option”.


Nor did they support a special limit for claims arising from sexual abuse. I remind the Committee that, in 2017, in the case of Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, the Court of Appeal emphasised the unfettered nature of the Section 33 discretion.

My question to the Government at Second Reading was essentially this: what cases do they envisage would now be allowed to proceed which would not have done under the current law? I do not expect an immediate answer, but the Government have now had plenty of time to consider their response. There was a consultation following the Government’s response that I referred to, but it was not particularly large and did not contain consistent answers.

Changing the law of limitation is best an exercise following the careful balancing of respective interests, perhaps by the Law Commission. What appears to have happened here is that the Government, notwithstanding the initial view that I referred to, have decided to come up with some sort of compromise. In doing so, I fear they have produced in Clause 82 a real dog’s dinner of a provision.

Clause 82 is headed:

“Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases”,


but it does not do that. It specifically provides that sexual abuse is in a separate category from, for example, physical abuse, although this was precisely what the Government did not want when they responded to the original recommendations. It contains a rather unclear provision that, when a dispute has been settled, it will no longer be subject to these new provisions. It probably does not include discontinued claims or claims settled otherwise than by way of a formal agreement.

New Section 11ZB contains some very unclear provisions as to the circumstances in which the court can dismiss an action, while at the same time containing in new subsection (2) the provision:

“The court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place”.


The interrelationship of new subsections (2) and (3) is incoherent and will inevitably result in litigation. The lack of clarity on what is and is not sexual abuse, and what is and is not settlement, will, I fear, also give rise to litigation.

I agree with the Opposition Front Bench’s probing amendment that we should get rid of new Section 11ZB(3), but that would leave a repetition of what the law is anyway and would not deal with the points about what constitutes sexual abuse or settlement via agreement. My conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it is. This rather messy compromise will give rise to unnecessary litigation and I am unsure it will provide remedies where remedies are not already available.

Sexual abuse, particularly of children, is abhorrent, and we now know there has been far more of it than was originally perceived. It is, however, important to point out that claims are not usually made against individual perpetrators; one can understand why there would not be much sympathy for a claim being brought, however late, against such a perpetrator. The usual defendant is, for example, a school, religious organisation, local authority or even central government. They may or may not have any knowledge of what happened but, because of the expanded doctrine of vicarious liability, will be deemed in law to be responsible for what occurred. They may or may not be covered by insurance.

As Lord Brown pointed out, there will come a time when it is quite simply inappropriate, many years later, for claims to be brought before the court. However sympathetic one is to the victims of sexual abuse, the law currently caters adequately for the balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. If we include Clause 82 in the Bill, I fear we will make bad law. The clause should not stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it is no answer to say that another Government considered it carefully: different Governments have different priorities. I am not sure that that is going to come as a great surprise to the noble Lord. As for Section 33, this Government are satisfied that it does not provide sufficient protection.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief in my response. As I say, this was a probing amendment, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I am content with the Government’s assurances, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 289 withdrawn.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words of thanks. First, and most importantly, I thank Jodie and Sophie who bravely spoke out about their abuse and have shared their stories with noble Lords. I thank the charities and campaigners who have been with me every step of the way and have been, quite simply, amazing: Sophie from Revenge Porn Helpline; Elena from Not Your Porn; Sophie from My Image, My Choice; Rebecca from EVAW; Emma from Refuge; Lucy from Glamour and Professor Clare McGlynn KC.

I am very grateful to noble Lords across this House who have done incredible work pushing the Government into the right place on this legislation, even if it has changed its packaging along its journey. I am thankful for the way noble Lords across this House have encouraged and guided me through the maze of legislating. Thank you to the Bill Office for the endless hours shaping this Bill. Importantly, I am very grateful to the Minister for his patience and time spent working on this matter. I know it cannot have always been easy for him, and he has always been incredibly kind and thoughtful.

I feel very optimistic that the content of this Bill has been addressed and accepted by the Government in a different format. However, there is still the issue of semen images, which this Bill sought to address and which I hope the Government will agree to legislate on rapidly. I hope the Commons will recognise the strength of feeling across this House on deepfake image abuse, and I am hopeful that we are now one step closer to seeing its end.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, please allow me to express His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s strong support for this crucial Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on her determined leadership on this subject. This Bill represents a vital step forward in safeguarding dignity, decency and the fundamental rights of individuals in our society. This Bill will champion the right to privacy and change the law for the better, safeguarding women from exploitation.

Non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit images and videos is a modern technology-driven disease that has shattered lives and ruined reputations. It represents a grave affront to personal dignity and a betrayal of the trust that is often central to intimate relationships. The speed and reach of digital communication is truly frightening and has only exacerbated this harm, making it more urgent for Parliament to act decisively.

The Bill rightly strengthens our legal framework by ensuring that those who engage in this entirely unacceptable behaviour face the full force of the law. It makes it clear that consent matters and that, without it, the distribution or threat of sharing explicit material is a crime. We must also ensure that the criminal justice system provides meaningful support for victims.

Many individuals who have endured this type of abuse have spoken of the profound psychological and emotional toll that it takes. Please let us ensure that we do more than just criminalise this behaviour. Let us stand by the victims with the resources and support that they must be given to rebuild their lives. His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe in a society where people can live freely, safely and with dignity. The Bill furthers that vision. It ensures that our legal framework evolves, as it must, to meet modern challenges, while reaffirming the timeless principles of justice, accountability and respect for the individual.

Finally, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and everyone involved, both inside and outside the Palace of Westminster, in bringing the Bill forward. We urge the House to support it wholeheartedly.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to take part in the Third Reading of this Bill. I give many congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on this rare and much-deserved victory with the contents of a Private Member’s Bill. She made a very generous comment about the Minister, and I failed to do so the other day. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, paid tribute to the Minister. Even though he could not quite get over the line, at least some of the substance of the offence is there. I very much hope that that will remain in the Bill and that the noble Lord’s Commons colleagues will make sure of that. As we have heard in the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, this is part of a wider battle against misogyny, and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has landed a really important blow in that battle.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many impressive speeches and a great responsibility to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge’s Bill to outlaw non-consensual sexually explicit images and videos. The Bill is not only timely but essential in addressing a profound harm that has emerged with the proliferation of new technology—a harm that disproportionately affects women, vulnerable individuals and the very fabric of our society’s values of dignity, respect and privacy. I speak as someone who has had to deal with female victims of sexual crime in many years of policing. I have seen it at its worst.

The Labour Party manifesto committed to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. However, as has been pointed out, no proposal featured in the King’s Speech. This Bill is supported by the Revenge Porn Helpline, Refuge, Not Your Porn, My Image My Choice, End Violence Against Women, Professor Clare McGlynn KC and Jodie Campaigns. It is clearly a well-thought-out Bill that will be effective in tackling this appalling practice. It is vital that, in making legislation such as this, we listen to victims and survivors.

The creation of sexually explicit images and videos without consent and with malicious intent has become a pervasive practice. This is unacceptable. For victims, the impact is shattering. This is a form of sexual violence. It is an act that exploits trust, invades privacy and causes real harm to its victims.

This Bill rightly proposes a robust response to this abhorrent behaviour by creating specific offences for the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit material. It also seeks to ensure that the law reflects the realities of how technology is weaponised in this context. It seeks to enshrine in law a woman’s right to consent as to who has the right to own sexually explicit content of her. This legislation is a declaration that the law is not blind to the realities of the digital age. It is a clear message to perpetrators that such actions will not be tolerated. It is a lifeline to victims and survivors, offering the promise of a clear path to justice and the reassurance that their suffering will not be ignored any longer.

The Bill has a wider social resonance. It is about the type of society we aspire to be: one where everyone, regardless of age, gender or background, can live with dignity and without fear of exploitation. By passing this legislation, we will send a very powerful signal that the values of respect, consent and justice are not just ideals but what we expect of people in this country.

Back in July 2023, Alex Davies-Jones MP, the then Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said that big players in the tech industry should not be dictating to government how artificial intelligence policy should look, and that urgent regulation is needed. That was in response to a damning new report by the Ada Lovelace Institute. Alex Davies-Jones MP is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for victims. I would expect not only that her views would remain the same but that she will be keen to put her words into practice through legislation such as we are discussing today.

This is as important a Private Member’s Bill as has ever come before your Lordships’ House. It sends a consistent message from noble Lords of the urgent need to address the sickening issues that victims and survivors must face in connection with the creation of this material. This is an oven-ready Bill. There should be no hesitation or prevarication on the part of government in helping to introduce it imminently, by whatever vehicle. I have only one question for the Minister, which I hope he will answer today: why not, and why not now?

I commend my noble friend Lady Owen for her work in championing this vital cause. I urge all Members of the House to support the Bill. It was an impassioned speech. Let us seize this opportunity to stand with victims, modernise our legal framework, and affirm our commitment to a society in which dignity and respect are safeguarded for all. With support across the political spectrum in the House, I sincerely hope the Minister listens to these arguments, and I urge the Government to support this Bill.

Commission on Justice in Wales

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am the Minister of Justice for devolution and the various countries within the UK. The manifesto has made it clear that we want to work in practical ways for the benefit of the people of Wales. Two points that I made in my initial Answer to the noble Baroness were on probation and youth courts. I know that a number of very positive examples of practice in Wales are better than the average within England and Wales. We want to build on what is positive that is already happening rather than look at the overall devolution of these powers.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, any observer of Welsh politics these days will not fail to have noticed that the Welsh NHS has 22,000 people on its waiting list awaiting operations, the Welsh education system is the worst in Europe, the Welsh Government are about to spend roughly £150 million on 36 additional Members, and there are vanity projects such as 20 miles per hour everywhere. Does the Minister really believe that the Welsh Labour Government can cope with the complexities of any aspect of the criminal justice system being devolved?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I notice that the noble Lord is addressing the House from the Back Benches, whereas I understood that he had a Front-Bench position. He is shaking his head, so I apologise. To answer his question, we want to work constructively with the Welsh Government. I personally will be visiting Cardiff and Newport before the end of this month, and I know that many of my colleagues have ministerial visits; we want to work constructively with the local Ministers.