Rape and Serious Sexual Offences: Jury Directions

Debate between Lord Lemos and Baroness Levitt

Monday 9th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, independent judges already can and do give directions concerning rape myths, based on the specifics of each case. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we are taking action to stop rape myths being weaponised in court, ensuring that previous allegations of rape or compensation claim information cannot be used unfairly as evidence. We will consider my noble friend Lady Levitt’s amendments to the Bill on this issue, which will be debated next week.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, Russell Brand has just been sentenced to 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. Irrespective of the accuracy of every detail reported from the trial, the reports themselves have caused considerable distress to victims and grave concern among those who support them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of that harm. Does my noble friend agree that, while most judges follow best practice by directing juries about harmful myths and stereotypes, the fact that some do not means that it is now time for Parliament to require that such a direction be given—before any evidence is heard, not just at the end of the trial, when the damage may have already been done?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships would not expect me to comment on the Russell Brand case but I will say this: I pay tribute to the courage of the victims in seeing this case brought to justice. On the wider question, judges give a tailored direction to assist the jury where they deem it necessary, based on the specifics of each case. The primary source of guidance, as my noble friend knows, is the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium, which gives examples where guidance may be necessary. All judges who hear sexual offences in the court receive specific training through RASSO ticketing. The specific issue my noble friend raises is exactly what we will be debating in relation to her amendment.

Adults Lacking Mental Capacity: Child Trust Funds

Debate between Lord Lemos and Baroness Levitt

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. We understand the seriousness of this problem and remain committed to resolving this long-standing issue of access to child trust funds for young adults who lack mental capacity. This is a high priority for Minister Richards, who has engaged extensively with stakeholders and wants to move quickly towards a practical solution. The Government are very hopeful of making progress in the coming weeks.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the law currently requires parents of disabled adult children to navigate procedures which were designed to protect vulnerable people from fraud and financial abuse. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, where parents are simply seeking to access a child trust fund or junior ISA on behalf of a son or daughter for whom they have cared all their lives, there is a strong case for a bespoke and proportionate process which starts from a position of trust rather than one of suspicion?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Of course we do not think that all parents are a danger to their children; that would be ridiculous. As I have said, Minister Richards is looking for a solution in the coming weeks. However, as I am sure my noble friend would agree, not every adult has loving parents and the principles that underlie the Mental Capacity Act about adults—we are talking about adults—being entitled to agency over their own funds is an important one.