Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Quite simply, if seven years is appropriate for sex with a dead person, despicable though that is, two years is grossly inadequate for sex with a live animal, which may then have to be put down or killed by the abuser. Of course, I accept that government Amendment 301 is better than what we have currently, but the two-year penalty needs to be increased. I know that my noble friend has said that he may look at other things at Third Reading. All I ask from the Government at Third Reading is simply to increase the two years up to five: make it the same as animal cruelty. That is not too much to ask for; it is still less than the penalty relating to a corpse, and it is much better than the current draft.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is another X-rated group of amendments. I added my name to government Amendment 301, on sexual activity with an animal, and I spoke on this subject in Committee. The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history—it was proscribed in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23—and it is high time that the statute book comprehensively addressed this subject. The predecessor section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 fails to do that. I am pleased that the Minister, whom I thank, listened very carefully to the debate. She has listened to all those who made representations, and the Government have brought forward an amendment that—while it is no doubt less than perfect, for the reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Black, indicated—is a very considerable step forward. I am grateful to the Government and support Amendment 301.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendment on sexual activity with an animal. The original amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Black, shone a fierce but necessary light on the grim intersection of animal abuse, child exploitation and online coercion, and it is because of that work that we are now debating a meaningful change to the law. What matters now is that the law recognises the overlap between animal sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation and wider patterns of coercive control, and that we respond with tools that are fit for purpose in 2026.

The Government’s amendment to Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act replaces the narrow offence of “intercourse with an animal” with a broader offence of

“sexual activity with an animal”,

defined by intentional or sexual touching, whether the animal is living or dead. It also ensures that such conduct engages the notification regime in Schedule 3, so that those convicted can be managed as sexual offenders. That is a significant and very welcome step. However, there remain gaps that need to be addressed. The terminology widely used in policing and safeguarding is “animal sexual abuse” because it captures a spectrum of exploitative acts, including material that is filmed, traded online or used to groom children. These are not marginal cases; they go to the heart of how abusers terrorise children and partners, including by targeting family pets.

Amendment 390 from the noble Lord, Lord Black, would introduce notification and offender management requirements for a defined list of serious animal cruelty offences, placing those convicted on a register. That would apply to those who cause unnecessary suffering, arrange animal fights, possess extreme pornographic images of animals, damage protected animals or intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, as well as those who cause, coerce or permit another person, including a child, to do so, or who use an animal for sexual gratification. These are not technical tweaks. Notification and active offender management recognise the strong links between serious animal cruelty and the risk of harm both to animals and to people, especially children, who may be targeted with these horrific images or forced to participate in their creation.

A similar system to the sex offenders register would allow the police and probation service to monitor such offenders and retain the information needed to manage the risk they pose over time. I freely acknowledge the progress already made, but without the robust notification and management framework envisaged in Amendment 390 we will still be asking front-line agencies to deal with extremely dangerous offenders with one hand tied behind their back. The cost of getting this wrong is borne not only by animals but by the children and adults who are terrorised, coerced or groomed through this abuse. While I welcome the Government’s amendment as an important milestone, I urge the Minister to go further and to match the full ambition of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Black, on notification and offender management.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is a grim subject, like, I am afraid, many of those that we are going to discuss in our proceedings today. An overwhelming case has been made by those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I very much hope that the Front Benches—Government and Opposition—are listening to the views that have been expressed.

I shall offer one argument additional to those that the noble Baroness has set out. In addition to regulatory sanctions against the providers of these online services, and in addition to any possible criminal remedies that may arise, there is also the possibility of civil sanctions: claims for damages brought by groups of parents who have the misfortune to have had their children dealt with in this appalling way. Any such claim for damages would be immeasurably assisted were the providers of the online services to have a legal duty to risk-assess the likelihood of their services being used in this way.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was also at the meeting, which has been referred to, that was held this lunchtime and dealt with the troubling question of what seems to be an epidemic of growth in the exploitation of children on the internet. I must say that it revealed figures that I was not aware of, and I regard myself as relatively well briefed on this matter.

Further information came out today—particularly from the work, which has already been alluded to, by Members who were present at that meeting—that much of the of the material that is seen online also moves across into the real world. The use of these elements on the internet to groom children, to set up meetings with them and then to participate with them in illegal acts has been growing to a point where it is quite clearly an epidemic that must be dealt with. We are at the start of something extraordinarily unpleasant that needs to be looked at in the round, in a way that we have not yet done or been able to do.

Having been heavily involved in the Online Safety Act, I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with legislation which has been overtaken by technology. The developments that have happened since we the Bill became an Act have meant that the tools we thought were being given to Ofcom and being used by the Government are very often no longer appropriate. They are probably not as far-reaching and certainly do not deal with the speed with which this technology is moving forward.

I have not been able to attend any meetings which Ministers may have had with my own side on this, but I gather that there is a Whip on against this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could think hard about how he wants to play this issue out. It seems that one of the problems we have in dealing with legislation in this area is that we are never dealing with the right legislation. We want to amend the Online Safety Act but obviously, by moving an amendment to this Bill, which is from another department, we are not maximising the chances of having an output which will work. In addition, the way Ofcom is interpreting the Act seems to make it very difficult for it to reach out on new technologies, such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her excellent speech introducing the amendment.

In a moment of transition, when we are so keen to try to grasp things so that they do not get out of our control, there may be a case for further work to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that she was happy to try to look again at the wording of her amendment if it is not appropriate for the Government. I am conscious that the Government are also trying to move in other areas and that other departments are also issuing measures which may or may not bear directly on the issue. It seems that there is a very strong case—although I do not know how my noble friend will respond—for asking for this issue to be kept alive and brought back, perhaps at Third Reading, where a joint amendment might be brought between the noble Baroness and her supporters and the Government to try to make sure that we do what we can, even if it is not the complete picture, to take this another step down the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 277, which would create a specific criminal offence of secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification or in order to humiliate or distress them. In addition, it would make profiting from such footage a serious aggravating factor for sentencing, bringing clarity to a legal grey area and aligning the law with the reality of abuse in the digital age.

This amendment follows a BBC investigation which exposed the widespread practice of men covertly filming women on nights out and then monetising the footage on online platforms. The BBC identified over 65 channels across YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram posting this content. The material is being filmed in major cities worldwide, including London, and Manchester is a hotspot, with creators travelling from abroad specifically to capture surreptitious low-angle shots of fully closed women in dresses and skirts as they walk along the street. These are then uploaded as so-called “walking tours” or “nightlife content”. These posts have racked up more than 3 billion views in the last three years, with a single video generating up to £5,000 in revenue from ads and sponsorship.

Women and girls deserve to move freely in public without fearing that their bodies will be splashed across the internet without their consent. The problem is that existing voyeurism offences turn on narrow definitions of nudity and privacy. We welcome the Bill’s focus on non-consensual intimate image abuse and support the Government’s amendments and those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Bertin. However, these are confined to images of subjects in an intimate state. Fully clothed people generally fall outside this definition, even when filmed for sexual kicks.

Amendment 277 instead focuses on the degrading and predatory intent, which is where much of the harm lies. It centres on the victim’s humiliation and objectification, rather than on narrow definitions of body parts, clothing or location. It follows Law Commission advice to expand voyeurism legislation to non-private settings, based on intent. This amendment is carefully targeted at those with malign motivations.

In 2024, Greater Manchester Police made an arrest for this practice. However, no further action could be taken due to what the force described as “limitations in current legislation”. Harassment and stalking laws fail because they require a proven course of conduct. Abusers know that this behaviour is not currently captured by law and are exploiting this loophole. Without action, predators will continue to see this as a risk-free way of making easy money.

My honourable friend Wera Hobhouse MP has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this issue. I echo her calls to compel platforms to remove such content. The Angiolini Inquiry recently warned that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are still not sufficiently prioritised. That is why I urge the Minister to give my amendment the serious consideration that it deserves. We need concrete action, not more rhetoric.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this group covers a range of human conduct, from the objectionable to the disgusting. I thank the Minister for tabling a series of amendments which will benefit women and society at large. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for all the work that she has done, which has led us to this position, and for the amendments that she has tabled. I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to her.

I will speak specifically to Amendment 273, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to which I have added my name. I understand that the noble Baroness may, if the Minister does not accept the amendment, wish to test the opinion of the House. This amendment simply seeks to impose a duty on a court to make a deprivation and deletion order where a person is convicted of an offence involving sharing or threatening to share intimate images without the consent of the victim.

The argument in favour of this amendment is very simple. It is necessary to give comfort to the victim who knows that the perpetrator has created or distributed the intimate images without consent. Unless there is a duty to destroy this content, the victim is inevitably going to remain extremely concerned that the content will remain in circulation and in existence.

That is the first argument. The second argument is that I can think of no justification whatever why the culprit should retain such intimate images when they have been convicted of being a wrongdoer in this respect. Those two points make this amendment unanswerable, and I strongly support it.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group—the government amendments, those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the other amendment that was tabled. It was such an excellent speech, with such detail, that I do not want to go over the specifics, except to say that the noble Baroness is our leader and we will follow her through the Lobby.

I want to make one point, regarding the fantastic list of what is in the gap between what Ofcom can do and what Parliament can do. We should hesitate on that thought. Having looked a little this afternoon at the Government’s consultation, I see that there is almost nothing about what Ofcom cannot do, almost nothing about enforcement and, as I explained earlier, almost nothing about risk assessment. What happens beforehand, to prevent all this? What happens after it has all happened and we start to get enforcement? We cannot keep playing around in the middle. We have to go upstream, to the beginning, and we have to come to the end and get these things categorically dealt with in a way that interferes with business and makes it unacceptable to do it. With that, I will be supporting the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the people-pleaser in me would love to be able to say, “Oh, go on then— I will accept them all and make everybody happy”, but I am afraid there are some good reasons why I cannot accept some of these amendments. I am going to try to respond to them all as briefly as possible, in the hope of explaining why the Government do not consider these amendments necessary in some cases, and do not consider it desirable for them to be done through the unwieldy mechanism of primary legislation in others.

I start with Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on deletion orders. I say at the outset that the Government of course recognise the harm caused by those who retain copies of intimate images, and we want to ensure that the legal framework protects victims. We agree that it is a no-brainer about the principle, but, for reasons I will come to in a moment, it is not as simple to enact as it might seem.

The noble Baroness has correctly identified that there is a difference between depriving offenders of devices that have been used, and actually getting rid of—deleting—the images themselves. If there is an issue about insufficient judges making deprivation orders for devices, then we must tackle that. This amendment is not the solution to that. Indeed, if she is right that judges are proving to be reluctant, there is a risk that, even if this deletion order provision came into force, they might be reluctant to do that as well. That is not the way to tackle judges not making the orders.

We must make sure that what we do is workable. Verified deletion is highly complex in practice. There are a number of challenges concerning, for example, images stored in the cloud. The noble Baroness’s amendment is very short on the practical measures that would be needed to make it effective, such as how the verification is to be carried out, what the penalty would be for an offender who refuses to comply with an order to provide the password, or what happens during the appeal period. For example, in the Crown Court, defendants have 28 days following conviction to lodge grounds for appeal. These are all significant drafting issues that present problems with the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness, so we need to give this further thought.

As I said to the noble Baroness in Committee and during our recent meetings, we are already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seize intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was used in the offence itself.

One of the issues which concerns us is that only a fraction of the victims of intimate images go through the criminal justice system. Many victims do not want to go anywhere near a criminal court, so we want to look at the available remedies in the civil courts in order to ensure that these, too, will offer meaningful redress for victims.

But anything we do needs to be comprehensive and in a package that works well together, ensuring removal of these images as quickly as possible. That is why I am pleased to announce today that we intend to review the available court order protection for victims of intimate image abuse across civil and criminal courts. The review is going to include routes for deletion to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it identifies necessary improvements and that it has attached to it all the consequential provisions that are needed to make sure that it is actually effective.

This is not an attempt by the Government to kick the can down the road. We want to get it right, and we want it to have material value. We do not want to create something that does not work so judges do not use it. But we do not think a court order available in the criminal court addresses this problem as a whole, and that is why we need to take time to think more comprehensively about a tailored solution, working for victims and for criminal justice partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, Professor McGlynn and I have discussed this, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment today in the light of that announcement.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment, as she understands, imposes a duty on judges. Therefore, there is no question of a judge deciding not to use it. More substantially, I am very concerned about the delay that will result if the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, does not move her amendment. Surely, the proper way to deal with this is for the Government to accept the amendment, and, if they will not, for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to move it. If the Government wish, as they are perfectly entitled to, to add or to subtract, they can do so at Third Reading or, perhaps more realistically, in the other place. They will have plenty of time to do that; let us get on today and put this into law.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will say two things in response to the noble Lord. The first is that the criminal courts tend not to be very keen on provisions that they regard as complex when they come at the end of a sentencing hearing. They tend to react by saying, “We’re going to leave this to be dealt with through some other mechanism because it’s too complicated. We can’t work out how to verify it”—the sorts of objections that occasionally are made in relation to, for example, very complicated compensation orders or confiscation orders. The second point is that there is, as I have already said, a real risk in piecemeal legislation that you bring in provisions for one court that then do not work in the read-across from the civil courts. On the civil courts, we cannot do that today.

We need to do this quickly, and we absolutely recognise this. After all, there is no point in saying that we take this stuff seriously and then saying that we are not going to do anything about getting rid of the images. It is illogical, apart from anything else, as well as perhaps not being very moral either. I ask the noble Baroness to accept the sincerity of what we say. That is as far as I can go today.

I turn now to Amendment 274, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I understand and agree with what she is trying to achieve. The only issue between us is whether this is the right way to do it. Ofcom has already consulted on additional safety measures for its illegal content codes of practice. These proposed measures explicitly include the use of perceptual hash-matching technology to detect and remove non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes.

To be deemed compliant with their Online Safety Act duties by following the codes, services would need to deploy this technology automatically to identify and remove such content, providing victims with reassurance that their images are being removed swiftly. Given the urgent need to strengthen protection in this area, Ofcom announced on 19 February that it is accelerating timelines and will publish its final decision on these proposals on the use of hash matching in May, with measures expected to come into effect by the summer.

We consider that the work of Ofcom meets the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The protection that she seeks will be delivered promptly and robustly through Ofcom’s forthcoming codes of practice. It is an area where unnecessarily imposing duties in statute, especially where work is already in progress, could have the adverse effect of restricting the flexibility of this work should it need to respond and change to the ever-changing online landscape in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)]

My Lords, more than 40 years ago, Parliament ensured that pornographic material that was deemed too degrading, too explicit or too dangerous could not be distributed. Parliament never changed its mind, but technology overtook the law, which is why we now have the absurd situation where content is illegal when viewed on a DVD but legal and freely available on the internet. That is why we desperately need Amendment 298 to deliver online/offline parity. I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin, her team and all the other noble Lords in this House who have, as we have heard, campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years.

Moving on to my noble friend’s other amendments, I support all of them, but I will speak briefly to three of them. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle incest pornography but, without including stepfamily relationships, this new amendment will have little to no impact on the actual content available. The videos will be the same; they will merely be retitled. My noble friend has already explained the popularity and violence of the “barely legal” teen pornography content. Other countries have already legislated to prevent this type of material proliferating. Amendment 300A would ensure that we did the same.

Finally, Amendment 300 is about preventing exploitation and abuse. The porn industry makes money from violence against girls and women. It is an industry that we know profits from human trafficking. This is not an industry that we can trust to do the right things. So I strongly support this amendment, and I very much hope that my noble friend will test the opinion of the House on this and all her other amendments if Ministers are not able to move further.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the remarkable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for all her efforts today to explain the Government’s position, and for the amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of the Government.

Amendment 298 is very important because it seeks to regulate online harmful content, and I very much support the principle. However, I will raise an important quibble. Amendment 298 defines what is meant by “harmful material” by reference to a number of very specific matters that I think we would all agree should not be online, such as material that

“promotes or encourages sexual activity that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act”,

or any sexual act that is

“non-consensual, or … appears to be non-consensual”

or

“threatens a person’s life … or is likely to result … in serious injury to a person”,

et cetera.

I have no difficulty with that: I entirely agree with it. However, I am concerned that, in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 298, “harmful material” also includes that which

“would be an offence under … the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Obscene Publications Act 1964”.

I am concerned that that would be a very unwise way for us to regulate online content. The reason is that that Act is notoriously vague and uncertain. It depends on jury assessments of what would “deprave and corrupt” a person. It does not seem appropriate or necessary to include that element of harmful conduct when the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, lists, in perfectly sensible and acceptable ways, the specific types of content that ought not to be online and that should be prohibited.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as with the last group, we on these Benches support the Government’s amendments, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work on the Independent Pornography Review and subsequently. We on these Benches fully support her amendments to ban step-incest pornography and content that mimics child sexual abuse, to implement age verification for those featured on porn sites and AI nudification apps and to establish vital parity between online and offline pornography regulation.

I will be extremely brief. Amendment 298 in particular would create parity between offline and online regulation. Offline content that would not be classified by the BBFC should not be legal online. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, rightly proposes a monitoring role for the BBFC to support Ofcom’s enforcement and I very much hope that the Government will concede on this. If the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are taken on board, the Government can easily alter that amendment at ping-pong.

I have also signed Amendment 281A. The Government’s nudification amendments are clearly too narrow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has described, by limiting scope to UK products, they ignore the global nature of this harm. We must go further to capture possession and use of any software designed to produce these non-consensual images. I very much hope that we will be able to avoid votes on the four amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward, and that the Government will take them on board.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling these amendments and to the Government for the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers as set out in the Bill.

However, there are some broader issues that it might be helpful to air here, which are not the subject of amendments, for obvious reasons. It is 22 years since the office of the Victims’ Commissioner was created. I wonder whether, given the legislation that is going through to remove police and crime commissioners, that will change the landscape in which the Victims’ Commissioner’s office works. Therefore, it may be worth reviewing exactly what the roles of the Victims’ Commissioner are. I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in that context.

From these Benches, we have argued that the entirety of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner should be broader than they were up until the presentation of this Bill. But there is another point that we have raised consistently—not just in legislation but in Questions and at other times—and that is the disparity of resources between the Victims’ Commissioner’s office and the office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I have been told that this is partly because the Victims’ Commissioner’s office looks only at policy, but we know the reality in the complex world of victims is that it sees many more things. If the Government would consider a review of the role in light of the change with police and crime commissioners, it might also be a time to look at whether the Victims’ Commissioner’s office has the resources that it needs to deliver the very important job that it does.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very doubtful about Amendment 58. It would expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner very substantially indeed if the Victims’ Commissioner is going to take action to support or protect individuals who act in good faith to assist victims of crime. That would involve a great deal more work for the Victims’ Commissioner. I am very doubtful, with the resources available, that the role of the Victims’ Commissioner should be diverted from the primary responsibility of considering victims of crime.

Of course, one has every sympathy with the bus driver whom the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned—his behaviour was heroic and his treatment seems to have been very unjust indeed. I understand he does not actually want his job back, but that really is not the point. The point is that to expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner to other persons who have assisted the victim seems to me to be unjustified and a diversion of resources.

--- Later in debate ---

As long as the director can assure us through the Minister that serious safeguards are put in place, it seems to me that we have to do this. There is no money in the criminal justice system—something that Sir Brian Leveson is constantly telling people—and I can only say that there is a need to put vastly more money into it, but making a reform like this will help on the budgetary pressures that are so damaging our criminal justice system. Subject to the suitable safeguards, we really ought to look at this reform as being one that should be brought into effect, because we can afford to do no other.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has said. I shall add some observations. It is self-evident, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, says, that only those who are qualified and competent should be responsible for prosecutions, and no one would dispute that. However, it seems to me equally self-evident that not every criminal prosecution requires presentation by a barrister or a solicitor. There are many criminal prosecutions that others are perfectly competent to present. What matters is to ensure that whoever prosecutes in any particular case has the qualifications and experience that are necessary, and that will depend upon the nature of the case, whether it be a murder case at one extreme or a driving case at the other. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that those factors will be, and are being, taken into account in deciding, once this reform is introduced, who prosecutes in any particular case.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The noble and learned Lord has said what I wanted to say much more sensitively and tactfully, but I will say what I was going to say.

There is a danger that lawyers of my generation— I shall just apply it to my generation and not suggest which generation other Members of the House belong to—are prejudiced against lawyers who do not have standard qualifications, if you like, or the backgrounds that many of us come from. I understand from CILEX that there are 133 members working as associate prosecutors who cannot progress or get promotion. That is a real shame. It is a much wider issue than just prosecution.

I think the noble Lord answered his own point because he was talking about members of the Bar progressing. The Minister will tell us—I cannot believe it is not the case—that no one joins the CPS and prosecutes a murder the next day. Every profession has its hierarchy, and one progresses in the hierarchy dependent on both skill and experience. The current position is out of date, so, even if it were not to solve an immediate problem, what is proposed in the Bill is a good idea. I am afraid that we cannot support the opposition to the clause.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, removing 16 clauses—about 30% of the Bill—would potentially make this a new Bill. If this matter were not so serious, I would say that it is like saving a PDF, with versions 1, 2 and 3. We are continually reassured by the sponsor in the other place that the Bill, in the form in which it came to your Lordships’ House, had the strictest safeguards in the world, but we are now making a fundamental change to it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very powerful case, if I may say so, for judicial control to provide the independent scrutiny that we all agree is required in some form to ensure that the criteria of the Bill are satisfied in individual cases. However, I offer a contrasting view. Although I have the greatest of admiration for His Majesty’s judges—some of my best friends are judges—I do not think that they are the only people, or indeed the best people, to decide alone the grave issues that we all agree are raised by this Bill.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Committee should bear in mind what the Bill actually provides for in Schedule 2: before anyone is able to take advantage of its provisions, they must satisfy the panel that the criteria in the Bill are met. Who is on the panel? It is not simply a judge; it is a panel of three people who have a range of expertise that is, in my view, highly desirable in this sensitive context.

First, you need a legal member. It is right that there should be a legal member, because some of the issues are very much legal issues and judges have particular expertise. The legal member must either hold or have held high judicial office as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal; as a judge or deputy judge of the High Court; or as one of His Majesty’s counsel. They may also have been requested to act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. So you need a legal member.

However, you also have on the panel a psychiatrist member; that is highly desirable in this sensitive context. You have a registered medical practitioner who is a practising psychiatrist, registered in one of the psychiatrist specialisms in the specialist register, sitting alongside the legal member. Then you have someone who is registered as a social worker to add their perspective on the difficult issues—these are difficult issues—raised by eligibility under this Bill. So you have three people and a range of expertise—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am interested in the noble Lord’s view of the panel. I appreciate that he is discussing Schedule 2, but there are parts of this Bill where a unanimous decision of that panel is not needed, so it is quite possible that the medical person could be overruled by the others.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, that is not my understanding. The next point I was going to make is that paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 2 answers the very point just made by the noble Baroness. It states:

“The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member … votes against a decision to grant such a certificate, or … abstains from voting on such a decision”.


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will say if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, with great respect, the noble Baroness is wrong. The unanimous view of all three members of this panel is needed before the provisions of this Bill are operative.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

May I probe the noble Lord a little further? In the evidence given by witnesses to the Select Committee, it was said that somebody should not be allowed simply to abstain; and that, if these people are being appointed as professionals to these panels, they should express a view. At the moment, expressing no view is deemed to mean being in favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry but, with the greatest respect, the noble Baroness has not listened or read what is in the Bill. If any of the three members is unwise enough to abstain—I agree that it is highly undesirable that they should—because they are not satisfied that the case is made out, eligibility is not satisfied and, therefore, the person concerned cannot take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. Again, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks that I have misunderstood this, he will say so, but he is nodding. The noble Baroness really needs to read the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord’s assessment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If the noble Baroness reads the Bill, her concern will be addressed.

Then we need to look at paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, which tells the commissioner that he or she

“may give guidance about … practice and procedure”.

I would be very surprised if the practice and procedure did not allow for interested parties to be heard or provide—this is another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—documents to be requested. If they were not requested and a person did not supply relevant documents, I would expect one of the three members of the panel not to be satisfied.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If he just looks again at paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, it may be that there is a wholesale ambiguity. Sub-paragraph (2) says:

“Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)”,


which the noble Lord has read out. Do those two paragraphs contradict one another?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

No, they do not, because the majority vote does not apply to the question of whether a certificate of eligibility applies. There may be a majority vote on other issues; for example, whether to have a hearing or to require documents, or something of that sort. But on the fundamental issue—the noble Lord is shaking his head, but that is what it says—a majority vote is not permitted on the crucial, core issue of whether a certificate of eligibility is required.

Paragraph 9 addresses another of the concerns the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has mentioned. It says, in paragraph 9(1), that panels must—I emphasise must—give reasons in writing for their decision.

Finally, it is not irrelevant—and these were points made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, if I may say so—that our courts are currently massively overburdened. Of course, judges do their best to hear urgent cases as speedily as they can, but delays are a serious problem in our court system. The Minister will no doubt have something to say about this. When the Committee considers what is the best, most effective and efficient way to address the real issues of independent assessment, it is important to bear in mind that the provisions of the Bill will apply only to those with six months or less to live. To have a system that builds in delays is going to damage the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I wish to speak to Amendments 25 and 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which my name is attached. They are amendments which I believe go to the very heart of the Bill. It is vital that if the Bill eventually comes into law the system set up for approving requests for assisted dying should have the trust of the general public. We have to bear in mind that although people generally trust one another, trust in institutions is now at a record low; to put it another way, there is in our society now a deep distrust of official bodies.

However, having said that, there is one exception: the judiciary. Between 70% and 73% of the public trust judges to tell the truth, which is why we need a court-based system. The Member in the other place, when she introduced the Bill, argued that having a High Court judge would give the system an extra layer of protection against coercion and pressure, making it the “most robust” and safest system in the world. She was right in saying that. As we now know, however, she changed her mind, and the Bill comes to us in a very different form, with panels instead of a judge.

The main reason for the change was the view that the High Court did not have the capacity to meet another set of demands; hence the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that requests should be dealt with by the Family Division. As he pointed out, although there are only 20 High Court judges in the Family Division, there are 40 other designated judges trained to hear serious cases; with this cohort there would be enough people available to hear requests for assisted dying.

The other reason for having a court-based system, which I find persuasive, is that a court has the legal powers to summon witnesses and order documents. If a judge had a concern about financial pressure being involved in some way, he or she could summon relatives or others involved to help him or her reach a decision. I am not aware that the proposed panel currently in the Bill will have a similar power. In Clause 17, “Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance”, the word “may” is mentioned eight times in subsection (4). The panel “may” call for this or that, but so far as I can see, it has no powers to make people comply.

We heard a very powerful defence from my noble friend Lord Pannick of the panel system with its experts and its other people. But I remind my noble friend that at the Second Reading of his Assisted Dying Bill in 2014, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted an amendment from my noble friend to add a review of the Family Division of the High Court. He pointed out, rightly, that the Family Division deals with very difficult cases such as the Bland case or the separating of the Siamese twins, and he argued that they could deal with very difficult cases speedily and in time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also told us that he disagreed with alternative proposals for the panel, which was, at that time, a panel of magistrates, not the kind of panel we have now. He said then:

“I think that you need the highest-quality judges to decide these issues”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1881.]


The Times, in its leader on 15 December, described the move away from a court-based system to a panel as an “ill-advised about-turn”, and it was.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed to, quite rightly, the extra pressure that will be put upon the Family Division. But on the assumption that the Bill will go through—it has, after all, been voted on by the elected House—we have to ask ourselves: which is actually safer? Is it safer to have a court-based system or to have the panel? I believe that given that it is judges who are trusted in society, we should go for a court-based system, and I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

With regard to Amendment 68, if the Government are not with us, I will be moved to test the opinion of the House. But I emphasise that that is in respect of Amendment 68.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the noble and learned Lord clarify, at an appropriate point, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 68? It says:

“Sentencing remarks may be published only”


in certain circumstances. My first question is: is that meant to restrict the rights of the victim under subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to obtain the remarks, or is it concerned with further publication?

My second question relates to the proposed new subsection (2), which says:

“Sentencing remarks may be published only where a judge … has approved their release, having regard to—”


two factors, which it lists. Is it intended that those are the only factors that the sentencing judge can have regard to—that is

“the accuracy of the record and … the need to comply with any reporting restrictions”—

or is it intended, which I would hope not, that the sentencing judge would have some general discretion here?

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is intended that the court should have regard only to the two elements that are referred to therein.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we recognise the purpose of time limits and we recognise the right to fair trial, but survivors of child sexual abuse should not be barred from justice simply by the passage of time. The difficulty lies, of course, in striking that balance. At the moment, too many claims with merit are rejected at the outset or, more often, not brought at all. Clause 82 is therefore welcome in principle, yet new Section 11ZB(3) then proceeds to undermine it, mandating dismissal if defendants can show “substantial prejudice”—a vague term undefined in the Bill, which, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, may be appealing to defence lawyers. A court already has the power to dismiss a case if it believes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, so we find it difficult to understand the justification for this extra layer of protection. The inclusion of this provision risks effectively undoing all the good work of the clause. Amendment 289 would close that escape hatch, ensuring that it brings meaningful change. I urge the Government to reconsider in the light of this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I add my voice to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The fundamental principle is set out in new Section 11ZB(2): if the defendant cannot have a fair trial, the hearing cannot proceed. The gravity of the allegations and the public interest demand that there be no hearing, notwithstanding the damage that this causes to the unfortunate alleged victim. I entirely agree that new Section 11ZB(3) confuses the position; it introduces uncertain concepts and will inevitably lead to unhelpful litigation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 289, I thank my noble friend Lady Royall, who is not in her place today because she is ill, and Mr Stephen Bernard, both of whom met me recently. We discussed both the impact of the limitation period on victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their concern over the test of substantial prejudice within this clause. I was moved by what Mr Bernard told me and I thank him for his courage in telling me about what happened to him.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for moving Amendment 289. I hope both my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord will be reassured that I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Blencathra, for welcoming the general spirit of the clause and for their constructive comments. I make it clear that we absolutely do not want to add additional or unnecessary barriers to stop victims of child sexual abuse from proceeding with their civil claims. So I have asked my officials to look closely at the issues this amendment raises for further consideration, and I aim to provide a further update to your Lordships on Report.

Turning to the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to Clause 82 standing part of the Bill, I think he is well known for being very expert in this area and I pay tribute to that. But Clause 82 implements important recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The noble Lord raised concerns during Second Reading and again during this debate that the reform is unnecessary and would lead to greater uncertainty and litigation, but, with respect, I disagree. The inquiry looked at this in great detail. It found that the limitation period for civil claims itself acted as a deterrent to victims and survivors—just the very fact that it existed. The inquiry also found that it acted as a deterrent irrespective of the existence of the discretion in Section 33, and the inquiry therefore found that Section 33 did not provide sufficient protection for victims and survivors.

The inquiry found that the regime acted as a barrier to claimants at three stages: first, solicitors’ willingness to take on claims, because it can make it really hard for them to find a lawyer to represent them; secondly, the settlement and valuation of claims, because it can lead to victims accepting lower settlements because of uncertainty about the limitation issue; and, thirdly, the hearings themselves in relation to the limitation period, the effect of which on the claimants was described as “intrusive and traumatic”.

I think the noble Lord will find that it was not this Government who said they were not in favour of these recommendations; it was actually the previous Government. This Government accepted the recommendation in February of this year and are satisfied that Clause 82 is necessary and proportionate. The courts are perfectly capable, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, of deciding when a claim is inappropriate or unfair and should not succeed. This Government and my department put victims at the heart of everything we do. This is why we believe that this reform is necessary and important for victims and survivors. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to withdraw his amendment and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting Clause 82.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone else, I am in favour of all the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, set out very powerfully and alarmingly the reality of what is happening online. I do not think that I need to go through all the amendments in detail—other noble Lords have done that very well—but I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said about asking ourselves if this is the normal that we want to live in.

Do we want to allow content that makes child abuse appear acceptable? Surely not. Do we want to see websites trivialise and, indeed, promote incest as some form of entertainment? Surely not. Should we allow tools that enable the nudification of images, which are overwhelmingly used to target women and girls, and which, as we have heard, are being used in schools? Surely not. Instead, do we want to ensure that age and consent are clearly verified, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time? Yes, we do. Do we want to see a parity between what is prohibited offline and what is prohibited online? Surely yes.

That is what this group sets out to do. I hope that the Minister will accept all the amendments in this group to ensure that we have a new normal that we all want to see.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. I will make two points that are additional to the powerful factors that have been addressed so far. First, I am very concerned to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, that the Government have not yet responded in full to her review. Can the Minister tell us why that is, given the importance of the subject, and when there will be a full response?

Secondly, although I support the objective of Amendment 314 to apply the same principles to material online as to material offline, I am very doubtful that the way the amendment seeks to achieve this is sensible. The amendment seeks to incorporate into the Bill the definition of “harmful material” found in Section 368E(3)(a) and Section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003. However, those provisions refer simply to the decisions and criteria of the British Board of Film Classification without specifying the criteria applied by that body. The criteria that that body applies, as set out in its guidelines, are helpful, but they are not categorical. For example, the guidelines say:

“Exceptions are most likely in the following areas”,


and the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, helpfully set out the factors that they have regard to.

This is perfectly appropriate in the context of the BBFC, from whose decisions appeals are possible, because the context is the licensing of an R18 video, which, of course, can only be sold in a licensed sex shop. However, we are concerned here with criminal law, which needs to be defined with precision so that people know exactly what cannot be published online. Therefore, we need a revised Amendment 314, which I hope the Government will accept in principle, to set out in specific terms what Parliament is prohibiting online, such as material that depicts conduct in breach of the criminal law and material that depicts or appears to suggest non-consensual sexual conduct. There may well be other categories; let us set them out so that everybody knows what is prohibited online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will deal with my noble friend’s second point first. There are decisions of the domestic courts here that support the fact that you cannot bring prosecutions for what was the unlawful sexual intercourse offence under Section 6, nor can you even bring a prosecution for sexual assault based on the same facts, because that would transgress the prohibition in Article 7. As regards the time limit, Section 9 of the 2003 Act has no time limitations in it, which is the usual principle of criminal offences in this country, but for this tiny cohort of behaviour—it really is very small—you could not prosecute under Section 9 because of Article 7. Section 6 no longer exists, and you cannot get round it by using Section 9, but it really is a very small number of cases.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I suggest to the noble Baroness that, in addition, these offences are so serious that they would not be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court; they would be indictable offences, would they not?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite correct: this has nothing to do with magistrates’ court time limits. There was a statutory time limit contained within Section 6 of the 1956 Act that said that all prosecutions for offences under Section 6 must be brought within 12 months in any court. It is nothing to do with the time limits in the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am of course more than happy to write to my noble friend, and it must be my fault I am not explaining this properly. There is no time limit for prosecutions brought under Section 9 generally, unless it refers to particular behaviour—so that would be an offence committed against a girl aged between 13 and 15—that took place before the repeal of the 1956 Act and the bringing into force of the 2003 Act. You could not prosecute that under Section 9 because the time limit has expired for bringing it under Section 6, in the same way that you cannot prosecute for sexual assault for the same behaviour because you cannot bring a prosecution under Section 6. I had better write, because I can see from the puzzled look on my noble friend’s face that I have not explained it very well.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could also include in that letter reference to what is either a decision of the Appellate Committee or the Supreme Court—I think it is the former—which addresses this and explains precisely why those who are alleged to have committed offences before the relevant dates are protected by the 1956 Act and continue to be so.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord has explained it rather better than I did.

Criminal Court Reform

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.

Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think that is, if I may say so, a similar question to that from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have heard that the ongoing discussions are in fact reasonably positive, and we are very hopeful of reaching an agreement in the coming weeks and months. It is certainly not the intention to water down recommendations; however, it is our intention to come up with a workable Bill that forms part of a wider work programme. As I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have also put in place this website where people can monitor how the Government are making progress on other recommendations on other scandals, such as the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell scandal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm—I think he said this in answer to my noble friend Lord Alton—that the Bill will guarantee funding for legal representation for families who participate in inquests and other inquiries? Without such funding, families cannot effectively participate.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said before, it is a manifesto commitment to provide legal aid at inquests for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise what the right reverend Prelate has said. As he may know, I sat as a youth magistrate for 17 years and as a family magistrate for a long period as well, and I recognise the general problem of disproportionality. There is not a single way of solving that problem, but a number of agencies within the criminal justice field and the MoJ are looking at the different aspects of disproportionality. He opened by pointing at the care system in particular. Probably well over 50% of all the youths I saw in youth court had come from the care system in one way or another, so I recognise what he is saying, and it is something that we take very seriously.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily—not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so—and they are heard effectively and with justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord—of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. There is no right to a jury trial; however, there is a right to a fair trial. For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people—both victims and defendants—can get a fair trial in a timely way.

European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the Minister explain why the Government have not joined with other contracting states in their attempt to promote discussion about reform of the European convention, particularly in relation to immigration matters?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The first point is that the Government were not asked whether they wanted to be a signatory to that letter, which was for all members of the EU—it was they who signed the letter. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation very closely. We are sympathetic to some of the sentiments expressed in the letter, so we will continue to monitor that situation.