Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I will express support for Amendment 20 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen; my noble friend Lady Brinton will address the other amendments in the group. Amendment 20, to remove Clause 12 from the Bill, may be technical but it is important because the regrettable fact is that, as is now well known, the relevant authorities and the police lack the resources to prosecute all crime reported to them. As a result, a significant proportion of reported crime goes insufficiently investigated and, too often, unprosecuted.

That is true across a whole range of offences, from shop theft to some offences of violence and many cases of fraud. There is therefore a practical need for private prosecutions, and that practical need is complementary to the traditional—and we would say justified—view that it is not and should not be solely for the state to prosecute breaches of the criminal law. It is also open to private citizens and organisations to bring private prosecutions, and that is an important aspect of access to justice.

It is certainly true that there are some cases where prosecutions require the consent of the DPP or the Attorney-General, but those tend to be special cases where Parliament has decided that that restriction is appropriate. An important feature of private prosecutions in this jurisdiction, and of their successfully being brought, is that the prosecution is entitled to recover the bulk of the prosecution costs from central funds by payment at a reasonable rate; the noble and learned Lord has stressed the importance of the reasonable rate.

The noble and learned Lord is right to say that a significant proportion of such prosecutions are brought by charities, including Macmillan and Help for Heroes. Those charities are often the victims of fraudulent schemes. Other private prosecutions are, of course, brought by commercial organisations, notably retailers which suffer substantial losses as a result of theft from shops. They may be commercial organisations, and they may have a commercial motivation for the prosecutions, but as a matter of simple and instinctive justice and a matter of principle, it is not and should not be the sole responsibility of the state to initiate prosecutions. Nor should the state fail to assist financially those who bring meritorious prosecutions against those who transgress the criminal law. When I say assist financially, I mean bear the costs of successful prosecutions, in large part.

The fact is that organisations may be deterred from bringing private prosecutions if their costs recovery is capped at a level that makes them unaffordable or uneconomic. Furthermore, if frauds against charities or offences against others, whether not for profit or commercial, cannot be prosecuted, the prevalence of those offences may be increased, to the general detriment of society as a whole. Yet, Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, would introduce a mechanism for capping the amounts payable to prosecutors for their costs and cannot be read in any other way.

My understanding is that the Government say they will consult on this proposal to cap prosecution costs recovery but want to see a reserved power in this Bill first. We think that is the wrong way round. The Government should carry out their consultation and then, in the light of the consultation, abandon, as we would hope, the idea of a cap on costs recovery or introduce any necessary legislation, following and taking into account the results of the consultation. It follows that Clause 12 is an utterly undesirable clause. It is not worth saving and cannot be saved, and we therefore support Amendment 20, which would remove it from this Bill.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendment 29. During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we discussed the concern about early release schemes for those categories of offenders in some detail. As a result, about two weeks ago, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, kindly had a meeting after the passage of the Act. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, were there to talk to the Minister about our concerns.

The outcome of that—had I thought of it, I would have spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to inform him—is agreement by the MoJ to form a working party with the offices of both the commissioners and their teams to review the scheme and the training of the Probation Service and start using some of the expertise of the third sector and its knowledge of the perpetrators and experience of the victims. That will be fed into the training of the Probation Service. There is a very positive move going on within the MoJ which I hope and think will directly address the concerns the noble and learned Lord mentioned when he was speaking to Amendment 29.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendments 79 to 81 would make the 56-day fixed period of recall a maximum period and not a fixed period, while my Amendment 87 would make automatic release after a recall subject to an exclusion in those cases where it applied, particularly for serious offenders.

Recalls can and often do follow relatively trivial breaches of licence conditions, and that is one of the criticisms that is frequently made of recalls from licence. The 56-day fixed period of recall addresses the question of how long a recall should be and prevents it being indefinite, but we suggest that 56 days may be in some circumstances too long, so we would prefer a flexible period. The 56-day fixed period under the Bill would apply irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, and it may often therefore be unjust. Eight weeks is a long time, and it may be far too long. As we know, it may follow, for example, a prisoner simply missing a probation appointment.

As I pointed out in Committee, recall is likely to cost an offender who had found employment following a release on licence—we have heard how important finding a job is for offenders. Where such an offender has found work, the recall may jeopardise that. It might risk a newly released offender’s housing—again, we know how difficult it is to find housing—or participation in educational, skills or vocational programmes or other rehabilitative programmes. Indeed, more seriously, it might affect an offender’s mental health treatment or treatment for addiction or substance abuse or gambling addiction.

A shorter recall might also carry those risks, but the likelihood is far less, and in a case where a shorter recall would be appropriate, those consequences should be avoided. Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of licence conditions would not reduce the prison capacity shortage; indeed, it would make it worse. A shorter recall might mitigate that.

However, there are cases where a 56-day recall may be too short. Our Amendment 87 seeks for the automatic release provision to take effect subject to a provision excluding that automatic release for those who had committed more serious offences. The list of offences, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, pointed out, is a list that his party have adopted for other purposes, but in this case we accept it as a list of serious offences. However, the point about this part is that it only applies to exclude automatic recall, so that recall would be discretionary. That would apply for serious sexual offenders and for stalkers who had been recalled for harassing or stalking their victims on a repeat occasion. They would not be entitled to automatic release.

This short suite of amendments introduces an element of flexibility into the recall system. It seeks for the 56 days to be a maximum period and where it was too long it would not be applied. In the case of a serious offender whose recall ought to be much longer, it would not lead to automatic release. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 82, 83 and 86 in my name. This is a continuation of a discussion that we had in Committee, which is particularly focused on concern about the unintended consequences of domestic abuse perpetrators being released when they still present a potential grave danger to the women that they were abusing and the women’s families and children.

We and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner welcome the measures in this Bill to improve the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators and the commitment from government to resource HM Prison and Probation Service to increase its capacity to do better. There is also much to be welcomed in the VAWG strategy—so much that you wonder whether it will be possible to do it all. The ambition is laudable; the proof will be in the implementation. We want to highlight that achieving this laudable commitment requires improvements across the criminal justice system that are embedded to ensure that victims and survivors are kept safer than they have been to date.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the time that he spent with me and with some of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s officials. We had a very interesting meeting with Kim Thornden-Edwards, the new Chief Probation Officer for England and Wales, whom I found to be very formidable indeed. Speaking as a former headhunter, I would say that whoever chose her did an excellent job. She will up the game of the Probation Service and turbocharge it, which it needs.

We also welcome the assurances given around investment in the system and the improvements to the processes, which are very necessary. However, the key concern is that this cannot be achieved rapidly and certainly not overnight. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner remains highly concerned that mistakes may be made and that some mistakes may have very unfortunate consequences. Her concern is to mitigate that to the extent that it is possible.

In Committee, the Minister proposed amendments that would ensure that any offender recalled on the basis of contact with their victim would not be automatically released after 56 days but would be risk assessed and held in custody until their risk to the victim has reduced and can be safely managed in the community. Although we are reassured by the investment into prisons and probation and the commitments to improve the risk-assessment process, it is absolutely critical that safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible to prevent the release of the wrong people by mistake.

I anticipate that the response of the Minister to the amendments that have been laid, and which I am talking to, will be, essentially, that there is a programme in place across the system to improve a whole range of areas, including the identification of domestic abuse perpetrators and the level of risk they present, and that to try to carve out a particular area for specific oversight separately to the rest is unhelpful to the programme as it is conceived. I can understand and accept that.