Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the point that the noble Lord made about Andrew Malkinson, who suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice. I understand there has been an interim payment made to him and that it is currently under consideration what the final award will be. My understanding is that the CCRC commissioned its own separate independent review into its handling of Malkinson’s issue and the applications, led by Chris Henley KC. The review, published in July 2024, set out multiple organisational and individual failings leading to that miscarriage of justice. That forms part of the overall review to which I have referred in earlier answers.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the sixth recommendation—recommendation F—of Chris Henley’s report of July of last year, what steps is the commission taking in particular to track and revisit unsuccessful forensic inquiries, including tests which do not produce profiles or produce only partial and incomplete profiles, which produce complete profiles that do not produce a match, or which produce developments in areas other than DNA? Is the commission now acting on advice from the national DNA database? I appreciate these are detailed questions. If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. I think I am right in saying that there has been additional money put into the forensic side of the work done by the CCRC. If there is additional information which I need to impart to the House or to the noble Lord, I will put that in a letter.

Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his committed statement. I thank the Minister for his helpful and thoughtful introduction.

I rise on the principle that the Executive should be held to account—in this instance briefly and positively—and to acknowledge that it is traditional to get orders and regulations through in the way we do, week in, week out in your Lordships’ House. The usual channels usually get it right, but so often our regulations and orders affect thousands or millions of people. Perhaps more of them should have been debated more closely, sometimes even in the Chamber.

However, having read the declaration in the informative Explanatory Memorandum, who would wish to challenge these regulations? The Minister in another place is a KC, and we have the deputy director for civil justice and law policy at the Ministry of Justice, and the most persuasive and courteous of Ministers in your Lordships’ House—and the instrument is laid by command of His Majesty.

I support and welcome the regulations, which offer increased amounts. This and only this differentiates them from the 2021 regulations. The legal framework has not changed. If lower premiums follow, so much the better, but one notes that premiums are imposed by the insurance industry, which does not always deliver on what it infers should be the case.

Can the Minister indicate how many whiplash cases entered our courts in, say, 2022 and 2023? That response may come later, rather than here and now, but can he reference in it the numbers for Wales, as well as those for England? Does the department have any rough estimate—for that is all it can be—of the percentage of likely fraudulent and contrived cases that enter our courts?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister outlined, these regulations follow the Government’s statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. The proposed amendments would increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 from 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. This increase is intended, as we have heard, to reflect inflation since the original tariffs were introduced. It includes a forecasted buffer to cover inflation over the next three years.

The whiplash tariff system introduced by the previous Conservative Administration was aimed at reducing the number and cost of minor injury claims and lowering motor insurance premiums. It introduced fixed compensation levels for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents and moved away from case-by-case judicial assessment. The structure of the tariff is not altered by this instrument; what changes is the monetary value assigned to each tariff band. The uplift of 15% is designed to reflect inflation since 2021; it includes a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next statutory review, scheduled for 2027.

In principle, we support this change. It is reasonable that compensation should keep pace with the cost of living. We also welcome the Ministry of Justice’s stated intention to work with MedCo to improve the quality and consistency of medical reporting. Reliable, clear medical evidence is essential to the fair operation of this system, but we have some questions and concerns.

This instrument introduces a significant and untested change in how compensation levels are set. Rather than updating tariff figures in legislation, as had been the practice, this uplift includes a forward-looking inflation buffer based on economic forecasts. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, this is without precedent: no other statutory compensation scheme relies on forecasted inflation in this way. Forecasts, as we know, are often subject to revision and uncertainty. There is a real risk that this buffer may underestimate actual inflation, leaving claimants undercompensated over time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on this point. What assurances can be given that the inflation buffer will be accurate and what mechanism will be in place to ensure that claimants are not short-changed if those forecasts prove incorrect?

In addition, we are concerned about how the Government have represented feedback from their public consultation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made it clear that over 90% of respondents opposed the buffer model. That is not a mixed view, even if the reasons given differed; it is, in fact, an overwhelmingly critical view.

We also note continuing concerns raised by third parties. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society, for example, said that the tariff system and the official injury claims portal have damaged access to justice, particularly for those unfamiliar with legal processes or without representation. It also argues that the original tariff amounts were too low—significantly lower than those typically awarded under Judicial College guidelines for comparable injuries outside a motor vehicle context. While this instrument focuses narrowly on adjusting tariff levels, it is part of a much wider macro-reform framework that remains highly contentious.

In conclusion, we support the uplift proposal in this instrument; ensuring that compensation keeps pace with inflation is necessary and fair. However, this policy cannot be left to run on autopilot. It must be subject to scrutiny, accountability and, where necessary, reform. We will support this instrument today, but we will continue to monitor closely whether the whiplash reforms are delivering on their promises of fairness, accessibility and justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for the measures in this statutory instrument. On the points which noble Lords have made, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said he supported it, but he repeated his reservations, which he originally articulated in 2018. Just for the record, there is some judicial discretion. All tariff awards can be increased by up to 20% by the court in exceptional circumstances, so I take the noble Lord’s point but there is some judicial discretion in the level of the awards. He asked how much money has been saved. I cannot give him an answer in a figure. However, HM Treasury laid a report on this in Parliament on 27 March 2025. The report details a summary of the information provided by insurers, which have concluded that policyholders benefited from a reduction in insurance costs through paying lower premiums over the period 2020 to 2023. As it is factual reporting of the information from insurers to the Treasury via the Financial Conduct Authority, the report does not represent the Government’s findings or conclusions. Separate to this report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I hope that last point goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have no intention of running on autopilot, and all government policies are kept under review. It is certainly the intention in this case as well.

My noble friend Lord Jones was characteristically very generous in his assessment of the Government’s approach overall, so I thank him for that. Regarding the volume of claims in England and Wales, in 2022, there were 1,827, and in 2023 there were 9,335. I am afraid I do not have a breakdown of how much of that is in Wales alone. If I am able to get those figures, I will let him know. I also do not have a percentage for the likely fraudulent claims. Those numbers are not monitored as such because there are different types of fraud. Nevertheless, if there is any data that I can include in my letter to my noble friend, I will do so.

On the Explanatory Memorandum, the calls for evidence and the different views that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed to, more than 108,000 unrepresented claims have been created in the OIC portal since it since it was implemented. The proportion has increased from 9% in the first year to 12.7% as of 31 March 2025, so there is an increase in unrepresented claims, which we think is a good thing. In comparison, only 74 applications were made to the previous system by unrepresented claimants in 2021, so we think that the system is as a whole working well. Nevertheless, I do not want to give any hint of complacency. I undertake that we will continue to review the system and see that it continues to develop, as we hope it will.

Motion agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this important statutory instrument. We on these Benches support the intent behind these reforms. We welcome efforts to modernise legal aid and to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not excluded from justice due to arbitrary procedural barriers or outdated definitions in law. This order reflects and builds on developments introduced by the previous Conservative Administration, particularly through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and recent updates to the Home Office Immigration Rules, notably Appendix VDA.

The extension of the Appendix VDA route is particularly significant. For too long, victims of domestic abuse who have been abandoned overseas—often as a result of coercive and controlling behaviour—have found themselves in legal limbo, unable to return to the United Kingdom or access the support they need. This change will rightly bring such individuals within the scope of legal aid for applications for leave to enter or remain. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure that information about this change is made clearly available to those who may be eligible for support but who remain outside the United Kingdom? What steps will be taken to ensure that victims who are stranded abroad are not left unaware of their rights under this amended provision?

The order also introduces a practical and necessary change to evidential requirements for private family law legal aid applications. By allowing reports from appropriately qualified overseas professionals to be accepted as valid medical evidence, it recognises that victims may not always be in the United Kingdom when they seek help. This change will reduce avoidable delays and better support families in transnational situations, but I have two questions for the Minister in respect of evidence from overseas witnesses. What steps will be taken to ensure that the evidence from overseas is from a genuinely qualified and accredited professional who, first, matches the professional standards expected of an equivalent health professional within this jurisdiction and, secondly, understands that he or she is complying with the standards of objectivity required of an expert witness complying with the rules of court in this jurisdiction? It is important that this country’s generosity is not abused.

We welcome the modernisation of language in the legislation. Replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse” and “financial abuse” with the broader concept of “economic abuse” reflects the statutory definition set out in the Domestic Abuse Act and the lived experience of many survivors. Abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional or economic and exercised through control over finances, housing or access to essentials. The updated terminology will support a more comprehensive understanding of abuse among legal professionals and front-line decision- makers.

While we support the direction of travel, we will watch closely how these changes are implemented in practice. Victims whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner are often in extremely vulnerable positions. Navigating the legal system should not compound their trauma. It is essential that the Home Office and legal aid providers apply these new rules fairly, sensitively and consistently.

There is also the question of clarity and guidance. Following up my two earlier questions, I asked the Minister whether overseas health professionals will be provided with clear information on what constitutes acceptable medical evidence. Without this, there is a risk that legitimate claims may be delayed or refused due to uncertainty about evidential standards or that inadequate evidence might mislead the court. While updating legal language is important, it must be matched by practical understanding. Front-line professionals, from caseworkers to judges, must be equipped to apply these broader definitions in practice. Training and guidance will be crucial.

These reforms build on existing entitlements. They reinforce the role of legal aid as a vital route to protection, justice and stability for victims of abuse, so we support this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but we urge the Government to ensure that the implementation matches the intention and that those at greatest risk receive the support they need when they need it.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

I must therefore disappoint the noble Lord. I know that he was just being provocative by tabling these amendments, so that he could make a jolly good speech about digital assets.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, traditionally, English common law has recognised two forms of property: tangible things in possession and intangible things in action, such as debts and shares. However, as we have heard, with the rise of digital assets such as crypto- currencies, tokens and non-fungible tokens we encounter items that do not fit neatly into either category. These assets are becoming essential in modern commerce, and it is vital that English law remain at the forefront of international trade, safeguarding London’s position as a legal and financial hub.

The Law Commission looked at this and proposed a third category of property to accommodate such digital innovations, allowing for legal evolution without imposing rigid definitions that might exclude future technologies. The commission emphasised that statutory intervention must not undermine the existing legal clarity or introduce unnecessary complications. The flexibility of English common law is a strength; it has already adapted to address key questions in the digital sphere. The current regime offers a balance of predictability and adaptability, making our jurisdiction well positioned to lead in this space.

The Bill the commission drafted, which is now before us, does just that. We have tested it thoroughly in Committee. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and while I recognise them, the Bill has been carefully drafted and it is not necessary to amend it—save for Amendment 6, which we will come to later.

Addressing Amendments 1 and 2 in a little more detail, it will be for the courts to develop the law on the treatment of this category or to widen existing categories—whichever way one wishes to look at it. The proposed wording of Amendment 1 goes too far. The Bill’s wording is elegant and encompasses digital assets, which are not easily categorised in the conventional classifications. It also encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination but which, when they do come into existence, will be thought by the courts to deserve rights. That is what the Bill is doing; it is expressly not limited by over-definition. It achieves protection for these as yet unimagined things, while making it clear that existing digital assets will be protected.

We would be bold to depart from the views of Professor Green, chair of the Law Commission report, who is very hostile to this sort of amendment. When asked about one such suggested amendment, she said:

“That would really take away the whole bite of the Bill … the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.


Therefore, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 2.

Turning to Amendment 3, on codes of practice, we follow the reasoning which I have outlined. Any code of practice risks definitions which do not accommodate a new type of activity or entity outside its scope, but which is worthy of protection. Equally, the code might suggest that property rights be given to an activity which, after the detailed investigation that a trial can give, a court rightly decides should not be so protected. It is best left to the courts, which will receive evidence, hear arguments from competing parties and be able to resolve those matters. The six-month period is too soon. If the Law Commission had thought this a good idea, it could have said so. It is contrary to the tenor of its lengthy report. If the Act would, in five years’ time or whenever, benefit from amendment, it should be done with the benefit of hindsight and experience. Meanwhile, such amendment is premature.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for raising these issues. They get to the heart of the Bill: whether there is a need to recognise a further category in statute, and whether it is helpful to provide further guidance to the courts on the attributes to consider.

On the first of these points, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. Some stakeholders hold to the two-category view and say that there can be no further category beyond things in action and things in possession. This view is understandable but has its roots in history, including in an influential statement in a 19th-century case. That statement was made at a time when assets such as crypto tokens simply could not have been conceived of. The world has moved on, and the law needs to move on with it.

The Special Public Bill Committee heard from stakeholders who would prefer to see these emerging assets categorised as things in action, on the basis that their approach would give more legal certainty. However, the need for new solutions is the result of the unique features of these assets and not of their categorisation. For example, the existing rules on transfer of things in action, or on remedies for interference in things in action, are simply not adequate for assets such as crypto tokens. Either way, the law, through the courts, will have to respond to their new features.

The Bill is the result of a three-year project by the Law Commission during which all arguments, including the arguments in favour of this amendment, were considered in full. A strong majority of consultees to both consultations undertaken by the commission expressed a preference for a further category. Most respondents to the committee’s call for evidence also supported this approach. This approach came from a wide range of stakeholders—from legal professionals to industry bodies and academics.

Another advantage of the Bill’s approach is that it is technologically neutral. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, excellently put it in Committee, the Bill

“encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 16.]

The Bill future-proofs our law in the way the other two categories do not. As Professor Green put it in her evidence, as quoted by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sandhurst,

“the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.

By removing any uncertainty around a possible further category, we will give the courts the freedom to develop our common law. This approach allows them to consider and respond to the unique features of digital assets, and other assets that we cannot yet foresee.

This flexibility is also relevant to the question raised by Amendment 3: whether the Secretary of State should publish codes of practice about the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The Government’s view is that requiring the publication of codes of practice could undermine the flexibility that the current drafting affords the courts. The Law Commission considered the features of assets that have characteristics of property but do not fit into the existing categories. However, City law firms, senior barristers, financial industry groups and crypto industry groups gave clear feedback that a more detailed statutory provision incorporating these features could be counter- productive.

The Government are concerned that the same issues could stem from publishing a code of practice. It could create unhelpful boundary challenges, lead to undue complexity, and prevent the common law being able to respond flexibly and dynamically to new technologies and unforeseen challenges. This feedback was reflected in some of the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee.

As noble Lords will remember, the Bill Committee was firmly in favour of maintaining the Bill’s current approach. My noble friend Lord Stansgate got to the heart of the matter when he said:

“The whole point of the Bill is to set out something relatively simple, to take into account new technology and to enable judges to develop common law”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 19.]


As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so eloquently put it:

“The relative silence of the current Bill is golden”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 20.]


The Bill deliberately does not try to define the types of assets that may fall within its scope. Rather, it unblocks the common law and leaves it to the courts to develop the appropriate principles, building on centuries of world-renowned common-law development. By doing this, English and Welsh and Northern Ireland law can remain dynamic, globally competitive and a useful tool for those in the digital asset market. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I can be extremely brief because I agree with much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is nothing if not consistent. We had data centres brought up in the Data (Use and Access) Bill and in this Bill, and I am sure he will ruthlessly bring up data centres on every possible occasion. Of course, the Government need a data centre strategy but the primary purpose of this Bill is very specific: to resolve the Colonial Bank v Whinney issue that the Law Commission wished to do. That is what we should be focused on today.

The Bill does not make digital assets property. It removes a legal barrier to their recognition as such by confirming that the traditional twofold classification is not exhaustive. That is all the Bill does, so I think that requiring a comprehensive economic impact assessment does not flow directly from this very narrow but useful Bill. I feel the same way about Amendment 5, which proposes a review within six months. Again, that goes way too far. Framing the review as being triggered

“due to any such digital assets being treated as property by virtue of this Act”

suggests that the Bill creates the property status, which is misleading.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, already knows all the arguments against his amendments so I shall carry on no further.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, an impact assessment is not practicable, whether in six months’ or three months’ time, we respectfully suggest. It would be premised on too many uncertainties. What we know is that the Bill will do no harm and is likely to do good. We have, if you like, the theoretical impact assessment of the Law Commission, which looked at all the issues in great detail. So, I suggest that we do not need this amendment, and we would not support it.

As to Amendment 5, six months’ time is, again, with respect, too short. I would suggest in parentheses that a review in five years’ time to see whether it is useful, whether it needs further amendment, how it is operating and what the effect is on the London market and litigation in London, could well be of value. Whether it needs a formal assessment or not is something that can be looked at four years down the road, but this is early days. We simply do not know enough. With respect to my noble friend, a review in a few months’ time will not help us at all. We do not support the amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, at the outset, I acknowledge the long-standing advocacy for technological innovation of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I also pay tribute to his deep commitment to ensuring that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose in an increasingly digital world.

These amendments would mandate reviews of the impact of digital assets being treated as property by virtue of the Bill’s provisions. One amendment requires the Government to publish an economic impact assessment of the Bill on the day the Act is passed. As noble Lords will know, the Government published an impact assessment when introducing the Bill. I hope it will assist and reassure noble Lords if I highlight some of the most salient points.

As the impact assessment sets out, the Bill is expected to bring clarity to personal property law, reduce uncertainty for businesses and ensure England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain leading locations in which to innovate. Due to limited data, it is very hard, if not impossible, to quantify these benefits. However, we think the Bill will help ensure our laws remain competitive on an international stage.

The impact assessment considered the potential for the Bill to encourage the use of digital assets. However, this impact is highly debateable, given the Bill merely confirms the position that has been gradually emerging through case law in recent years. It is not expected or intended that the Bill will cause a significant increase in uptake of digital assets.

The same amendment calls for the impact assessment to cover the estimated change in demand for, and use of, digital assets. The assessment would also have to cover data centre power usage, the current level of data centre power provision and its ability to meet any increase in demand for digital assets. This follows on from the points the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made in Committee. He mentioned that he would like to hear that the Government are committed to data centres being fuelled through renewable energy and a discussion around where data centres would be located, given the value they can bring to the country. Although these are important points, they sit outside the remit of the Bill.

I say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that whether a data centre is in space or not is also outside the relevant part of the Bill.

Furthermore, it would likely be impossible to accurately estimate the long-term effect of the Bill on data centres. There are many greater influences on these areas, such as cloud computing, AI and general data storage. This will make it extremely difficult to assess the impact of the Bill. Therefore, such a review could result in speculative or misleading conclusions.

The other amendment calls for reviewing the

“need for further regulation of stablecoins and tokenised deposits”

within six months of the Act passing. Here, I reiterate that the Bill does not specify how the courts will treat these particular digital assets. If they were considered personal property under the Bill, this would not affect the need—or not—for regulation. The Bill deals only with a discrete matter of private law. Therefore, the proposed review is unlikely to yield any meaningful conclusions.

Moreover, issues around regulating stablecoins and tokenised deposits are already being addressed. The Government’s forthcoming financial services regulatory regime of crypto assets will include a new regulated activity for stablecoin issuance in the UK. Overseas-issued stablecoin will be regulated in the UK in line with other crypto assets. This will ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority can properly manage stablecoin-specific risks.

In addition, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published its views on the risks associated with tokenised deposits and how it expects banks to address those risks. Where tokenisation does not change the underlying economics and fundamental nature of a depositor’s claim, the PRA’s prudential regulatory framework will treat a tokenised deposit similarly to a traditional deposit. Where banks intend to take tokenised deposits from retail customers, the PRA expects this to be done in a way that meets the PRA’s rules for eligibility for depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The Bill takes a minimalist approach to achieve the specific aim of unblocking the common law on personal property. While I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity to debate these amendments, the Government fear that they could cause unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory duplication, which could increase uncertainty rather than alleviate it.

As set out already, we think there are significant benefits of the Bill, such as bringing clarity to English, Welsh and Northern Irish law and keeping it world leading. We will, of course, monitor those benefits closely in the future. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, add to our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who was a very good chair. It was a very harmonious committee, as these Law Commission Committees tend to be. I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for a change, but it is very lucky we did not pass Amendment 1, that is all I can say.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we support this amendment, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for all the hard work which he put in and to our excellent clerk, Matthew Burton. It is a pleasure now to see this Bill reach a happy conclusion, I hope.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to restate the Long Title of the Bill, and I have put my name to it as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said. The amendment was tabled by the noble Lord but was suggested by Adam Temple, a senior barrister who specialises in financial services, when he gave evidence. This amendment addresses a slight discrepancy between the wording in the Long Title and the Bill’s operative clause. This discrepancy in wording came about following the Law Commission consultation on the draft Bill, which led to Clause 1 being amended to address concerns that it could be read as providing that any thing was capable of being personal property. That is not the intended effect of the Bill. Therefore, the wording changed from saying that a thing may be capable of being an object of property rights to instead saying that a thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it does not fit into the traditional categories of things in possession or things in action.

At the time of drafting, the Law Commission did not feel it was necessary to make a corresponding change to the Long Title. However, several noble Lords raised concerns about this discrepancy during our Committee debate and asked the Government to consider it further. Having reflected carefully, we are satisfied that making this change will not have any substantive effect. We are therefore content to accept this amendment so that the Long Title is consistent with the operative clause of the Bill. I end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive discussions on this point. As for thanking noble Lords, I will leave that to the last stage of the Bill.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chair of the Bar Council and recorder of the Crown Court. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and welcome her to this House.

The context today was set for me by the survey just published showing that one in three criminal barristers is considering leaving criminal work because they say they work too hard for too little. That will only make things worse.

From 2009-10 to 2022-23, the last year we have, public funding for justice in England and Wales had declined by over 22% in real terms. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Justice budget is about 1% of the health budget. Obviously, some backlog in the Crown Court is inevitable. Cases waiting to be tried need time for proper preparation. The issue is not the backlog but the deficit—the failure—in the system to properly cope with it.

The backlog, we have heard, is caused by many different factors, but especially, I suggest, reduced court sitting days and too few criminal barristers and those with the right certification and approval to take serious criminal cases, such as rape cases and so on. I welcome the Government’s recent decision to raise the sitting-day cap to 110,000 in the next financial year, but there must be adequate funding to ensure that these new available sitting days are properly used.

The number of cases coming into the Crown Court routinely exceeds disposals. In the third quarter of 2024, over 31,000 cases were received into the Crown Court—a 12% increase on the previous year. This rising tide must be controlled and reversed. The number of cases in the backlog, as we have seen, has continued to rise over time.

What are we going to do to tackle that backlog? We have had a number of suggestions. One made by the Bar Council was that the CPS must give more consideration to the better use of cautions and conditional cautions for low-level offending by those of relatively good character who are not likely to receive prison sentences. The CPS should also consider whether a summary charge, with the consequences of summary trial, may be sufficient for many cases, particularly now that the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts has been increased.

I endorse the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, with his experience as Lord Chief Justice, that we should look very seriously at an intermediate court of a judge sitting with justices.

The court estate must be used to full capacity. The cap on sitting days for the Crown Court must be removed. Better fees must be paid to criminal and defence barristers to ensure that we have enough to meet the demand. Some 20 years ago, as chair of the Bar Council, I urged the then Department for Constitutional Affairs to pay properly for pretrial case management—nothing was done, and we have the current mess because of that.

There we are. Delay damages victims, witnesses and defendants, and it destroys this country’s reputation for justice. We must do better.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I back 100% my noble friend Lady Owen’s amendments and pay tribute to the powerful contributions to this debate. I have spent the past year working on a pornography review, which I hope the Government will publish as soon as possible. I back these amendments 100%. This is an industry that is out of control and growing. There are so many victims—there are victims in the past and there will be many victims in the future. If these amendments are not backed, the Government will be falling short and failing those victims. I do not believe that this Government want to fall short; I have huge faith that they want to meet their targets on halving VAWG over the next few years. They will not meet that target, however, if they do not act bravely and take thorough, proper decisions on these kinds of crimes. We must back these amendments.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be very short; there are three points. First, it must be right to include solicitation; it is integral to the success of this Bill, and it is necessary to do so. Secondly, to omit “reasonable excuse” is obviously right. It would be incompatible with the Bill to include it. Thirdly, it must be right to have imprisonment as a sentencing option in appropriate cases. What about someone who has done it before, particularly in respect of the same victim?

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say just one thing. In light of what has been said, I urge the Government to accept these amendments. They will do themselves no credit by resisting them, and I am certain the amendments will be passed.

Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. When I was in opposition, he made a point of encouraging me to visit a pathfinder court in Dorset. I was very impressed by what I saw, and the Government are pleased to carry on that initiative. Again, I am afraid the further rollout of pathfinder is also subject to those allocation discussions, which are ongoing, but I absolutely endorse the point my noble friend makes about the importance of pathfinder, not least because it is a way of highlighting and cracking down on domestic abuse in the court system.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, until 2012, there was funding for the excellent support scheme for specialist providers of social welfare and housing law. What consideration are the Government giving to its revival? If the Minister is not aware of plans, will he undertake to look at this?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I will undertake to look at that. I am not aware of it in detail; I know that various pilots have been undertaken. I will write to the noble Lord.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Second reading committee
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. I am grateful, as are others, to the Minister for his careful opening.

On this side we welcome the Bill. It may be small in size but it is big in importance, and we may yet find that it is perfectly formed. The last Conservative Administration deserves credit, I suggest, for having asked the Law Commission in 2020 to review this field of law. It is also very timely that we are debating this during the presidential election, because I see from my phone that bitcoin has risen over 7% in value today. So, this is an important, real topic for many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Law Commission has produced two admirable reports. The Bill, we suggest, is a necessary but appropriately constrained measure. I shall be interested to hear the evidence in Committee, but it is plain that such a Bill is necessary to clarify the definition of what is capable of being property and to give enforceable rights where there might otherwise be doubt.

The English common law has given property rights to two categories of thing, as we have heard: so-called things in possession, which are generally tangible, visible objects, and so-called things in action, such as debts, and the rights to sue for breach of contract and company shares.

However, the world moves fast, and we are now confronted with digital assets. These sit less easily in our current definitions. They can include crypto tokens, cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens. They are increasingly important to modern society, whether we personally like them or not. It is important that we keep the strong position that English common law holds in international trade, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, reminded us. We need to enforce the position of the City of London and the role of its lawyers in the important commerce that they bring to this country, and the tax and other benefits which flow from that.

There is a need for action to enable ongoing innovation growth in the sector. This has given rise to the Law Commission’s definition of a third category of property. It should take account of recent technological developments without creating hard boundaries which exclude or misdescribe future categories of property as yet unimagined.

The Law Commission is of the view that the common law of England is the better vehicle for determining those things that properly can and should be the object of personal property rights. They need not necessarily even be digital things. It points out that they could include, for example, carbon emission allowances. The world moves fast, and the law must keep up, but it cannot anticipate everything. As the Law Commission points out, an overprescriptive definition will leave things frozen in time.

In chapter 2 of its July report, the commission explains that the common law is in general sufficiently flexible and already able to accommodate digital assets. It agreed with Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, who, speaking extrajudicially, said:

“We should try to avoid the creation of a new legal and regulatory regime that will discourage the use of new technologies rather than provide the foundation for them to flourish”.


The Law Commission concluded that it should take a tripartite approach to law reform. First, the common law is in general sufficiently flexible and already able to accommodate digital assets, so any law reform should be through further common law development where possible. Secondly, it recommended targeted statutory law reform and no more. That should confirm and support the existing common law position or fill a gap where common law development is not realistically possible. Thirdly, it said the making of arrangements for the provision of further guidance from industry experts should occur. We are not concerned with that third category.

So, the commission concluded, the law in England and Wales is now relatively certain. Most areas of residual legal uncertainty are highly nuanced and complex, in part because both the digital asset markets and the technology that supports them continue to evolve. Although some digital assets are not easy to place in traditional categories of things to which personal property rights can relate, this does not prevent them from being capable of attracting personal property rights.

The commission has said that it is clear what should take place in common law. It was persuaded by consultees that it would be helpful to express in legislation that certain digital assets are capable of attracting personal property rights and, therefore, to support the existing common law and take away any uncertainty. It set out certain principles that are beyond argument, I suggest. We should champion and support the inherent flexibility of the common law; it is already sufficiently flexible to accommodate most, if not all, digital assets. We should seek by statute only to confirm the existing common law position or to reform it where the common law cannot develop the legal certainty that the market requires. We must ensure that there is consistency with other legal and regulatory regimes where possible.

English common law has already proved resilient in the face of new technology. It has been flexible enough to answer legal questions concerning digital assets. It is developing a sophisticated regime that recognises and protects the newest features. It provides the market with a good balance of certainty and flexibility. Our English jurisdiction is well placed to provide a coherent and globally relevant legal regime for existing and new types of digital asset. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said in his interesting speech, if the Bill leaves gaps—particularly in respect of non-fungible tokens in the art market—we should examine the potential remedies, if there are any, in Committee. However, intervention by statute should not undermine the high level of existing certainty, lead to undue complexity or create a significant risk of boundary issues—the Law Commission was clear on that—because the wrong sort of statutory intervention might not be capable of distinguishing between different implementations of similar technology in the way the common law can.

The Bill, with its one simple clause, is the product of much deliberation at the highest level. The definition has been drafted with great care. I note the subtle differences between the version now before this Committee and the earlier draft, produced in February. The Committee will hear evidence about whether that balance is now right and whether there are appropriate additions or amendments, but, to me, at the present time, it is plain that the draft before us should not be amended without compelling reasons. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Prisoners: Early Release Scheme

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sandhurst]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent criminals who have been released under the prisoner early release scheme from reoffending.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

After inheriting a prison system on the brink of collapse, we had no choice but to introduce emergency measures, releasing some prisoners a few weeks or months early. Unlike the end of custody supervised licence scheme, or ECSL, introduced by the last Government, SDS40 had an implementation period that allowed prison and probation staff properly to prepare for release, helping us to reduce the risk of reoffending. Planning for release includes having temporary accommodation for those at risk of homelessness; access to employment; and continuity of mental health and substance misuse provision. Those released under SDS40 will also be subject to strict licence conditions. If offenders break those conditions or commit further crimes, they will be punished and could be immediately recalled to prison.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome him to Question Time. More than 3,000 prisoners serving terms of more than four years for serious offences are due to be released this week, starting from tomorrow. Martin Jones, the Chief Inspector of Probation, told the BBC that it was a certainty that around one-third would reoffend. Of those released in the first batch in September, how many have been recalled to date in connection with a subsequent suspected offence of violence?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We do not yet have all the exact figures but, when they are verified, we will publish them in the normal way. However, the noble Lord is correct that we have inherited a system that is very difficult, in which far too many people are recalled. For the second SDS40 stage, we are as ready as we can be. Victim contact data is very reassuring but, as in a lot of areas that we are dealing with in respect of full prisons, it is not as straightforward as I would like.

Community Sentences (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this debate from this side of the House. I was and indeed remain a very happy member of the committee. I am also the executive chair of the committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers.

As others have noted, if it is properly managed through rigorous sentences served in the community, crime can be reduced. With proper investment, intensive community sentences can more often succeed where short custodial sentences too often fail. Only this week, the Secretary of State for Justice observed that

“too often our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 835.]

Nearly 80% of offending is reoffending.

These important points were acknowledged by the previous Government at the end of February this year in their response to the committee’s report. The previous Administration was working to improve the quality of community sentence delivery, from the earliest stages of advice to the court through to the delivery of requirements and supervision. They were seeking to ensure the delivery of robust community sentences and had recognised that there was more work to be done. So too, the previous Government acknowledged the persuasive evidence that community sentences can be more effective than custodial sentences in reducing reoffending and rehabilitating offenders.

I shall now highlight the committee’s more significant proposals, together with the synchronicity of the previous Government’s responses. I note the approving remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in that respect.

Custody, while sometimes necessary, is expensive and fuels reoffending, as others have said today. Community orders are a sound alternative in many cases—not all, of course, but many. Mechanisms to deal with breaches mean that offenders are now being held to account. We know too that over 50% of people sentenced to custody for up to 12 months go on to reoffend within a year. However, for those on community orders, the figures are different: the reoffending rate is 36%. Where there has been a suspended sentence order coupled with requirements, the reoffending rate is lower still: only 24%. That is significant; it is a pointer to the way forward.

The last Government acknowledged the persuasive evidence that community sentences are, in certain circumstances, more effective than short custodial sentences in reducing re-offending. Policy should therefore build on what the last Government started. We should now have more sentences that do not result in immediate short-term prison terms. But identifying the right candidates for non-custodial sentences is crucial. The public must be won over and must have confidence in what is being done. So, what steps will government take to work with the Sentencing Council and the Probation Service to identify criteria to help guide the judges to move in the direction of fewer short-term prison sentences?

Since 2020, under the last Government, over 4,000 trainee probation officers have been recruited. The judicial forum now meets quarterly at a senior level to share information about new projects and to get feedback on probation performance. The last Government deserve credit. The Sentencing Bill of 2023 would have imposed a duty on courts to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less. That Bill was lost with the Dissolution. Like community orders, suspended sentences are available for courts as a robust community-based sentencing disposal and an alternative to immediate custody. So, as there is no mention in the gracious Speech of the Sentencing Bill, which was lost, do the Government intend to revive it? If not, why not?

The committee was clear that government should invest in the services that underpin community orders, and there should be an emphasis on intensive treatment whose effectiveness is established. The previous Government had already invested over £500 million in the treatment and recovery provisions in the first three years of the drugs strategy plan. The committee concluded that a greater proportion of people on probation should be serving sentences with “one or more” treatment requirements. This policy has already been pushed forward, and more orders of this kind are being made, with drug rehabilitation, alcohol treatment or mental health treatment requirements being attached. We have made a start, and it must be carried through, as other noble Lords have said. Will there be further investment in community sentence treatment requirements, which the committee believed should be a priority and key to reducing re-offenders, putting offenders on a path away from crime and protecting the public?

Pilot schemes to incentivise offenders, such as that for deferred sentencing, can encourage offenders to engage in probation and to change their behaviour. The pilot schemes for these and for intensive-supervision courts, started by the last Government, should be pursued and developed where they show promise. Monitoring will be important.

Young offenders bring a subset of problems of their own. As we have heard, there is a cliff edge when they move from the youth justice services to the adult Probation Service. It is not straightforward. They are young adults—often young males, who do not reach psychological maturity until around 25. The last Government acknowledged this and had it very much in mind. Age-appropriate solutions must be implemented to smooth the transition. So, what proposals do the Government have to address the transition of young offenders to adult probation services at 18?

Local entities are key to securing meaningful unpaid work placements and to fostering public support for community sentences. That means that we have to ensure that smaller organisations are enabled and helped to bid for contracts and offered administrative support. To date, the Probation Service has not always made the most of partnerships with local organisations outside the formal commissioning process. Government can spur this on and encourage. There has been a start; the Probation Service must do more in this respect.

The provisions which I have outlined, taken as a whole, are crucial to the management and disposal of lower-level offenders. Supervision of lower-level offenders is essential to the mission of the Probation Service. If people are properly managed, we all benefit.

To conclude, the unification of the Probation Service has been successful. There have been praiseworthy increases in recruitment. Progress has been made in absorbing the new recruits. Now is the time, as others have said, to educate the public that locking up relatively—I emphasise “relatively”—low-level offenders is often not the answer. The previous Government recognised this in their helpful response given in February of this year. They were moving energetically to implement change and to drive the Probation Service and the judiciary forward in this respect. It is vital that our new Government do not give up on this. I have every hope that this new Minister will give serious weight to our report. If not, we are watching.