Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Before you come in on that point, Katie, obviously you will be aware of the new domestic abuse flag that we are bringing in as part of the sentencing review, so that will be possible in future.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very pleased about that. It is a big step forward.

Katie Kempen: I agree with Nicole. We support the extension of the victim contact scheme, and we think it is hugely valuable to have that access to information—victims tell us that all the time. As has been said, in the last year or so, it would have been an invaluable resource for victims to be able to access.

On Nicole’s concerns about resourcing, as an organisation that runs a helpline, I would say that up to £200,000 for the helpline feels quite optimistic. The operational challenges that we bump into include that people are often in mental health distress when they access these contact lines, so the calls take longer and you need your staff to be trained in safeguarding, data protection, referrals and so on, which all takes time and investment.

The other element from our perspective is the knock-on impact this will have on victim services. It is estimated that the phone call will last about 28 minutes, and we will then need to pick it up and explain to the victim what their rights are, where they can go from here and where they can get further information. Undoubtedly, we will need to give additional emotional support—the phone call is likely to be quite traumatic for them. We need to see additional investment in the victim services that will be picking up the additional demand that comes from the scheme, although I would say it is a hugely welcome step forward.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Q What do you think will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme?

Katie Kempen: We think it is clear and makes it quite accessible. From our perspective, if possible, we would like to see the eligibility for the victim contact scheme to go to all victims of domestic abuse. As Nicole mentioned, a person might not be convicted of a DA-related offence, but there is none the less an impact on the victim. You have referred to flagging as part of the sentencing review, and we think that could help. Where possible, we would like to see it extended. However, it seems as though the reforms will make it easier and clearer for victims to access support information.

Baroness Newlove: I agree.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would just underscore for the Committee that the inclusion of children is very important. I recently published a report on children, “Victims in their own right?”—that question mark was on purpose. One aspect of the report was mapping 700 services for children in England and Wales, and the fact that one in five say that they do not have adequate funding, which had led to curtailment.

If I had to name one of the largest gaps we have in victim services—I would say there are gaps across the board—it is the huge gap in relation to children. That goes back to this continual theme. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act, we have the duty to collaborate. I was a huge champion for that, and I am now very involved in its enactment, but it does not create any new funds for services for victims; it says to local areas, “You have a duty to collaborate on the funding streams that currently exist”.

I would say that a huge gap in this Bill is a duty to fund community-based services. Without wishing to embarrass Katie by talking about the incredible work that is done by Victim Support, there is a range of services that are the foundation of support for victims. They do not sit in core budgets like other kinds of public services do. That is one thing we have to fundamentally address for victims to have that kind of end-to-end support. I will not labour it any more, but I have to point out the biggest gap. It is great to have children defined, but what does that mean?

Katie Kempen: The reality for us is that the budgets for commissioning services are being cut, so the services that we can provide are being cut. The increase in national insurance contributions has obviously hit the sector really hard as well. We support all this work to improve the victim experience, but it needs to go hand in hand with a well-resourced victim sector that can take victims from the point of the crime occurring—even pre-charge and pre-contacting the police—right to the end of the criminal justice process.

Baroness Newlove: Can I bring it back to the information for victims? The one thing I am really concerned about is the importance of what information is given to victims, because it is very patchy. They are being told, “We cannot tell you whether the offender has been released”, and they cannot be told where the offender lives or what the offender knows about their exclusion zones. I truly welcome the fact that we will hopefully turn it into a restriction zone, because I have mapped my life out, and I have three offenders who know exactly where I am.

More importantly, the information takes too long and is very clunky. The victim liaison officer tries to do as much as they can, but I think this is an ideal opportunity—I am looking at the Minister—to let the victim know that, if the offender has been released, he does not live in the area; he lives 300 miles away. That gives comfort. I have met a victim who is petrified that the offender lives near her, because nobody will tell her where the offender is. We are not saying police must pinpoint where he is, but, if that offender lives 300 miles away, she can at least go out the door and go to the shops without feeling that he will be around the corner. That is really important. Why are we nervous about sharing information about offenders when offenders can know a lot about victims?

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q Good morning to you all. Baroness Newlove, you published a report last year on the experiences of victims of antisocial behaviour. To what extent do you think the Bill’s antisocial behaviour measures meet the recommendations of your report?

Baroness Newlove: Antisocial behaviour is my drum. I absolutely welcome that the commissioner is now able to explore the treatment of victims of antisocial behaviour—I have been going on about that for many years—but there are still challenges that victims face.

I really like that it will allow an investigation of how the housing agencies and associations treat victims, because it is like ping pong with these housing associations—I welcome that. I challenged the Victims and Prisoners Act because victims should expect to be entitled to the right support under the victims code. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour should fall under the victims code. Trying to get people to understand the impact of antisocial behaviour as a crime—and it is a crime—is all down to how much the victim reports. That is where we need better understanding.

I also want a statutory threshold for ASB case reviews, and I want an independent chair for ASB case reviews, because I am tired of agencies marking their own homework. More importantly, I want the victim to be able to go to this, because you are talking about them and the impact on them, yet they are not invited. For me, that is really important. I welcome anything for antisocial behaviour, and I would like the Government to look at the report’s recommendations and see what else we can add.

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Do any of you want to comment on the importance of the victim notification scheme?

Andrea Simon: Although we think it is a step in the right direction—we recognise that the Government have good intentions to extend the victim contact scheme—we think, on the eligibility and scope, that not all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls will be covered. We are not entirely reassured by how viable the helpline will be for many victims. With the helpline, in particular, the onus is on the victim to get in touch and make contact. The responsibility is not on, say, the probation system to inform victims of what is happening. We believe the correct reading of article 56b of the Istanbul convention, which talks about measures of protection, is that the state should actively inform victims when a perpetrator is to be released. People should not have to proactively reach out in order to get that information through a helpline, which we know will be utilised by some, but not in every case.

We also have concerns when it comes to survivor participation and licence conditions for perpetrators, because some survivors only have access to the helpline and potentially do not have the same level of entitlement as those under the victim contact scheme. We would like some clarity about how, when incorrect information is held or there are changes in circumstances, victim-survivors will be able to provide that information and how it can be fed through into the management of perpetrators. There is a slight lack of clarity about who will be informed and where that information will go, and I just think we have to be really clear in the public communications about the helpline, and about the victim contact scheme in general, to make sure that the public understand it, are aware of it and know how to take it up.

We are also keen to see these measures interact with the sentencing review recommendations and what is forthcoming. Of course, one review recommendation that the Government have taken up is to have the domestic abuse flag as an identifier, which is very welcome, but we would like to see the victim contact scheme essentially extended to everybody, because we know that domestic abuse offences are quite often not flagged up. The flag will help in the future, but not every index offence involves coercive control—for example, it might be criminal damage or some other kind of assault. We are worried about people who will not be able to access the information or access the scheme, so we think it should be extended more widely so that there are not gaps that people can fall through.

Farah Nazeer: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I think the helpline is a really strong idea. It is a move in the right direction, but nobody is supported by a helpline when their perpetrator is coming out, so you are having that conversation with the helpline and assuming that the helpline will meet the needs of the expanded victim cohort. Then a victim needs to go to a service. They need regular, routine casework support to support them through the trauma of having somebody come out or maybe come out earlier than expected—all kinds of things. Without the services to support the intentions of the helpline, we will not see that ambition of true victim support realised, so those two things have to work in tandem.

Andrea Simon: We would also recommend that advocates have access to the helpline as well. It is very important that, particularly for those supporting some of the most marginalised survivors, they can access information via the helpline. We would like clarity about their inclusion in the scheme.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Q Coming back to parental consent—at the risk of labouring the point—you have all said that you would like that to be extended. Do you think that removing the minimum requirement of a four-year sentence would help to protect more children?

Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest.

Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.

[Alex Brewer]

Q What difference do you think the measures proposed in the Bill will make to victims and survivors, and what might the gaps be?

Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome.

Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim.

Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap.

I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve.

Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors.

The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning.

There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them.

We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice.

The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue?

The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?

My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.

Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists.

I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors.

There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.

Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver.

Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.

We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency.

I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill.

Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen.

I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.

On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am grateful to you, Minister.

[Alex Brewer]

Q What will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme? Do you think that the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims?

Paula Hudgell: That is a difficult one, because I do not really know about it—sorry.

Glenn Youens: I do not think that we know enough about that side of it, but I think anybody who has been affected by a crime is a victim.

[The Chair]

That was nice, short and pithy, if I may say so; I wish some of my colleagues were as succinct. There are no further questions, so thank you both very much indeed, Glenn and Paula. I know how difficult this must be for you, and I very much appreciate your giving your time today. What you have said will be very important in the Committee’s deliberations.

Examination of Witness

Mark Brooks gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important.

In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?

Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.

Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.

Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.

[Alex Brewer]

Q Do you think the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims?

Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children.

On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.

[Alex Brewer]

Q Do you see any gaps in the Bill, or areas where you would like it to go further?

Mark Brooks: It is not so much in the Bill, and the Minister knows our position on this, but there continues to be an issue with how male victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and other crimes are seen by society and, importantly, within the justice system. We know that the present and the previous Victims’ Commissioners support the position that male victims of domestic abuse should not be classed as victims of violence against a woman or a girl. A son, as covered by the Victims and Courts Bill, has been characterised, classed and defined by successive Governments as a victim of violence against a girl, even though he is obviously a boy.

The same issue applies to male victims of domestic abuse. Successive Governments have officially classed them as being victims of violence against a woman. We are asking that “violence against women and girls” be changed to include male victims. When the Bill is enacted, any male victim covered by it should no longer be classed as a victim of violence against a woman or a girl. That has to change; it is quite Orwellian, aside from anything else, as it is clearly incorrect.

We therefore need to get more male victims recognised in their own right. They would then have more access, more understanding and better support to be able to come forward and benefit from the measures in the Bill. This is a wider political issue. Just to reiterate, we want to keep the violence against women and girls strategy and definition, but we want a parallel view for male victims.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Mark, for coming here today. I want to draw your attention to the provisions on compelling offenders to attend their sentencing. First, I am genuinely quite interested in your specific perspective on that. Secondly, we have heard evidence today that the use of force, if it were to become disproportionate, risks making a spectacle of the offender, drawing attention away from the victim. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mark Brooks: We believe it is right that a perpetrator, or somebody who has been sentenced, should be forced to be present at court, including at sentencing. It is important that victims not only see that justice is being done in terms of sentencing and the court experience, but feel that it is being done. Seeing the person being convicted in front of them, with their family and the wider community, is absolutely essential, so we support the measures on that in the Bill.

In terms of it being a spectacle, the bottom line is that we must act in the interest of the victim, the person who has had the crime committed against them. They must be the priority, so we are in favour of the measures put forward by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q We have heard a number of times today how this Bill can work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill in several areas. Could you comment on how the two Bills will work together to tackle antisocial behaviour?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful for that question. It is important to note that the criminal justice system is a system: it only works with every element of it slotting together. Therefore, the Bill does work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House. There are a number of measures in that Bill around respect orders, giving police the power to seize off-road bikes without a warrant, and new powers in this Bill, working in conjunction with the Victims’ Commissioner, on a duty to collaborate involving different agencies, for example. All these fit together, and it is important that we look at this holistically.

There were a number of measures that were raised today, and a number of witnesses raised measures that are not in this Bill. I stress to Committee members that a lot of work is happening behind the scenes. I am happy to discuss the work that is being done on measures raised as not necessarily being in this Bill, because we have got a number of reviews taking place in the MOJ at the moment. You will all be aware of the recently published sentencing review, and there is a courts review being conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. All this needs to fit together holistically; it cannot be done in isolation. There will future legislation coming forward as well, so it is important not to pin everything down in every Bill just because we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to fit and be rightly considered and reviewed before we do so.

[Alex Brewer]

Q I want to follow up on parental responsibility. I know we have talked about this a lot, but I think it is really important. To follow up on your point about appeals through the family court, have you looked into alternatives to that, such as appeals through a different court or no appeals at all?

Alex Davies-Jones: I suppose that could be considered, but the family court is currently the route that is available to someone to appeal. By preventing an appeal, you would get into a whole swathe of issues, and you could be in a very difficult situation if there was no route to appeal. We are aware of the issues in the family court and, as I have just said, it is important to not take this Bill in isolation. A lot of work is being done in the Ministry of Justice to look at how we improve the family court, not least through the work we are doing on pathfinder courts and ensuring that the voice of the child is centred in proceedings considering children. It is very difficult, but I do not envisage any mechanism where you could introduce a measure such as this and not have the right to appeal. Given that the family court is the most appropriate route for that, and where they hear those proceedings, it would not be practical to create a different mechanism. I do not see it fitting and being realistic in any other way.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Minister; brilliantly timed. That brings us to the end of today’s session with seconds to spare, I think.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)

Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Absolutely. It surprises me that Members think it is a novel concept when it has been on the statute book for quite some time.

We want to ensure that the individuals tasked with using force to bring offenders to court have the legal protections they need in order to act with confidence. We do not want offenders to think that all they must do is attempt to resist violently in order to escape the outcome sought by the families who have campaigned for a change in the law.

Although the notions of additional time to serve and prison sanctions may change behaviour in some cases, we must reflect on the sort of people we are dealing with and the sentences they serve. We should expect a willingness to offer violence from the sort of person who will barge into a family home and shoot into it without any thought to the family in it, as the perpetrator who killed Olivia Pratt-Korbel did. Do we really think that a man who is willing to violently murder three people with a crossbow, and who is never getting out of prison, would be particularly perturbed by not being able to go to the gym or watch TV? These are the sorts of people we are dealing with, and if we do not make physically forcing attendance our main goal, the Bill risks failing in its aims.

Some victims and families might prefer that someone gets punished if they do not attend, but what many of them will really want is attendance. Our amendment would make it more likely that we achieve that. I urge Members who do not want to look back on a missed opportunity, which will lead to offenders again and again not attending hearings, irrespective of the measures in the Bill, to support the amendment.

It is one thing to bring an offender to court, but we have to consider how they will behave. Amendment 23 would give judges the power to restrain or gag disruptive offenders in the courtroom rather than remove them entirely. Crucially, if a judge is minded not to issue such an order but instead to remove the offender, the amendment provides that they must consult the victim or their family. If offenders learn that all they need to do if they are dragged into court is scream and shout and disrupt proceedings, what do Members think is really going to happen? Is the sort of man who brutally murders two women and stores them in the freezer, as the killer of Jan Mustafa and Henriett Szucs did, and knows that a long sentence awaits him really going to be impacted by a short addition to his custody time?

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member believe that people capable of such violence would be equally violent with a probation officer or a police officer taking them to court?

[Dr Mullan]

I absolutely believe that people will be violent, which is why we tabled amendment 15 to ensure that officers are able to use the level of force necessary to compel offenders to attend. If we do not do that, what are we going to achieve? The kinds of offenders who have brought this issue to our attention will be more than happy to resist physically. Are we really saying that the purpose of these measures is just to punish people? I do not think it is. I think their purpose is to get people into court for their sentencing hearings. In combination, our amendments would ensure that that happens, or at least make it significant more likely.

--- Later in debate ---

Restricting parental responsibility of certain sex offenders

[Alex Brewer]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”

This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 6, line 1, leave out

“of 4 years or more”

This amendment would ensure that where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.

Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 6, line 2, leave out

“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”

This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, line 43, at end insert—

“10CA Duty to consider make prohibited steps order where serious sexual offence committed against any child

(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) to a term of imprisonment or detention of less than 4 years, for a serious sexual offence committed against any child.

(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.

(3) A prohibited steps order must be made if the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to children of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.

(4) In making that assessment, the court—

(a) must take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence,

(b) may take into account all the information that is available to it about the nature and circumstances of any other offences of which the offender has been convicted by a court anywhere in the world,

(c) may take into account any information which is before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) forms part, and

(d) may take into account any information about the offender which is before it.

(5) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to a conviction by a court includes a reference to—

(a) a conviction of an offence in—

(i) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or any other court or person authorised under any of those Acts to award a punishment in respect of any offence), or

(ii) any proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;

where ‘conviction’ includes the recording of a finding that a charge in respect of the offence has been proved), and

(b) a conviction of—

(i) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or

(ii) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059),

where ‘conviction’ includes anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is to be treated as a conviction).

(6) The order must be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.

(7) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—

(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,

(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or

(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

(8) Further, the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—in respect of any child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility—the Court is of the opinion that—

(a) the removal of parental responsibility is not in the best interests of that child; and

(b) there is no significant risk to that particular child of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further serious sexual offences.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), each child in respect of whom the offender has parental responsibility must be considered separately.

(10) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—

(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or

(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more, but see section 10D.

(11) Sections 1, 10 and 16 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.

(12) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.

(13) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.

(14) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.

(15) In this section ‘serious sexual offence’ shall have the same meaning as that in s.10C.

(16) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.”

New clause 13—Restricting parental responsibility of certain offenders—

“After section 10B of the Children Act 1989 insert—

‘10CA Duty to make prohibited steps order where serious sexual or violent offence committed

(1) This section applies where the Crown Court sentences a person (“the offender”) to a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more, for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for a child.

(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.

(3) The order must—

(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and

(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.

(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—

(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,

(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or

(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if—

(a) the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or

(b) the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more,

but see section 10D.

(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.

(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.

(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.

(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.

(10) In this section—

“life sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment, detention or custody for life, or during His Majesty’s pleasure;

“serious sexual offence” means an offence listed in Schedule ZA1;

“violent offence” means an offence of homicide, assault or robbery.

(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list of offences in Schedule ZA1.’”

[Alex Brewer]

It is very clear that a child of a sex offender is at risk, regardless of whether the sex offender has committed that offence against their own child or another child. The amendment would seek to broaden the provisions for removing parental responsibility from children of sex offenders.

I would like to share some of my professional experience. I used to work in a domestic abuse charity, where I ran a women’s refuge and had safeguarding responsibility for the families that have fled violent and often sexual abuse. There were numerous occasions when we had to facilitate parental contact by enabling a mother and her children to meet the perpetrator of that abuse, which was court mandated, even though they had fled that abuse, supposedly to a position of safety. As a person with safeguarding responsibility, that puts professionals in an impossible situation, but that is nothing compared with the position in which it places the parents, who have to take their child to a position that is desperately unsafe.

We would seek to broaden the measures in clause 3 so that somebody who is convicted of a serious sexual offence, regardless of the length of the sentence and of who that sexual offence was committed against, would not have parental responsibility for their children. If they have been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, their own child is at risk. At the moment, the children of sex offenders are at more risk than other children in society. We believe this is a very important measure, and it needs appropriate resource allocated to it.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of our amendments 17 and 18. As has been said, the Bill currently requires prohibited steps orders, which remove parental responsibility, only for those receiving custodial sentences of four years or more, and only if they have parental responsibility for the victims of those offences. In the evidence session earlier this week, the witnesses were absolutely clear that this provision, as currently drafted, is too narrow.

Amendment 17 seeks to widen the court’s duty to protect children from those convicted of serious sexual offences. It would move the threshold and ensure that anyone imprisoned for a sexual offence triggers the court’s duty to protect children by considering a prohibited steps order. We believe that is a more appropriate line to draw for this measure, which is essentially when an offence reaches a level of seriousness that hits the custodial threshold.

Amendment 18 is of even more vital importance, and it was also strongly supported by the witnesses in their evidence. It would close a troubling loophole in clause 3—although I am not sure whether “loophole” accurately describes it; it is an enormous omission. At present, the duty to make a prohibited steps order applies only when the child victim is someone for whom the offender has parental responsibility. That is an unacceptable narrowing of protection, and the logic of this measure is indefensible.

The Government believe that it is right to remove parental responsibility for someone who is convicted of a very serious sexual offence against a child, but only if it is against their own child or a child for whom they have parental responsibility. That makes no sense, and it is no surprise that the witnesses were universally against it. Amendment 18 would ensure that anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence is subject to a prohibited steps order, regardless. Again, I ask Members to think about how they might explain their position on this amendment to their constituents.

Amendment 24, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is essentially aiming for the same outcome, but perhaps we have a slightly different interpretation of where we place the threshold. Amendment 24 specifies “serious sexual offence”, while we have used the custodial limit as the trigger in attempting to achieve the same outcome. It is something that we could commit to looking at in future stages of the Bill, if we can secure a better understanding of how we distinguish between serious and non-serious offences.

We are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat aims, and I think we have a shared aim on not just the threshold, but particularly the fact that this measure will be enacted only when the child who has been the subject of the crime is one for whom the person has parental responsibility. I do not see the logic in drawing the line in the way that the Government have, separate to any questions about the level of severity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know, having been in Government before the election, how Government collective responsibility and consultation with other Government Departments work. The safeguarding Minister and I are responsible for the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls, which commits to halving it within a decade. Of course, the family courts are playing an integral role in that, and we seek to build on it. I will talk more about that shortly. Where we need to go further, this Government will.

We have used the statutory framework because it reflects the Government’s view that the offences are exceptionally serious. It is therefore appropriate that the same threshold be used to determine when an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility should apply. I understand and appreciate the rationale but, because there are existing processes to seek the restriction of parental responsibility, it is essential that there is a threshold and a clear marker for it to happen automatically.

[Alex Brewer]

There are mechanisms in place, but they put undue onus on the non-offending parent. Does the Minister agree that the onus should be shifted to the offending parent?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I agree that the current situation in the family courts is difficult, and it can be traumatic for parents who are seeking to have a parental order removed. That is why we have taken the measure in the Bill. It is a new approach, through which we seek to remove parental responsibility on automatic conviction in the Crown court. As I said in oral evidence, this is not something we do lightly, but we feel that it is necessary in order to protect offenders’ and perpetrators’ own children from the most serious offences. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for North East Hampshire to consider what further work we can do to reform the family courts. The Department is working closely on that, and we know we need to get it right in order to protect all children from these crimes, whether or not restrictions to parental responsibility are sought via the family courts or automatically, with this measure, in the Crown court.

Amendments 18, 24 and 8 seek to expand the circumstances in which the Crown court should make a prohibited steps order to include cases in which the offences were committed against any child. Again, it is important to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families. Those affected have my deepest sympathies, and it is they who we must have in our minds when we debate the measure.

The current provision is carefully targeted. It ensures that automatic restrictions on the exercise of parental responsibility apply only when there is a direct and recognised relationship between the offender and the child victims. Our focus on offenders who have committed a serious child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility is based on a desire to tackle the cases involving child sexual abuse with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. This is, as I have already said, a novel and untested change to the law, and the response from perpetrators is unpredictable. We know that perpetrators often seek to use the family courts, as we have already heard, to further traumatise victims, and they could therefore seek to appeal the removal of responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to note that a line does need to be drawn, as the hon. Member has recognised; there does have to be a balance. In the previous Government’s version of the Bill, there was a different threshold, which was child rape of any child. We have changed that.; in this version, the measure is any child sexual offence where there is four years or more in custody, but only of the offender’s own child. As a Government, we have determined that as the necessary threshold. That is different from the previous Government’s threshold, which was only child rape. I think that recognises the difficulty in drawing a balance here.

We need to take a more limited approach for the time being, especially initially, to ensure that, as I have already said, the family court is not overwhelmed by endless appeals from perpetrators causing even more traumatisation to victims, and especially children. This is essential so that other victims and families with cases in the family court are not detrimentally impacted.

Our intention with clause 3 is to tackle the cases with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. That is why we have chosen to focus the measure in the way that we have. It is important that we properly understand the impact any additional family court proceedings will have on the children and families involved. The cohort in scope of this measure is at the highest risk of immediate harm from the perpetrator, which is why we have chosen to focus on that cohort. This does not prevent an application being made to the family court for parental responsibility to be restricted in other circumstances, as is already available.

Amendment 8 suggests using the Crown court to gather evidence on the best interests of the child and the level of risk the offender poses to the child. Doing so would place a significant new burden on the criminal court, meaning less capacity to hear criminal cases and even longer waiting times for those seeking justice. The proper forum for that consideration to happen is the family court, where the judge can hear from all relevant professionals and have access to any necessary reports before making a decision that will always be based on the best interests of the children involved.

We are already going further than the previous Government did with their Criminal Justice Bill. Those proposals were limited to child rape; our measure includes not only child rape, but a broader range of child sexual offences. Most important of all, the previous Government talked of change, but failed to deliver. We will deliver this change to protect children. We all have a huge amount of sympathy for families in these circumstances, and I want to do all we can to support them in getting the right outcome for their children.

New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, seeks to expand the instances where the Crown court will be under a duty to restrict the exercise of a perpetrator’s parental responsibility at the point they are sentenced to 10 years or more for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for the child.

I reassure the hon. Member that there are already clear powers in the family court to restrict parental responsibility where it would be in the best interests of the children involved. If a parent or other interested party wishes to make an application, they can do so. Where relevant, the family court is able to and will remove parental responsibility or restrict it to the point that it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way.

The existing law is clear that in every case, the court’s paramount consideration must be what will be in the best interests of the child. We cannot rule out that sometimes it may not be in the child’s best interests for parental responsibility to be removed or restricted, particularly where the child is not the direct victim of the offence. However, as the Lord Chancellor and I have said, we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure. While we cannot support new clause 13, we remain committed to ensuring that the law robustly protects children. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work to strike the right balance on this issue.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can continue to develop this important legislation in a way that is principled and practical and gets the balance right for children.

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand that this is a novel approach and I welcome the measures in the Bill as a first step, we believe that they do not go far enough and still leave children at risk.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 6, line 19, after “justice” insert—

“or of a child and the non-offending parent”.

This amendment would mean that a judge could have discretion to decide not to make a prohibited steps order when it was not deemed in the interest of a child and the non-offending parent.

This is a small amendment that would continue to put children at the heart of this Bill. There are times when a court should not make a prohibited steps order in relation to a child. In the evidence session, we heard from many charities that children are not sufficiently heard as victims of crimes, and that their voices are not carried forward. We would like to include a small amendment that would put children and the non-offending parent at the heart of that decision making in the courts.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Amendment 25 was tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for whom I have much respect, and seeks to amend clause 3 to allow the Crown court discretion not to make a prohibited steps order in cases where it considers such an order not to be in the best interests of the child or the non-offending parent. Let me begin by acknowledging the intent behind this amendment. It is of course right that we consider the welfare of children and the rights of non-offending parents in all decisions made by the court. However, the Government cannot support this amendment for several reasons.

The clause as drafted already strikes a careful and considered balance between protecting children and respecting judicial oversight. We have included a narrowly defined exemption to allow the Crown court the flexibility not to make a prohibited steps order, which is a section 8 order under the Children Act 1989, where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. That provision is intended to cover exceptional circumstances where the Crown court does not consider it to be in the interests of justice, which may arise from unusual facts or a case that is particularly complex. It ensures a degree of flexibility without undermining the core safeguarding purpose of the provision in the Bill.

The family court is the appropriate forum for determining what would be in the best interests of children and navigating the complexities of individual family circumstances. It is uniquely equipped to consider the full facts of each individual case, drawing on the expertise of all relevant professionals and supported by any necessary reports. That enables the judge to make a fully informed decision, one that is always guided by the paramount principle of the child’s best interests. The Crown court simply is not equipped to carry out that detailed consideration.

Legislation already provides a route for family members to bring an application to the family court, so it can consider whether the order should be varied or discharged and whether a more tailored order or other family court orders are required, and ensure that any order is consistent with the best interests of the child or children involved in the individual circumstances. This avenue is still open for families where the Crown court has made an order under the provisions of clause 4.

Alongside that existing route into the family court, we are also providing a clear new route in certain circumstances. If the offender is acquitted of the relevant offence, or their sentence is reduced to less than four years—I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify this point, because it was raised when I gave evidence to the Committee—the local authority is under a duty to bring the matter back before the family court. This ensures that decisions remain responsive to the best interests of the child, without compromising the initial safeguarding intent of the judge. The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system protects children from further harm from such offenders. The provisions in clause 3 are a vital part of that commitment.

I also place on record the Government’s commitment to consulting on a new victims’ code, specifically with the intention of addressing concerns, raised by the hon. Member for North East Hampshire, regarding how we can ensure that child victims are at the centre of the justice system. As she has said, for the first time ever, children are considered victims in their own right for crimes such as domestic abuse, in law; but, as we know, in practice that sadly is not the reality for many child victims. Therefore this Government are determined to go further. Under our new consultation on the victims’ code, which we are hoping to launch later this year, we will make it a key focus to ensure that the code works for all victims, with a particular focus on children in mind.

I understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Eastbourne has tabled this amendment, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for North East Hampshire are reassured that there are already strong provisions in place to ensure that the family court can consider the interests of the children involved in these types of cases, and their families. As such, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 25.

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the Minister for her assurances. As with our previous amendment, I look forward to working with her on improving the family court. However, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, women’s and children’s charities, and victims strongly urged us all to ensure that children and non-offending parents are at the heart of the criminal justice system, so I believe that this is an important amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

The new clause seeks to address a critical gap in transparency and accessibility in our criminal justice system: the publication of sentencing remarks from the Crown court. Sentencing remarks are the moment when justice is spoken out loud; when the judge explains not only what sentence is being passed, but why. For victims, families, journalists and the public at large, the remarks are essential for understanding the rationale behind a sentence. They provide clarity, accountability, and allow the public to see that justice is being not only done, but explained. Under the current system, however, the remarks are often buried, available only on request, behind paywalls or subject to lengthy delays, and generally at significant financial cost. That feeds a sense of injustice and confusion, particularly when sentencing decisions are controversial or appear lenient. It also limits public confidence in our courts. People should not have to be legal professionals or pay fees just to access the reasoning behind a judge’s decision.

The new clause would change that. It would require that all sentencing remarks made in the Crown court be published within two sitting days and that those publications be freely accessible to the public. That is not only a matter of open justice; it is a basic democratic civil right. Open justice is not served if court processes and explanations are inaccessible to the very people they affect most directly. Victims deserve to know how their case was resolved. The public deserve to see how justice is applied in their name, and journalists deserve timely access so that the courts can be reported on accurately and fairly.

This is a modest ask with significant democratic weight: two days to publish and no barriers to access. We should expect nothing less from a modern justice system that values openness, trust, and public understanding. It ties into our earlier amendments, because these remarks would help someone understand whether they should consider a referral to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I hope the Government will support the new clause to deliver the basic right for victims, their families and the general public.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 12. We agree in principle that victims should have access to the court transcripts—indeed, it has been a long-standing campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). That is very important for victims, especially if they have been subject to coercive control, gaslighting or sexual abuse; victims at the end of the court process may be left questioning, “Was this my fault?” or, “Did this really happen to me?” We have heard from victims that having the transcripts gives them the peace of mind and validation that they need.

We disagree with the Opposition, however, on two fundamental points. The first is the requirement that the court transcripts be provided within two days. We think that is completely impractical, and that two weeks is much more reasonable. Secondly, we do not believe they should be made public. Many people commit crimes who have been coerced into them, or there may be retaliatory crimes; we think making court transcripts public presents an unnecessary public shaming of a criminal, whereas providing them to the victim provides closure and clarity.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for new clause 4, which would require transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available to the public within two sitting days of being delivered. Introducing that provision would place a significant financial burden on the criminal justice system in a challenging fiscal context, diverting valuable resources away from the wider system, potentially including other victims services. The release of any Crown court transcript requires judicial oversight to ensure that the reporting restrictions have been adhered to and that other public interest factors have been considered. For transcripts of all sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available within two sitting days would have significant operational and resource implications.