Victims and Courts Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I want to focus on one of the flagship measures in the Bill: clause 1, headed “Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing”. This law has been fought for—and will today be won—by my constituent Cheryl Korbel. It will compel convicted criminals to attend their sentencing hearings, and will ensure that there are meaningful consequences if they refuse. Where I am from, we call it Olivia’s law. For me, today is all about Olivia, Cheryl, and Antonia, her cousin.

This has been some journey for Cheryl—one that began in unimaginable circumstances. Cheryl’s daughter Olivia was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun in August 2022. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home. It passed through Cheryl’s wrist before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you are trying to protect them, is a burden no parent should ever be asked to bear, but Olivia’s murderer remained in his cell, and refused to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words, or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. Since then, Cheryl has been fighting for that injustice to end.

I first met Cheryl and Antonia when they came to my first surgery as their MP. Since that day, we have stood side by side. We have worked to turn this campaign into law. We raised the matter with Ministers, and took it to the Prime Minister. It is fair to say that Cheryl and Antonia have been to the House of Commons so often that they have met most of the Cabinet and half of the parliamentary Labour party.

On Second Reading, Cheryl allowed me the privilege of reading her victim impact statement in the Chamber. I did that because her words carry more power than anything I could possibly say, and I wanted them to be heard by the world. Olivia’s murderer, Thomas Cashman, refused to hear those words. I would like to read a few words from the statement today:

“My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby…She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away. Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter…telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.”

Cashman should have heard those words, but he could make the choice not to. That is the injustice at the heart of this matter, because Cheryl did speak. She found the strength to put into words the love that she has for her daughter, and the devastation that she has to face every single day. Today, we ensure that turning away and hiding is no longer an option. I thank the Government, especially the Minister, for listening to Cheryl. I know there were times when Cheryl thought that this day would never come; well, Cheryl, it has.

Cheryl and I are two peas in a pod. We have both just turned 50; she turned 50 on Saturday—happy birthday! We are both from council estates in the same part of town. We both had working-class upbringings, and families who did not have much, but worked hard and gave us everything in love. That matters, because it speaks to who Cheryl is. She is someone who lifts people and brings warmth and strength to others, even in her darkest moments. Alongside her has been her remarkable cousin, Antonia. Together, they have been relentless; they have taken unimaginable grief and turned it into change. Because of both of them, victims’ voices will be heard.

This law is Cheryl’s achievement, and it is Olivia’s legacy. We honour her and all the other campaigners and victims who fought for this law, and I am properly proud that it is a Labour Government delivering it.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendments 5C and 6B. Before I do so, may I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this issue? I congratulate hon. Members who spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents.

I pay tribute to my constituent Tracey Hanson, who is watching this debate from the Gallery. Tracey’s son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey has been on an 11-year journey of immense pain, and she has channelled that pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims who must deal with the criminal justice system.

Tracey has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The campaign is driven by a simple demand: victims and bereaved families should be properly informed of their rights, and those rights should have parity with offenders’ rights under the scheme—something that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Tracey’s campaign was born from personal injustice. She was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh’s killer. When she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected, because it arrived outside of office hours. That is totally unacceptable.

I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords amendment 6B, which will place a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That change is a direct result of Tracey’s work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to improve the legislation through the introduction of Josh’s law. Other families who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic situations will benefit from Tracey’s work, and the work of all campaigners. It is because of that work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme.

I welcome Lords amendment 5C, which will extend the period within which an appeal can be considered from 28 days from the date of sentence to six months from the date of the sentence, where that is in the interests of justice. That is a significant step forward for victims’ rights, but, while I welcome it, true justice requires absolute parity between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims to appeal sentences. Hon. Members from across the House have made that point today, and I hope that the Government have heard it.

Despite the positive step forward in this Bill, I know that Tracey will continue her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law. On that note, may I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracey later this year to discuss the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals? In the Minister’s summing-up speech, I would appreciate it if she could confirm that Tracey would be welcome at that meeting.

I also mention my constituents’ disappointment that the Government have decided not to give these legislative changes the name “Josh’s law”. I have already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracey’s campaign has played in bringing about these changes. That sentiment is reflected in the fact that many Members across this House already recognise it as Josh’s law, noting Tracey’s years of campaigning for these changes in Josh’s memory. Baroness Levitt KC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said in the other place last week that this Government listen and want to get things right. I truly welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to Tracey, and have introduced amendments for which she has campaigned for more than seven years, but they have not got this completely right. In the eyes of my constituents, to truly honour Tracey’s work—not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but the tireless support that she has provided to victims through her charity—this change in legislation should be called Josh’s law.

I understand the Government’s position is that

“this decision reflects a wider shift away from the Government naming legislation or amendments after individuals”.

However, that is inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I will refer to just one example. Last week, a Minister referred to “Benedict’s law” at the Dispatch Box. That legislation was passed only last month. That highlights that the move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. I ask the Minister to reflect on that at the Dispatch Box.

Together, Lords amendments 5C and 6B represent a positive shift in the way that the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims. I hope that Tracey is incredibly proud of the fact that, by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action, she has helped to shift more focus back to the impact on, and rights of, victims. For that reason, and in Josh Hanson’s memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support Lords amendments 5C and 6B.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

With the leave of the House, I will close this really important and special debate. It moves us another step closer to this Bill becoming a much-needed law for all victims, and I sincerely thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

This is a really important Bill. It shows the best of Parliament when we all come together on an issue that is beyond party politics to do what we were elected to this place to do—to speak for the people we represent, make life better for those who come after us, and create a legacy for those who have sadly had to endure hardship and pain that we will hopefully never have to feel. I thank the Minister in the other place for guiding this Bill through its stages, and for undertaking such extensive engagement with all hon. Members, here and in the other place, throughout its passage.

Let me answer some of the questions put forward today. Discussions are ongoing about who will have the statutory duty to notify victims and bereaved families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I will ensure that I update the House on how we progress those discussions. We do not need to put that into law, but we will engage fully with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, the Victims’ Commissioner and the bereaved families to ensure that we get this right, that full accountability is there, and that there will be scrutiny of the application of the duty under the victims code. I am working with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that that is robust. I assure the shadow Minister that that will be followed robustly, and I will ensure that we engage with him on that duty as it develops.

I assure the shadow Minister that the consultation on rates will be followed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and we will consult with the appropriate stakeholders. This will not be a tick-box exercise—it will be thoroughly responded to—and the House will be informed of that consultation. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood stated, this is just part of the commitment that the Government are making to victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We still await the findings of the Law Commission, and I again make the commitment at this Dispatch Box that I made to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett: I will meet them, once the Law Commission completes its work, to discuss the findings and what more we can do as a Government going forward to ensure that we get parity for victims in the criminal justice system. This is just one step forward, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on the Bill.

I have been crystal clear that this is the Victims and Courts Bill, and soon it will be the Victims and Courts law. It will become an Act for all victims. It will be a law for Josh, for Sasha, for Olivia, for Jan, for Sabina, for Zara and for all the victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. This Bill will become an Act for all of them, and their legacy. I will ensure that the importance of having a consistent approach regarding the law’s name is fed back to all Government Departments, because this is a law for all the victims and campaigners who have engaged with the Government and it is important that they are all recognised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is something that I will reflect on in the coming days.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?

[Jake Richards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his attendance at yesterday’s meeting. The testimonies given by his constituent, Tracey, and other victims there were truly powerful. I said this at the meeting in private and I am happy to say it again at the Dispatch Box: we are working at pace to look at all the solutions. We will contact his constituent, and indeed him, as and when we have our position.

Jury Trials

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I start by saying how extraordinary it was to hear the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services say earlier that she would be pursuing this policy even if there were not a backlog to deal with. That suggests that it was planned all along, but it is nowhere in the Labour party manifesto. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) explain in summing up why that is the case?

There is no mandate to reduce trial by jury. It is a profound constitutional shift—one that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. Trial by jury is a centuries-old safeguard designed to ensure that an individual can be judged guilty only by their peers and not by the machinery of the state. It is the ordinary person’s shield against arbitrary power and yet, astonishingly, the Government now ask us to believe that that ancient protection must be curtailed just because Ministers do not want to do the hard work to reduce the backlog.

The Bar Council, which represents the very professionals who keep our justice system functioning, is correct to raise alarm bells. There is absolutely no evidence—none whatsoever—that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog. The Government have produced no modelling, no data and no analysis to justify that constitutional gamble. That work should have been done before the announcement was made, especially for something of such magnitude. Around 3% of criminal cases currently reach a jury. To claim that reducing jury trials further will magically clear the backlog of tens of thousands of cases is just implausible. It defies logic and makes no sense whatsoever. This is a complete distraction. No hon. Member supporting the Government position has been able to explain how the decision will actually shift the dial on reducing the backlog.

Concern goes deeper, however, as many of my hon. Friends have explained. Every time this Government face a crisis, their instinct is not to work out how sensibly to fix the system but to take things away from British citizens. We have heard examples including digital ID and Chagos, and now they are taking away people’s right to be judged by their peers because they cannot get a grip of the criminal justice system. Judge-only trials may be quicker, but they are not fairer. They concentrate power in the single hand of a single state official. Did it cross anyone’s mind to pilot juryless trials in Crown courts? If not, why not? They remove the diversity of experience, the collective wisdom and the democratic legitimacy that juries bring. How many judges are under 40? How many are non-white? How many were educated in state schools? How many have personal experience of the issues? Now ask the same question of juries.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

With two dangerous offenders on the run, many of our constituents will rightly be very concerned and worried. Will the Minister explain what resources are being deployed to capture those offenders as soon as possible?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

When a prisoner absconds from open conditions, the prison must notify the police immediately, so that officers can locate the individual and return them to custody. Local governors have good working relationships with their local police forces and maintain constant communication about efforts to locate prisoners who are at large, including on whether to launch a public appeal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the police launched a public appeal on 3 January to assist them in locating the prisoners. I encourage any member of the public who spots the prisoners not to approach them but to alert the local police so that we can bring them back into custody.

Sentencing Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.

My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes, the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Last week, I met one of my constituents, Tracey Hanson, in Parliament to honour the 10-year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work that she has put into campaigning for victims’ rights, and I heard more about how the law that she wants to introduce—Josh’s law—would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders.

I will speak specifically to new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). After cruelly taking the life of Josh Hanson, Shane O’Brien absconded and evaded police for three and a half years before he was finally caught. Dubbed Britain’s most wanted man at the time, O’Brien was sentenced to at least 26 years in prison, just one year above the minimum sentence. After just missing the deadline to appeal the sentence as a result of unclear information about victims’ families’ rights under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, Tracey has spent years campaigning to ensure that no other victims face what her family did. Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families face the same problems, simply because they are not being made aware of their right to appeal sentences.

There are also concerning numbers of cases in which clerical errors—in one case I heard of, it was an email stuck in a barrister’s outbox—lead to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. While appeals from offenders will still be considered by the Attorney General outside the 28-day window in exceptional circumstances, appeals from victims or their families will not. Historically, victims were at the centre of the justice system. Victims were the driving force in bringing criminal cases, and played a central role throughout the process. It was not until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state-led prosecutions, with the victims, rather than criminal cases, significantly diminished. The focus only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victim’s charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of the focus from the state, and divert it back to those who are most directly impacted by crime.

The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. They should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and should have received the same rights, and information about their right to appeal against the sentencing decision, as the offender did. It is vital that victims and their families are clearly informed about their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 12 would require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, providing details of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme and the deadlines, which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the scheme.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a bold case on behalf of victims. I hope that he will agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. Over the whole of my lifetime, the focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately it has permeated so much of the establishment, including the judiciary; sentences are sometimes inadequate for that very reason.

[Blake Stephenson]

I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.

New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.

The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.

This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk.

Independent Sentencing Review

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Under these proposals, foreign criminals will be deported after serving 30% of their sentence, which I appreciate is an improvement. The public want them to be deported right away—does the Lord Chancellor?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review recommends immediate deportation—meaning “as quickly as possible”, because we still have to detain people before we can get them on a plane and back to their country of origin—for sentences of under three years. We are going to work up proposals on that with the Home Office. For more serious offenders with sentences of over three years, we are going to bring the threshold down from 50% to 30%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

What a load of nonsense. I am the Lord Chancellor who is rectifying the situation with the proper distinction between matters of policy and matters of independent judicial decision through the Bill that we will debate on Second Reading later today. I have already dealt with the issues in relation to the immigration guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about that which do not bear resemblance to fact, so perhaps he would like to correct the record. On the bail guidance and on all other guidance that relates to equality before the law, I have said that we are reviewing absolutely everything. I will ensure that under this Government equality before the law is never a principle that is compromised, although it was compromised under the Conservative Government.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

21. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

This Government inherited a situation where around 10% of offenders account for over half of all convictions. We also inherited rising levels of theft and shoplifting. In February, I announced reforms to the probation service that will focus more of its time on offenders who pose a higher risk of reoffending, and I have asked David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, cut the cycle of reoffending and ultimately make our streets safer.

[Blake Stephenson]

In my constituency there is a particular problem of hyper-prolific shoplifting. There are no credible deterrents and it is a scourge on our local communities and shop owners. Can the Justice Secretary rule out any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, in the Crime and Policing Bill this Government have removed the effective immunity from prosecution for thefts relating to values under £200, so we are already taking clear, definitive action to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman sees in his constituency. I will not pre-empt the findings of the sentencing review. I am interested in how we ensure that those who he correctly described as career criminals turn their back on a life of crime, because in the end that is the best strategy for cutting crime and making our streets safer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Member well knows, the solicitors profession is highly regulated. We have the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which itself is regulated by the Legal Services Board. All our professionals, whether they are practising in criminal or civil law, are highly respected and highly regulated, and we are indebted to them.