Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q Do you support the publication of sentencing remarks in the interest of transparency, supporting victims and their families, and wider public confidence in seeing justice delivered?

Baroness Newlove: I certainly do. The media give out information, and I have learned more about my sentencing remarks because I never got them until very long afterwards. Every victim, not just those of sexual crimes, has a right to see those sentencing remarks, because it gives them time to digest. You leave the courtroom thinking that you know everything, but as your memory and emotions come, you start asking yourself questions.

Sentencing is very technical: you hear a sentence, then it is reduced if they have been on remand—there are boxed-off things. Also, as I found out, there are tariff reviews for juveniles, which even the probation service was not aware of because there are very few of them. If you look at the crime rate, you will see that we are getting younger offenders in prison. We have to prepare families for the tariff review, which means that offenders go to appeal to reduce their tariff, so you go through that.

It should not simply be a case of saying, “There are the sentencing remarks.” There are implications, and every victim has a right to see the sentencing remarks. It is about them, and it affects the decisions about what the offender will do, and it should be the victim’s right to have that information. They do not have any advocates to speak for them, and the prosecution pursue their own case. If the media can get things out there, why can we not give it to victims and families?

Katie Kempen: From our perspective, accessing sentencing remarks is an issue for victims. They would like to be able to access them. We welcomed the pilot and its continued roll-out.

I have a nuanced response because victims’ needs differ. If there is to be wider publication, we need to see whether any protection is needed for individual victims, rather than carte blanche, “Yes, publish them all.” A key issue is explaining the sentencing remarks to victims. Again, in our “Suffering for Justice” report, where victims did not have the sentencing remarks explained to them, it caused them real anguish and distress. They should be able to have the sentencing remarks explained to them, and where they do, it helps their recovery journey and brings closure. My answer is yes, with some nuance. We need the explanation, and we need to treat the victims like a human being who has gone through a traumatic experience.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q We have talked a great deal about the changes in definitions around victims. We have also talked about the role of social landlords. Is not one of the challenges in implementing this Bill making the many stakeholders that come into contact with victims clear that they are dealing with a victim, and them knowing what a victim is and what their responsibilities are once they realise that?

Katie Kempen: Yes. Particularly when looking at antisocial behaviour, we absolutely welcome the additional powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. Brutally, the Victims’ Commissioner knew what the issues were surrounding antisocial behaviour—the last time she was in office, she wrote a fantastic report that has still not been fully implemented and enacted.

At Victim Support we would like to see an ASB charter so that victims of antisocial behaviour have clarity on their expectations and rights, and on the responsibilities of each organisation. Victims are far too often ping-ponged between different organisations. They do not hear their rights in terms of the reviews.

As Baroness Newlove has said, there is a cohort of victims who slip through the net in accessing victim support services. Their case may not reach the criminal threshold that gets them to victims code rights, but they are still finding that their lives are essentially ruined by antisocial behaviour. Those cases are complex, difficult to resolve and take significant advocacy. We need some clarity on rights and responsibilities in that arena.

Baroness Newlove: I add a request to get rid of the term “low level.” The police start by thinking that antisocial behaviour is low level, and if you train your police officers with that narrative, they will not give respect to victims. Antisocial behaviour is horrendously violent to the individual. For my last report I met victims whose houses were nearly burned down, but the local authorities never came. I have met a victim of arson against their car, which nearly murdered the family because she was sleeping on the sofa—the police never came out, but the fire officers sat there for two hours.

We have to get away from looking at antisocial behaviour as low level, because it is the route for violence upon violence. I do not want to talk just about me, but my husband was murdered. Before that, it would have been treated as antisocial behaviour. If he had lived, it would have just gone through the system. If you leave antisocial behaviour, it is like a cancer; it will spread and spread.

That is where it helps communities, if you really want to get to the nub of all this. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am delighted about being able to go to a housing provider, but you are quite right about the implementation and accountability. This is going to take many attempts, but it has to start with the police to stop the ping-ponging. There is a human there who is feeling suicidal. You will act if they take their life, like Fiona Pilkington or David Askew did, and that is too little too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Blundell]

Q Sometimes in my experience there is an unwillingness, but I appreciate what you say. Clare, have you got any comments on that?

Clare Moody: Not specifically on the legislation piece. I think it is about the agencies working together. We have an example in Avon and Somerset where there are police officers who co-locate with the housing association —they have a desk space in the housing association—and that close working has resulted in closer co-operation on how to manage difficult situations with tenants. There are practical ways you can do things that do not necessarily require the legislation to change, because they are already in place.

[Bradley Thomas]

Q I just want to pick up the point on the Opposition amendment about the power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. I am particularly mindful that we are talking about a sentencing hearing, at which point someone will have been found guilty and convicted. I think the general sentiment from victims and the public is that at that point the rights of the victim and their family come first, and that should be front and foremost in the projection of what goes on in the court, in order to see justice delivered. I am mindful that in other jurisdictions, including the US, there are powers to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. Do you have any further thoughts on that?

Genna Telfer: I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.

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

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Rankin]

Q As the official Opposition, we have tabled an amendment to increase the force with which the justice system can compel the convicted to come to their sentencing hearings. We are particularly keen to make sure there is a duty to consult the victim or their family, where the victim is deceased. Is that something you would support?

Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences?

Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.

[Bradley Thomas]

Q As a quick follow-up, what if it was a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child?

Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.

[The Chair]

Mr Brooks, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.

We are coming to the penultimate panel, and it is quite likely that the final panel will be punctuated. If so, since the Minister will be on the Front Bench for the business to come in the Chamber, I do not propose to call her back—I hope that is satisfactory. Hopefully we will get everybody in and the two remaining panels will not be interrupted, but I am expecting a vote shortly before the hour, so it is quite possible that they will be.

Examination of Witnesses

Kim Thornden-Edwards and Chris Jennings gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q I thank the Minister for listening to my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who was killed by a stranger when she was nine years old. He did not attend his sentence hearing. You listened to her and acted. Another part of her ask, which is in the Bill but not spelled out so much, is for sanctions if the offender refuses to turn up to the sentence hearing. Can you say a bit more about what that would look like? What mechanisms—they are not currently in the Bill—can be used to compel them? The point that my constituent made is that, for someone whose sentence is four years or even 10, a few extra years would be compelling, but if it is life imprisonment, that would essentially be meaningless.

Alex Davies-Jones: Thank you for that question. We have built on the previous Government’s measure to compel perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings. The previous measure was merely an extra two years on their prison sentence. As you have stated, and as victims have told us, for someone serving a whole-life order or life imprisonment, an extra two years on their sentence is not really an incentive to come to court.

We listened to the Pratt-Korbels and other families who have been through this horrific situation, and have done something quite novel. For the first time ever in this Bill, judges will be given powers to issue sanctions on perpetrators once they are in prison. We have not listed those sanctions on the face of the Bill because we do not want to be prescriptive. A whole range of measures is available, and we feel that listing them in the Bill would be too restrictive. By not doing so, we enable judges to use every tool at their disposal to issue sanctions in prison. They include, for example, limitations on access to a gym, to work programmes or to television. We are looking at visit restrictions, and salaries can be taken away if the offender is in a work programme. All that can be looked at in the round; those are all available to a judge as part of a sanctions programme.

We want perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings in person. You heard how important it is to victims and survivors to have them there in person to hear justice being done. We have looked at all the practical ways in which that can be done. We have worked with stakeholders, including the judiciary and prison governors, and we felt that this is the best course of action.

[Bradley Thomas]

Q Minister, do you agree that violent offences can be as serious as sexual ones?

Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.

[Bradley Thomas]

Q I have a constituent whom I met a few months ago. Forgive me—you may have heard me mention this on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. My constituent is probably in a unique situation. She is a serving detective. Her ex-partner, who was a detective, is serving a sentence in excess of 10 years for having raped her, and he continues to enjoy indirect parental access rights. My constituent is excessively concerned that the continuation of access rights in an indirect form—usually in the form of a letter that often conveys coercive messaging and veiled threats to her—is hindering not just her welfare, but that of their children. In addition, under the current arrangement, as she and I understand it, if she were to take a large life decision, she would still have to consult her ex-partner, because of the continued parental access rights and responsibility that he enjoys while serving his prison sentence. Do you agree that, if someone commits a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child, their parental access responsibility should be restricted?

Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action.

In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. We have had an awful lot of questions this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about individuals who are avoiding judgment and avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. I am a new Member, but I understand that the measures in the Bill about asking offenders to attend their sentencing were part of a previous Bill, before the general election. In what ways are the measures in this Bill stronger than the measures in the previous Bill?

Alex Davies-Jones: To repeat my answer to Anneliese, the measures in the previous Government’s Bill, which fell before the general election, would have only added an extra two years on to the sentence of a perpetrator who failed to attend their sentencing hearing. The measure in this Bill goes significantly further. For the first time ever, judges will have the ability to sanction perpetrators in prison who fail to attend their sentencing hearing or are disruptive while in the courtroom. If the perpetrator does attend the sentencing hearing, but proceeds to disrupt it, the judge will be able to apply the sanctions. That is a measure in the Bill.

We are also providing prison officers with the ability to conduct reasonable force to get the perpetrator to attend the sentencing hearing. That is a measure in the Bill. Our Bill is markedly different, and that is because we have listened to victims and survivors about what they wanted and felt was appropriate to ensure that there was culpability and accountability.