Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing

Debate between Jess Brown-Fuller and Gideon Amos

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I congratulate Paris Shears especially, and all those who signed the petition. It is very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. It takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try to effect change. I am profoundly impressed by those who use their trauma to try to make the world a better place for those who come after them so that they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have. I am very grateful to Paris for all that she has done, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her support for Paris. Paris’s story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign the petition and share their own experiences.

The topic of today’s debate is vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime. As has been said by many Members across the House, it is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards. Victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger because of the very nature of the coercion and control, which cuts these people off from their lives, from accessing health services and from even being able to leave their homes. In these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed and the abuse and trauma continues.

It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve, but too often the justice system has failed to do that. In cases where the abuse is identified—when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts—victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, including delays to trial and a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse. That culture continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives. It is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and cannot bear the thought of going through a trial.

The situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of those flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing their abusers benefit from the system. They see their abuser’s sentence being reduced while simultaneously having to go through re-traumatisation. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.

Sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long-standing practice, and their importance within our criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They help to avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they do not want or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting that incentive to harm their victims again.

In their response to the petition, the Government stated that they are “committed to updating” the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to that timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review. As part of that review, will the Minister commit to considering a mechanism that has come to mind during this debate, which is one that could look at a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see whether a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? A reduction could be included at that point, but not on the morning of a trial. It should be made very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to make it 30 days in advance.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I thank those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition. In addition to the review of sentencing guidelines for which my hon. Friend has advocated, and which I very much support, does she agree that, in respect of Paris’s law, which I also support, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes, so that individuals are targeted and coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at its root as much as possible?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reflect that, as part of the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. The Liberal Democrats also believe that the Government should review, as part of the update, how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that perpetrators cannot use legal proceedings maliciously to continue their abuse.

Beyond that, the Government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. The Liberal Democrats tabled multiple amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aimed to improve the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues in the courts in general. One of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and all court staff to receive trauma-informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court. On multiple occasions, the Government have argued that such mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the Government’s plans for rape and serious sexual offence courts. I struggle to understand how they can commit to having trauma-informed members of the judiciary for RASSO courts but not across the entire court estate.

At the heart of this issue are the delays. The Crown court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The Government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of the failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we have seen in recent months. Real change can be achieved through targeted listing, the better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming prisoner escort contracts.

We believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, and that they too often fail to recognise domestic abuse, despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. We must provide sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, and expand the provision of high-quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse. We want to establish specialist VAWG taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said in his excellent speech, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures, because so often, and especially for those who do not have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is available to them when it comes to special measures. If they were a standard principle across all courtrooms and a victim could then say, “No, actually, I don’t want the special measures. I want to be able to face the accused in court,” that would be very different from their getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for them.

If we can take one thing from this debate, it is that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. We must listen to those who have spoken up in support of the petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed, so that other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Jess Brown-Fuller and Gideon Amos

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.

I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.

On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.

First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.

We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.

It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.

We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency?