Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joe Robertson and Alex Davies-Jones

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The backlog of cases in the Isle of Wight coroner service is the worst in the country, causing pain and distress to too many families, some of whom are waiting 800 days to find out what is happening to their loved ones. Will the Minister offer any comment or support to those families, and will she agree to meet me to discuss how we deal with the problem of the Isle of Wight coroner?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his engagement on this issue. He has written to me and we have had quite productive conversations about it. I recently met the chief coroner to discuss the specific issue on the Isle of Wight, because we know that the delays are causing untold turmoil to families in an already awful, traumatic process. I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss a way forward, but I am reassured by the action being taken by the chief coroner to address the issue in the Isle of Wight directly.

Crime and Policing Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Alex Davies-Jones

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to Opposition amendments 44 and 45 and to address directly what I consider to be a major loophole in this proposed law, which has really good intent behind it. There are two elements to the spiking loophole. I can envisage a defendant getting away with administering a harmful substance by saying that he or she did not intend to injure, aggrieve or annoy. Furthermore, they may claim that it was intended merely as a prank, but the act was so obviously reckless and stupid that they should nevertheless be captured by the provision.

As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam just mentioned, we heard really good evidence on this issue. I pose the rhetorical question: what is the point of evidence sessions if we do not take on powerful and direct testimony from somebody whose family were affected in the most tragic way? “Pranking” was the word used in that session, and we heard that it is on the rise. Spiking can be done with the worst intent—to cause serious harm—but clearly any law should cover someone who intends a prank with a harmful substance.

The idea behind broadening the offence beyond merely intent—we are no longer necessarily talking about pranking, but about the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy—to recklessness has plenty of foundation and precedent in law. In fact, we have just debated that point with clause 57, relating to exposure. Under the new law relating to exposure, someone commits an offence if they expose their genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. There are two reasons why clause 57 will capture someone under criminal law: if the person intends to be seen, or if they are reckless as to whether anyone sees them. When it comes to spiking, the idea should be the same: that a person who administers a harmful substance does so either with intent to injure, aggrieve, annoy or prank, or is reckless as to that being the effect of administering the substance.

Let us be clear: under clause 73, administering a harmful substance on its own is not a criminal offence. It requires something in the mind of a person—currently, only intent. I urge the Government to include reckless behaviour in respect of which, to a reasonable person, it should be obvious that injury, grievance or annoyance would result, even if that was not the intention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been a good one, getting to the heart of the important issue of spiking, which needs to be tackled. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling amendments 44 and 45, which enable me to give a fuller answer to the question he raised at the end of the Committee’s evidence session and to explain the rationale for clause 73.

Clause 73 fulfils our manifesto commitment to crack down on spiking and bring perpetrators to justice. I reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friends that the new offence is just one part of a package of measures designed to tackle this crime. Alongside the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, I co-chair the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, which we will publish shortly. We will of course work with all the many agencies in this field—across the night-time economy, transport, the Department of Health and Social Care, the police and education sectors—to try to prevent this abhorrent crime and to support the victims who have sadly suffered.

The new offence is just one step in the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls in a decade, and to making our streets safer. I should also say that although the majority of spiking victims are women, we should not forget—as Colin Mackie reminded us in evidence to the Committee—that men are victims too. Colin’s son, Greg, died after his drink was spiked with ecstasy. I pay tribute to Colin and Mandy Mackie from Spike Aware, and to the formidable Dawn Dines from Stamp Out Spiking for all her incredible campaigning over the years to get us to the point where we are clarifying this offence. I thank the many other organisations—my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham told us about the brilliant ones in Gravesend—for their work in this area to protect victims and stop these crimes happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I have a modicum of sympathy for how the Minister is addressing the words “prank” and “revenge”, although I do not necessarily agree with her. Will she address the issue of intent and recklessness, because that has a clear precedent in law, and indeed in the Bill itself?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily do so. On being reckless, it would be for the court to decide and determine the case on the facts in terms of its interpretation of aggrieve, annoy and intent. It is also important to deal with amendment 45, which could cause a problem, and address the hon. Gentleman’s comments head on. The amendment would introduce the requirement that the person must act “knowingly or recklessly” before the offence of administering harmful substances is committed. That risks introducing confusion, rather than bringing clarity. For the offence to be made out, a person has to act with the specific intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy the other person. To additionally require a defendant to knowingly or recklessly act is logically inconsistent with the requirement that they act with a specific intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy the victim.

Having explained why it is not helpful to amend the clause in the way suggested, I will return to the details of the clause, which will help to provide clarity. Proposed new section 24(2) defines “harmful substance” as

“any poison or other destructive or noxious thing”.

By incorporating the language of the existing sections 23 and 24 offences, we aim to capture the broad range of substances that can, as established by existing case law, be illegal to administer.

Proposed new section 24 also modernises the law in other ways. It will become an offence triable either way, rather than an indictable only offence: this allows for less serious cases to be dealt with quickly in the magistrates court, allowing for justice to be served quicker. The penalty for the new offence will be 10 years, reflecting the seriousness with which the Government take this behaviour. That penalty is the same as for the existing section 23 offence, and an increase in the maximum penalty for the more commonly prosecuted section 24 offence. The new offence will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Finally, Government amendments 16 and 19 add the new offence, as with the other offences in the Bill, to the list of serious offences that exclude a person from claiming as a defence that they committed the offence as the result of being subject to modern slavery.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the new offence to capture spiking will simplify the current legal landscape and be more readily understood by both the public and the police. It is part of our wider programme to increase public awareness of the illegality of spiking, encourage reporting and help the police to better respond to this abhorrent crime. I commend clause 73 to the Committee.

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Alex Davies-Jones

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Let me address some of the points made by the shadow Minister, specifically on perception. There is a misconception that the threshold is used by police forces to determine whether to respond to reports of shoplifting, and that is simply not true. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to catching a perpetrator, and that includes shoplifting; however, as we have heard, the measure has impacted the perception of shop theft among retailers, and would-be perpetrators who believe that low-value shoplifting will go unpunished and that the offence is not being taken seriously. The clause will send a clear message to those planning to commit shop theft of goods worth any amount that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment.

Let me turn to the impact on our courts. It was quite heartening to finally hear the Opposition mention their concern about the impact on our Crown court backlogs, given how we got there in the first place. The Government recognise that the courts are under unprecedented pressure, and we have debated why that is on separate occasions; however, we do not anticipate that the measure will add to that impact. The vast majority of shop theft cases are currently dealt with swiftly in the magistrates court, and we do not expect that to change as a result of implementing the measure. Even with the current £200 threshold in place, defendants can elect for trial in the Crown court, but they do so infrequently. Removing the threshold and changing low-value shop theft to an either-way offence will not impact election rights, and is therefore unlikely to result in increased trials in the Crown court.

Separately, as the shadow Minister noted, in recognition of the courts being under unprecedented pressure due to the inheritance we received from the Tory Government, we have commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. It will recommend options for ambitious reform to deliver a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I want to understand the logic of what the Minister is saying. She seems to be saying that the change to allow cases to be heard in the Crown court will be a deterrent, but she does not envisage an increase in cases being heard in the Crown court. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that it is up to the defendant to elect where their case is heard, and that the conviction rate is actually lower in the Crown court? I am concerned about the unintended consequences that more cases could be heard in the Crown court, which is more expensive, and involves a judge and a jury, for stealing perhaps a bottle of wine. It is quite extraordinary.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns; he has pre-empted my next point. To confirm, it is already currently an electable either-way offence and the vast majority of cases are tried in the magistrates court, but I will come to the modelling and the percentages right now.

Based on current data from the magistrates courts, an average of 5% of individuals in the last three years charged with shop theft—of any value—proceed to trial or are committed for sentencing in the Crown court. Around 88% of shop theft cases involved goods valued at £200 or less. For cases of theft over £200, approximately 40% of cases went to the Crown court. We have modelled a low, central and high scenario within the published economic note on this measure. The low scenario assumes that 1% of charges for shop theft under £200 would proceed to the Crown court, with the central and high scenarios assuming 8% and 14% respectively. It is also important to note that we have expanded the sentencing powers of the magistrates court and extended sitting time in the Crown court to reduce the backlog. The increased sentencing powers in magistrates courts have freed up the extent of 2,000 further sitting days in Crown courts to enable them to be used for the most serious cases, which is what they are they for.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not give way because I am conscious of time.

Let me turn to the final point on the impact on prison places, because the shadow Minister also raised concerns about that. Again, it is important to note that the Opposition are now raising concerns about the impact on our prisons after the inheritance we received from them. Prisons almost ran out of places last summer, which was a complete dereliction of duty and responsibility; they ran the prison system to the point of our entire criminal justice system collapsing. We, as a Government, have taken action to address that, and have carefully assessed how the change can be managed to ensure that we do not place further pressure on our prisons. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.