Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

This sounds like an absolutely appalling case and my heart goes out to Tallulah and her family. I am unaware of the details of the case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me, she will get a response.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Dozens of businesses have signed up to Torbay Council’s safety of women at night charter, which is being championed by Councillor Hayley Tranter. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who pose a threat to women, for example by spiking drinks, get the type of deterrent sentence that such disgraceful behaviour deserves?

Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words at the outset. I listened very carefully to what he said subsequently. He asked me if I will reflect. Of course I will reflect. I will listen very carefully to what has been said. We are here to respond to Bishop James’s report, which was not principally about the points that have moved on since, which I know we all recognise. We want to change the culture. We remain committed to changing the culture, and I will continue to have conversations about how we achieve that most effectively.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I was just reflecting on the fact that the last time we were here in the Chamber talking about this issue we were advised that the response would be produced in spring, so it is welcome to have it today. I welcome its general tone and nature. It was not just a lack of interest in finding the truth that was the issue; it was the fact that organs of the state set out to smear people, to lie and to cover up in order to save their own skin. We can say that it was 30 years ago, but we saw worrying similarities at the Stade de France—although it is not in our jurisdiction—when there was an attempt to blame fans for a complete overreaction from the French law enforcement authorities to some incidents there.

I found it interesting when the Secretary of State talked about the spend on legal representation, which is often disproportionate. He says it will be proportionate. Who will determine that? Let us remember that some of the public bodies thought it was perfectly proportionate to waste millions of pounds on trying to save their own skins, rather than on finding justice.

[Alex Chalk]

That is an excellent point. My hon. Friend asks who will determine what is proportionate. The whole point about encouraging Departments to publish material is that the public can make an assessment of whether it is proportionate. Frankly, that is an ordinary English word and people should know what it means. If they do not, that will become clear.

Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Anyone entering immigration detention is assessed as part of our adults at risk policy where there is a concern, but let me be clear: these are people who have been through the criminal justice process, some on a number of occasions; they have completed sentences and are now liable under the law to deportation. They have been judged on their criminality, not their nationality, but there are exemptions provided for in the 2007 Act.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Parliament in 2007 passed legislation to require the Government to deport those guilty of serious or persistent offences. In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree with me that, were the Government not to do it, they would be liable to judicial review?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. A range of work was done locally, supported by the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office with councils’ consent, to ensure that voters were aware of the requirements. The indications so far are that that has been successful, but of course we will look at the Electoral Commission’s independent review before making further decisions on the process.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

5. What plans the Government has to encourage more candidates with disabilities to stand for election.

Stalking Protection Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend makes an acute point. We must always recognise that whenever we legislate in this place, there is always the potential for the law of unintended consequences to apply. One thing that the courts will have to consider is precisely what stalking means, and that is covered by the Bill. Notwithstanding the possible pitfalls, there is no doubt that there was a gaping hole that needed to be filled. We in this country have moved much faster than most to seek to fill that gap.

I do not want to spend too much time looking into the history, but it is important to spend a moment putting the measures into context. The maximum penalty was five years’ imprisonment. When the judge came to sentence my constituent’s stalker at Gloucester Crown court, he said, “I simply don’t have the powers required to do justice in this case.” We know that if the maximum sentence is five years, which is of course 60 months, and the defendant pleads guilty—very often the evidence is so overwhelming that that is the only sensible approach for them—that takes it down to 40 months. They then serve half, and indeed they may even be released on a tag before the halfway point, so in reality the maximum penalty is around 18 months’ imprisonment. For a GP who has been stalked for seven years, driven to post-traumatic stress disorder and advised to come off the General Medical Council register, and who cannot begin to rebuild their life until they know that the person is in custody and they themselves are safe, 18 or 20 months is manifestly inadequate. I was therefore grateful to colleagues from all parties who came together to change the law and protect victims.

[Kevin Foster]

It is worth noting the work that my hon. Friend did with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) to produce a report that provided compelling evidence for why the House should change the law. It is appropriate that that is put on the record. Perhaps my hon. Friend may wish to reflect on the impact of that work.

[Alex Chalk]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to say that. Our work has had an impact, but none of that would have been possible—as I say to Dr Aston and, indeed, as I say to the family of Hollie Gazzard, who was very sadly killed by a former partner in Gloucester—or achievable in this place without people being brave enough to support the campaign. When I sat down with Ellie, I said, “Are you prepared to put your name to this and to try to change things?”, because I was always concerned that it could reheat old traumas, but to her great credit that was precisely what she agreed to do.

Let me turn to the Bill. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for the work she has done. With characteristic clarity, she has identified the importance of early intervention. The reality of this behaviour is first that it escalates, and secondly that it can become ingrained very quickly. For both those reasons, it is important to intervene, because the nature of this kind of offending is such that—and this is not a criticism of the police at all—the police intervene only after it has escalated and the behaviour has become ingrained.

Just imagine the circumstances in the example of my constituent. A GP says to the police, “I’m a bit concerned because I’ve had five letters from my patient.” The police officer says, “Well, it seems a bit odd, but probably no crime has been committed.” She then says, “Actually, it has now escalated, because he’s turned up at my home address. He didn’t say anything violent, but he didn’t have any particularly good reason to be there.” The police officer says, “Yes, well, that also sounds a bit odd, but it probably doesn’t cross the threshold for actually arresting or prosecuting someone.” One can imagine the drip, drip over time, and we are suddenly one, two, or three months down the line. Meanwhile, that behaviour and that fixation has become truly entrenched.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech both interesting and persuasive. Does he agree that we must be very clear that these powers are in addition to the powers that the police and the courts already have, and that they should in no way be seen as an alternative? If someone has committed an offence under existing legislation with the penalties that it carries, then that should be used? This measure should be viewed as a way of protecting someone in addition to those powers, and not as a replacement in any way?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is in addition.

Many victims have told me that by the time a perpetrator can be convicted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, when the court says, “Yes, an offence has been committed, the defendant has been convicted and we will now impose a restraining order,” they want to say, “Well, thank you very much, but the damage has been done,” because the concerns are in place and the behaviour is entrenched. Therefore, although one would not wish for one moment to remove that power—it remains an important tool for the courts—this provision fills that gap earlier in the process.

I have spoken for far too long, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] Hon. Members are very kind. In conclusion, we as a society have come an awfully long way on this issue, and we have done so as quickly as any other peer nation. It has been a process, and we are now close to, if not completing that process, getting to the point where these tools are available to the authorities. Ultimately, however, what will make the difference, whether in the criminal justice system or in any other part of public life, is the individuals who actually use these powers.

I wish to pay tribute to Gloucestershire Constabulary, whose police officers have put so much effort into this cause. They are leaders in their field. They have seized the baton and run with it, because they recognise the implications for people in our county—Hollie Gazzard is an obvious example, and Ellie Aston is another. Ultimately, it will be the officer who receives the complaint from the victim who, through their compassionate and organised response—I say “organised” because it is about collating so much data—will make the difference in whether justice is done. I think that that conscientious, professional officer will now have the tools that he or she needs to keep victims safe. On that basis, I am delighted to support the Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

rose—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Devon versus Gloucestershire. I call Mr Kevin Foster.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

We should say it firmly, and if I may say, no one can say it more firmly and eloquently than the hon. Gentleman. That is great, but we have to be chary of using legislation to send a message. I do not have any difficulty with doing it—we are doing that and it is absolutely fine—but there is a risk of one sick joke being replaced by another. I would feel very aggrieved if my daughter, say, was an ambulance worker, and a defendant was charged with what might be perceived to be an easier and lesser offence in circumstances where if the same thing happened, for the sake of argument, to one of the nightclub’s patrons who was not an emergency worker, the defendant might be charged under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act. We rely on prosecutors using their judgment, and I am sure that they will continue to do so, but my simple point is that this has the greatest scope for injustice, and it should not be allowed to happen.

[Kevin Foster]

I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech very interesting and thought-provoking. Does he agree that Parliament can make its intentions clear on this subject by making this an aggravating factor in the offences that he refers to, and not by looking to incorporate it as such into this offence? Of course, the intention may well be common assault, but this is about making it an aggravating factor in existing sexual offences and not about saying to prosecutors, “You went for this offence when you should have gone for the offence under the 2003 legislation.”

[Alex Chalk]

I take that point entirely.

My final point is about the issue of grievous bodily harm with intent, which most right-thinking people would think is the appropriate offence to charge someone with who had bitten a police officer’s finger, but a middle ground exists between grievous bodily harm with intent and common assault, which currently has a maximum sentence of six months—that is, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Why do I mention that? As has been intimated, common assault is for offences that leave no mark at all. If any offence leaves a mark that, in the language of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is more than merely transient or trifling—in plain English, that is reddening of the skin—the defendant can be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, whether the victim is an emergency worker or not, with a maximum penalty of five years. That would mean, once the discount for an early guilty plea is taken off, that someone could be inside for 20 months maximum.

This is my central point: let us support this Bill and let us send out the message that attacks on our emergency workers are heinous, that they are not to be tolerated and that the law should come down like a ton of bricks. However, let us also not forget that getting justice means selecting the offence so that the punishment will fit the crime—

Stalking Protection Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly given that this Bill is being introduced by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is always a pleasure to be here on Friday discussing Bills, which may not be the longest Bills that we have ever considered, but they are ones that have a significant impact and deal with a hole in the law that needs to be filled, and that can only be done via primary legislation.

As I said with regard to the previous Bill, it is clear why there is a need for this Bill, why it is proportionate and what effect it will have. The test that I apply on a Friday has certainly been met in this case. For me, it is time that we looked at the impact of stalking on victims. This is not just about a person pestering someone—perhaps sending the odd couple of things they did not want; it is about a person actually setting out to control their victim, to dominate their life, to make it so that they almost cannot live a normal life for fear of another person’s actions, and to control them in a way that has similarities to behaviour in abusive relationships, when people are not looking to hold someone in great affection but to control them through their actions and behaviour.

It is very welcome that in criminal offences relating to stalking, we have seen increases in sentences: we have seen it viewed as something far more serious in society and in our own law over recent years. None the less, there is still this gap for those who are engaging in behaviour that is clearly wholly inappropriate. We will now have an ability to deal with them through the court. That is why there is a clear need for this Bill.

Looking at whether this Bill is proportionate takes me to the process of the application and how the orders will be granted. It will be a chief police officer who applies and who looks at whether there is clear evidence that needs to be taken forward. It will be the magistrates court that takes a decision as to whether to apply the order and what should be done with it, and then there is the fact that it can be appealed to a Crown court. There are plenty of protections in place, which means that the Bill is eminently proportionate. Furthermore, the order can fit the person. As hon. Members have already said, it is right that some people have mental health assessments, because their behaviour in many cases suggests mental health issues. This measure is a highly proportionate part of the law because it provides for tackling and putting to the test a genuine illness that may be driving someone’s behaviour, rather than just looking to threaten someone with punishment.

I particularly like the fact that an interim order can be put in place while the main application is under way, because we would not want someone to ramp up their campaign of harassment in the hope that they might stop the order being pursued or make the victim less determined to go forward while the application was waiting to be considered by the court. I am always a bit fearful of that. Indeed, this is why we have interlocutory injunctions, which go before the main hearing, when there has been an application to court. Such injunctions mean that the actual hearing does not become a pointless affair due to the person continuing their behavioural patterns up to the point at which the court can consider the case fully.

This is a proportionate piece of legislation, but I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who made it clear that it should not be seen as a replacement for the criminal law. It is not about replacing the prosecution process or stopping someone being prosecuted. I was keen to speak on this Bill to make it clear that no police officer should look at this provision as an alternative to prosecution. If there is evidence that the crime has been committed, the police should go through exactly the same process; this Bill is not a substitute.

[Alex Chalk]

In the case of my constituent—a GP in Cheltenham—the only way in which she could begin the process of rebuilding her life was to know that the person who had been tormenting her was behind bars. We should not do it willy-nilly, but there are occasions when people have to be locked up, and this legislation should not be a substitute for custody. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kevin Foster]

I absolutely agree. This is not a substitute for someone being locked up or paying the price that Parliament has set down for certain crimes. Victims need to see justice done. As with the previous Bill we discussed, this legislation provides an additional power for dealing with poor behaviour and poor conduct in society. It is not an alternative power for dealing with poor conduct. I welcome the Minister to her place, and I am interested in hearing how she will ensure that with guidance issued to the police through the Home Office. How will the Department make it clear to the police that this is an additional provision that takes their powers further? It is not a choice between prosecution or this; it is now prosecution and this. This Bill covers behaviour that is not quite caught by current criminal offences. It is an expansion, not an alternative. The Bill does include penalties of imprisonment for continuing to breach the orders, and that is appropriate. There are some people who will not stop even after many remedies, and they probably need the threat of prison to put them off.

This Bill is welcome. It is an appropriate and proportionate step, and I am interested in how the police will implement it in my constituency of Torbay. It provides that the chief officer can apply for an order only in respect of someone in their area. How will the Minister ensure that there is co-operation between police forces in cases where the person resides outside the area or is being a nuisance to someone who goes between two areas? Those questions are about making the Bill an effective piece of legislation. How will the Minister ensure that victims of stalking—as with victims of domestic violence—feel that they can safely come forward and give their point of view, and that this new power is well known about? If people are not aware of the law, they may not know what rights they have to ask the police force to take action.

I am conscious of the time, and I have absolutely no intention of continuing to a point at which I would talk this Bill out. [Interruption.] I hear some enthusiastic approval from the Opposition Benches; I will conclude in the very near future.

I appreciate and welcome this Bill. I hope that I get the opportunity to serve on the Committee and take part in some of the detailed scrutiny of exactly how this will work and move forward. That applies particularly to the guidance that is issued to chief police officers when they make these decisions, because we want this power to be effective, and an addition, not an alternative, to the existing criminal law.

Stalking (Protection of Victims)

Debate between Kevin Foster and Alex Chalk

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on stalking and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

May I begin by placing on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has played an active role in taking up the case? I also thank Gloucestershire CID and the officer in the case of Knight for their assistance to me, but most of all, I would like to thank my constituent, Dr Eleanor Aston. It is her dreadful ordeal as the victim of stalking that was the principal trigger for the debate. She was targeted by a stalker in a way which, as the court heard, caused her “exceptional anxiety and suffering”. She has shown great courage in supporting the debate, and she deserves the gratitude of the whole House.

I will say a little more about the circumstances of her case in a moment, but thought it might be helpful to set out my main point at the beginning. Stalking is a horrible, violating crime that rips relationships apart and shatters lives. My principal point is that the powers to punish offenders and protect the victims of this horrible offence are wholly inadequate, and that inadequacy is particularly blatant when the stalking concerned forms part of a pattern of repeat offending.

So that you know where I am heading, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am calling for two principal things. First, I want an increase in sentencing powers for offences of stalking contrary to section 4(4)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and, secondly, a review of the restrictive rule in section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which means that in any case in which a court sentences a defendant for an offence that he commits on licence—not just stalking—the court must order the new sentence to run concurrently with the old one. It sounds arcane, but it is not. The situation leads to injustice and I shall explain why in a moment. The point is that currently the law does not get that difficult balance right. It creates a sentencing straitjacket that restricts the court’s ability to do justice. The judge in the case affecting my constituent thought that that was wrong. I think it is wrong, too.

I am not seeking something that would have dramatic knock-on effects. Civil servants rightly reach for their calculators to work out what the impact of any legislative change would be. But the cases in which there would be a particularly lengthy sentence for stalking, or indeed an extended sentence, are likely to be rare. Equally, the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to impose back-to-back sentences are likely to be infrequent. The simple point is that when the circumstances demand it, courts should have the tools they need to do justice and protect the victim.

I need to set out a little more detail about the case involving my constituent. Dr Aston is a general practitioner, described at Gloucester Crown Court as “successful and popular”, and she practises at a local surgery in Gloucestershire. Raymond Knight, the defendant, became a patient at her surgery in 2007. As is sometimes the case with this type of offending, the harassment began annoyingly but relatively innocuously, with the defendant sending cards and inappropriate messages to the surgery, but it soon became far more serious.

Raymond Knight began attending Dr Aston’s surgery and vandalising her car, and in 2009 he was convicted of harassment, contrary to section 2 of the 1997 Act, and a restraining order was imposed with conditions. It did not work. He continued to stalk her. He attended her surgery over 100 times and vandalised it, posting foul items through the letter box, and he attended her home frequently. He was arrested and multiple photos were found on his camera and computer. In July 2010 he was sentenced to a two-year community order.

Once again, the community order completely failed to work and the stalking continued. I will set out some of the details so that the House understands why I am making these points. The defendant showed up at a party for Dr Aston’s young daughter and slashed her car tyre. He was arrested again following reports of hacking a water pipe and interfering with the gas supply. In May 2013 he was convicted and sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment for eight breaches of a restraining order and causing criminal damage.

What about the effect on the victim? Dr Aston was advised by the police to change her name and job and move address. It was suggested that she should come off the General Medical Council register. The stalking led to her being off work for many months, and she was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

What happened next? This is where the law goes wrong. The defendant was released on licence in July 2014, the half-way point of his sentence, with a condition to reside at a bail hostel in Weymouth. However, as is not uncommon in offences of this nature, within six months he was offending again. In December 2014 Dr Aston received two packages, one to her home address in Cheltenham and the other to her medical practice in Gloucester. One was threatening and abusive in content. It suggested that the defendant had been watching her and knew her car registration, where her husband worked and where her children went to school. Chillingly, the second package simply read, “Guess who’s back?”

The defendant was arrested the following day and his licence was revoked. In other words, he was required to serve the balance of the original 44-month sentence. On 15 May 2015 he was sentenced for several offences, including stalking and breach of a restraining order. In his sentencing remarks, the judge stated that the defendant had conducted a campaign for six years in which he had sought to “terrorise” the victim. But the law went wrong, because the maximum sentence the judge could impose for the stalking was five years’ imprisonment. Where there is an early guilty plea, the judge is obliged, as in all cases, to deduct a third from the sentence. That means in reality a maximum sentence of around three years and four months. Of course, prisoners serve half their sentence, so the total time to be served in prison is little more than 18 months. We should bear in mind the fact that that is for the most serious examples of stalking.

The judge in this case clearly felt that the sentence was inadequate. He stated:

“I am frustrated that the maximum sentence for harassment is five years. I would, if I could, give you longer.”

In fact, His Honour Judge Tabor QC appears to have done his best to do justice by imposing consecutive sentences for some breaches of the restraining order, but that is somewhat beside the point.

The second problem facing the sentencing judge was that because of the restrictive wording of section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, he was obliged to order that the new sentence of five years should run concurrently with the period of licence that he was serving on recall. In other words, he was not allowed to order the defendant to serve out the balance of his original sentence before starting his new one. What did the judge make of that? He added:

“I also make it clear that I feel it is wrong that I am not entitled to pass a consecutive sentence on you.”

The effect of all this is clear. In this case, the judge’s hands were tied. He was able neither to punish the offender nor to protect the victim in the way that justice demanded.

So what needs to change? First, the maximum sentence for stalking contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 needs to be increased. If we think about where stalking fits into the hierarchy, that point is well made. The maximum sentence for criminal damage—an offence against property—is 10 years, and the maximum sentence for a single one-off dwelling house burglary is 14 years. It is bordering on the absurd that the maximum penalty for a campaign of stalking over many years that left the victim feeling, in the words of the judge, “terrorised”, is so much less.

Secondly, to protect the victim, stalking should be a specified offence. That would allow the court, in the most serious cases, after a proper, evidence-based assessment of the defendant, and having found him to be “dangerous” within the meaning of the 2003 Act, to impose an extended period of licence. That would require the defendant, on release, to know that he had to obey the law for an extended period, failing which he could be returned to prison. It may be noted that in this case the judge said:

“I have no doubt at all that you are dangerous in the sense that you pose a significant risk to her in future in terms of causing her serious harm.”

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful arguments. Does he agree that because the history of the law dates from a time before social media and the internet had exploded as it has now, when there are much greater opportunities to stalk someone and find out the details of their family, the deterrent needs to be stronger than perhaps it was in previous years?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. He is absolutely right. I suspect that stalking is as old as the sea, but the opportunities to stalk are much greater now than they have ever been. Indeed, stalking was discussed in this House during the previous Parliament, but then, as now, there was a growing sense that the courts do not have the tools they need to be able to address it.

Let me make it crystal clear that I am not from the brigade that says we should be locking people up and throwing away the key. I am merely suggesting that there needs to be proportionality so that judges can, in appropriate circumstances, ensure that the punishment fits the crime and, just as importantly if not more so, that victims can be protected. Just imagine what it is like when you, as the victim, know that the person who has made your life a misery is due to be released from prison for the most serious type of stalking offence about 18 months after he was sent there.

Let me return to my point about back-to-back sentencing, which might sound arcane, but is critical. At the moment, a defendant may commit an offence of stalking, go to prison, be released at the halfway point, and then, as is not uncommon, do exactly the same again. The judge should be able to say, “Right, you go and complete the balance of your sentence. You were told that you would be released at the halfway point but your sentence has not come to an end. If you commit further offences, you are liable to be recalled on licence to complete your sentence, and then you will have to start a sentence for the new crime that you have committed.” That discretion is not open to the court. The judge is obliged by section 265 of the 2003 Act to make the sentences run concurrently. That is wrong. The courts should not be prevented from imposing a consecutive sentence of imprisonment in those cases, no doubt rare, where it is called for. I repeat that I am not saying that that should happen in every case, or even in most cases. I am simply saying that it should be on the list of options available to the sentencing judge, who views the circumstances in the round.

In the overwhelming majority of cases I believe our courts—by which I mean judges, barristers, solicitors, police officers and court staff—deliver a standard of justice of which we can all be proud. In this case, however, our criminal justice system fell short. My constituent, Dr Aston, was not given the protection she required and it is time to put that right.