Victims and Courts Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard powerful speeches that reflect the deep importance of the Bill, and the heavy responsibility that we all carry for delivering justice not just in name, but in practice. Like others, I pay tribute to the campaigners who have joined us, whom I was privileged to meet briefly earlier, and who are in the Gallery. They have all campaigned on behalf of their loved ones—Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredibly powerful contribution. To see Cheryl hear those words, knowing that they were going on the record, will have impacted so many Members today. I am sure that it will be something that Cheryl will never forget. We must not forget how difficult the campaigning has been. All campaigners have had to relive experiences and deal with the most unimaginable memories. They pay a very heavy price every time they have had to do that, and I thank them for it, and I know that other Members will do the same.

The Opposition welcome the intent behind this legislation. Measures to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and to remove parental responsibility from serious child sex offenders were committed to, and work was begun on them, by the previous Government. The provisions to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings come after we have seen one too many disgraceful examples in recent years of the most serious and violent criminals hiding from justice, and from the pain that they have caused. That must end.

We welcome cross-party support on this matter, but at present, the Bill leaves out an important principle. The decision to require an offender’s attendance should fundamentally be driven by the wishes of the victims and their families. It is they who must live with the consequences of the crime, and they who should be at the centre of deciding whether the person who harmed them should be made to face them in court. Justice must not just be seen to be done, but should be shaped by those it seeks to serve. We will push for changes to this legislation during its future stages to ensure that is the case. We also want to make sure that the correct balance is struck on the use of force. The Prison Officers’ Association is clear: notwithstanding concerns about prison officers’ equipment, they will not resile from taking offenders to court. The legislation needs to ensure that only in the most exceptional circumstances does that not happen.

We have heard concerning stories about parents having to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court to remove parental rights from serious sexual offenders, and I welcome the fact that the previous Government planned legislation to begin addressing that. We welcome our shared desire to act on this issue, but the Minister will have heard campaigners’ concerns that the approach in the Bill does not cut it. I welcome the Minister’s public commitment to considering how to strengthen it.

Last year, when in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting in the Gallery, supported an amendment for a much broader measure than the Government are proposing today. I encourage her to speak to her colleague on the Front Bench about how this measure falls short. The debate then was around whether the measure should apply to offenders perpetrating offences against any children, and about where to set the threshold. Our proposed measure was not perfect, but this measure is the worst of both worlds. It relates only those who have offended against their own children, and there is quite a high bar, in that they have to have been sentenced to at least four years. I think that we can do better than that.

We also welcome improvements to victims’ information rights and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. That role, which has been maintained by Governments of all parties for a significant time now, is incredibly important. Baroness Newlove, the commissioner, will look closely at the Bill, and will support victims and campaigners in their efforts to ensure that it delivers. She has also consistently raised a possible source of funding—funding is always a challenge for every Government Department: unpaid victim surcharges. The £1 billion-plus might help fund some of the work that we want to do.

Although there are measures that we welcome, there are changes that are being trailed as measures for victims, but that are nothing of the sort, such as the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have caused confusion even in the Chamber among Labour Members; for example, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) seemed to think that these are measures for victims. The measure on the unduly lenient sentence scheme is nothing to do with victims.

A total of 14,000 people signed the petition for Sasha’s law, which was set up by campaigner Katie Brett, who is on the Justice for Victims group, in memory of her sister Sasha. If the House will forgive me, I will detail what happened to her sister. She was murdered in 2013. Aged just 16, she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believe that her killer met the criteria for a whole-life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. Katie and her family did not know anything about the right of appeal, and even if they did, who really thinks most people are in the right state of mind to think about that sort of thing within 28 days of the sentence being passed? Katie is not alone. Ayse Hussein, another member of the campaign group who was also in the Gallery today, campaigns in memory of her cousin, Jan. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and also murdered Henriett Szucs and hid the bodies of both women in a freezer. He did not receive a whole-life sentence, and would probably leave prison one day. Again, her family knew nothing of the right to appeal.

When they saw that changes were to be made to the scheme, campaigners reasonably thought that the changes would extend the 28-day time limit for victims, but no: the Government want to give more time not to victims and families but to themselves. More time for Government means that they have longer to think about and reflect on these deeply personal and sensitive matters than victims will have. That is bordering on insulting, and I think the Minister will share my concerns. In Committee we will put forward amendments that require victims, not just the Government, to be given more time. I hope we will have the support of Labour Members who have committed today to supporting that measure, such as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal).

We welcome the creation of a statutory right for victims to have information about an offender’s release, but we want to know how this will be delivered, who will staff the helplines, how victims will know their rights, and what exactly they will be told. For some time, the Victims’ Commissioner has raised the question of whether victims should get to know the specific release date.

[Sir John Hayes]

To be clear, the current situation allows victims 28 days for a referral, and the Bill extends the period for consideration to 14 days. What we want is for victims to have longer, and it seems absolutely right that that should happen. It would be a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to table in order to back victims. Is that really too much to ask?

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend has laid out the situation correctly. I counted three Labour Members in the Chamber today who already support such a measure. I look forward to them voting in support of an amendment along those lines given what they have said today, but I might not hold my breath.

Let us be clear that victims of crime need more than just the measures in the Bill. They need a criminal justice system that works and delivers justice swiftly, fairly and consistently. That is where the Bill falls short. When we were in government, we toughened up sentences for the worst criminals. We began the difficult task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for offenders, which was introduced by Labour. We quadrupled legal aid for victims and enshrined the victims code in law. We dedicated £230 million to our tackling domestic abuse plan, including a quadrupling of funding for victims and support services, and we introduced tagging of domestic abusers.

Labour Members made a lot of promises in opposition, including on measures in the Bill. It is now up to them to deliver. The Bill might tighten certain laws and improve the experience for some victims, but it fails to address the elephant in the room. It does nothing to tackle the fundamental problems that victims face every day when trying to access justice. For all the good the Bill may do, it does nothing to address the mounting pressures on our courts after the Government spent almost a year dragging their feet instead of doing everything they could to get the courts operating at maximum capacity. Even now the Lord Chancellor is not pulling every lever available when it comes to court sitting days, as the Lady Chief Justice has repeatedly asked her to do. The truth is that victims are still waiting months, sometimes years, for their cases to be heard. Trials collapse, and offenders walk free—none of that is fixed by this Bill. Being a victim of crime is life-changing. The very least a just society can do is ensure that victims are respected, protected and supported through the process.

We also urge the Government to commit to greater transparency across the criminal justice system. Without reliable data we cannot have accountability, and without accountability we cannot have reform. We will press for the regular publication of statistics on court and hearing delays, trial backlogs, court occupancy rates and administrative performance. Victims and the public alike have a right to understand where and why the system is falling short.

Although we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, we will continue to work constructively to improve the legislation in important ways. We support many of its goals, but we will continue to ask the difficult questions: is it deliverable and enforceable, and will it actually make victims’ lives better as it intends? Let us make this legislation a genuine step towards a justice system that works better. Justice cannot be delayed, and it cannot be selective; it must be felt tangibly, fairly and swiftly by those who need it most. They deserve nothing less.

Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.

We will now hear oral evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.45 am. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?

Sarah Hammond: Good morning, everybody. My name is Sarah Hammond. I am the chief Crown prosecutor for the CPS in Mersey-Cheshire and the CPS national lead for victims and witnesses.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q I am Dr Kieran Mullan, Committee member and shadow Justice Minister. You will be aware that at least part of the Bill aims to make changes to how the unduly lenient sentence scheme operates. Can you explain what, if any, role the CPS currently has in challenging or referring cases where it feels that the sentence is unduly lenient?

Sarah Hammond: The CPS looks at every sentence that is imposed to see whether, in our view, it is potentially unduly lenient. If we identify that a case is potentially unduly lenient, we would ask for some advice from the prosecution counsel who appeared in the sentencing court. We would read that, and, if we still felt that the sentence was unduly lenient, we would put together a package of papers to send to the Attorney General’s office for consideration.

[Dr Mullan]

Q There have been reports of victims of crime and their families not even necessarily being aware of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Does the CPS have a role in ensuring that there is a good awareness of the scheme, at least among victims and their families, and, if so, how effectively do you think you are playing that role?

Sarah Hammond: Currently the responsibility for informing victims of the sentencing outcome from the hearing lies with the police witness care unit officers. Having said that, if there are questions that the witness care unit officers cannot answer then under the victims code they can refer the matter back to the CPS. We would then happily speak to the victim, explain the unduly lenient sentence programme, and signpost them to where they can access that and the steps around it. We have a guide for victims once they come into the criminal justice system, to explain what happens when a case comes to the CPS, and there is a section within that about when they feel a sentence is too short. We also have a presence in court at the sentencing hearing so, where possible, either prosecution counsel or a member of the CPS can speak to the victim about the sentence and answer any questions they have about potential challenges.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You will be aware that there is a 28-day time limit on the ability of anybody, including victims and their families, to appeal a sentence, given your experience of working directly with victims and their families around that crucial period. I have heard that it is not appropriate to expect a victim and their family to manage, consider and make an appeal during that 28-day window, considering some of the momentous events that might be happening to them during that period. Does the CPS have a view on whether a wider timeframe for victims and their families might be beneficial, based on your experience of working with people who are deeply traumatised at that point in time?

Sarah Hammond: I am aware that the Law Commission is looking more widely into potential reforms of the law and criminal appeals.

[Dr Mullan]

Just to make you aware, the Law Commission’s current consultation paper says that it does not recommend any change to that time period, so I am interested in your views on that question specifically.

Sarah Hammond: Okay. A timescale of 28 days is challenging, but at the moment we feel it works quite well. As professionals within that environment we are well used to obtaining the information we need with a sense of urgency. There are quite good mechanisms in place. That said, if there is evidence that extending the timescales would make the process smoother or more efficient and give people who, as you say, probably have other things on their minds than appealing sentence the ability to do so, then the CPS would support that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Moving on to victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements, I have heard directly from victims and family members that they are sometimes told to remove things from these statements that they would like to say—for example, personal remarks directed at the offender. The CPS plays an important role in working with victims and their families on those statements. Have you seen examples of the CPS advising that statements need to be changed?

Sarah Hammond: I have not personally. I could make some inquiries into how often that happens and we could happily write to the Committee with some more detail around that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you. One of the amendments that the Opposition are tabling would introduce a greater freedom for victims and family members to speak more freely in their victim impact statements, with the proposal that the judge makes the choice of distinguishing between what is or is not relevant to sentencing. Would the CPS, in your branch at least, have any objections to allowing victims greater freedom to say what they would like at sentencing hearings?

Sarah Hammond: I think we would have to look at what the extent of the legislation is, but we would be happy to work together with the Government in relation to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and Victim Support. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Katie Kempen: Good morning. My name is Katie Kempen, and I am the chief executive of Victim Support, the leading victims’ charity for England and Wales.

Baroness Newlove: Good morning. I am Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I should say for transparency that I have had the opportunity to meet Katie and Baroness Newlove to discuss some of the matters before us today. I will begin by asking a question to all three witnesses. Do you think that the current 28-day time limit for victims and their families to appeal an unduly lenient sentence is sufficient, or should victims and their families get more time?

Baroness Newlove: I welcome the fact that there is an extension as such, but the 28-day limit has not changed for the victim, and that is the worry. The extension is more in the backroom. I agree with it, because I do not want things to be rushed, but the limit has not changed for the victim, which worries me. Victims really do not know this information; it will be mentioned only if the prosecution lets them know about it. Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking. Really, that is the crux of why we have mentioned this. Nobody understands undue leniency in the first place, and it is then for the victims to look into it.

Also, at the end of the 28-day process, I have had victims put a request in, but the box has shut at 5 pm, and that is it. I think that is quite cruel to a victim as well. I think the limit needs to be a lot longer to give them time to absorb the sentence and understand it. When I say longer, I am thinking six months, because we give plenty of time to an offender, who has a legal advocate all the way through. I speak personally on this issue. I can assure you that it needs to be looked at again.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would echo that. I am stating the obvious, but with victims—certainly through the lens of domestic abuse—you have to appreciate some of the dynamics of coercion and control, including isolation from family and friends. Often, a lot of information is unknown and comes to the attention of friends, family and victims in different ways. There is so much there that has to be unpicked and understood.

I know we will go on to talk about this, but certainly support for victims throughout the criminal justice system, really needs improvement. It comes down to the most basic understanding of who is who, and what your rights are. That was the whole point of the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and this Bill is about improving on that. It is really true how disorienting the system is, and we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.

Katie Kempen: We would also support an extension. Our experience of working with victims who have gone through court is often that the process traumatises them and they need some time for decompression. They need time to speak to their advisers or advocates. We know that victim services are under pressure. Our advocates will be carrying other caseloads as well. From our perspective, to give the victims time to understand and process what has happened to them, and to be able to access the support and guidance that they need, 28 days is really difficult to work within, so we would support an extension. We have no issue with the extension that is within the Bill. We support that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to move on to questions about the victim personal statement, commonly referred to as a victim impact statement. I know we have discussed this, and there is widespread reporting that it has been suggested to individuals that they have to make their statements say different things and not necessarily criticise the defendant, even though they have been convicted and are guilty at that point. We have put forward an amendment to try to remove those curtailments on what victims can say in their impact statements. Do you have experience of victims being told they cannot say what they want, and would you support us doing what we can to reduce those restrictions?

Baroness Newlove: Again, from personal experience—after 17 years, and still going through the criminal justice system—I think that, once a person is convicted, you have to consider the whole environment of what the victims and families have sat in. I sat for 10 weeks in a courtroom, listening to everything, and I think we need to understand that the victim personal statement—I prefer “impact statement”, to be honest; it was changed under Gordon Brown—is their right to have their say. I do not think there is the right to keep redacting.

I am now a bit concerned because I am hearing that it is a piece of evidence, so they have got to be careful what they say. In all the years that I have been working in this area, I have never heard that before. For me, it is about having that voice—for example, hearing about somebody who has been brutally murdered. It is their opportunity. I am going to look further into this, as Victims’ Commissioner, but I think it is a right for the victims. It is in the victims code; it does not have any caveats.

I am very concerned to hear, when we meet victims, that something has been redacted three times, or taken out three times. There needs to be more evidence about this and how they are treated. These are the most appalling crimes, and I do not think it is acceptable. Otherwise, victims are just going to say, “Why bother?” The championing I have done over 13 years has been to ensure that the victim impact statement is the voice of the victim, which has been silenced all the way through.

Katie Kempen: The addition from our perspective is that the victims we support, by and large, find the whole process quite confusing, and they need support to get through it. We would welcome clear guidance, clear information and respect for the victim’s right to have their voice heard, in so far as is possible.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would agree. A lot of these answers are going to come back to the same principles: one of the things that we have not achieved is clear support for victims, end to end. There are contracts, or bits and pieces—I am sure Katie can speak to this—that are parts of the process. However, all those things feed in to one another. The victim impact statement is an example of where victims often do not understand what their rights are. They do not understand who to speak to if they are being told something they feel is unjust or they do not agree with. We could do so much more. One gap in the Bill that I wanted to mention concerns wider support for victims, in terms of building community-based support that could start at a much earlier point in the criminal justice process.

In the context of court delays, court backlogs and the sentencing changes afoot, this is a critical piece of legislation that could address some of those gaps. That would help victims very much, end to end. Some of the examples of injustice that we pick out would be much more comprehensively addressed. That is one of the things I would encourage you all to consider.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about the requirement for defendants to attend the sentencing hearing. I have spoken to victims who are quite robust in wanting to see that implemented, even if a defendant is disruptive. We have tabled an amendment to give a judge an explicit right to restrain and gag a defendant if necessary. We have also said that, if a judge is minded not to compel a defendant to appear, or not to restrain them rather than have them removed from court, victims and their families should be consulted about that decision. If they are not going to be there, at the very least a judge should hear clearly the views of victims and families. Would you support a measure that ensures they are consulted? Would you support measures that say, if the victims support it, and it means the defendant being there restrained and gagged, we should consider it?

Baroness Newlove: First and foremost, you need to consider what the victims and families have gone through—the whole context. This is just one part of it. I am nervous when you focus on one section and do not look at the environment. Victims and families are sat in the courtroom for many months. They have listened to everything. They may have given evidence via the defence. They have a prosecutor that is not for them, but for the state, and may have let them down. This needs to be viewed in its context. I have always said that I wish judges would own courts, because defendants run them ragged. I have been to many courts over the years, and when you get a good judge, you really get that.

We are also talking, however, about families who do not understand the judiciary or the language. There needs to be a part of the hearing, when the defendant has been convicted, to say, “We need to speak to the families.”—but do not just do it on the day of the sentencing; give them the opportunity to digest, as you would with the defence and legal arguments, when nobody is allowed in. That could be private, where nobody comes in. It is important to recognise the whole context.

If the defendant is not there, put TV screens in the prison cell. When I worked in the courts, I went to prison cells when defendants would not come down, and we have been up and done that. It is about controlling the environment but, more importantly, it is for the victim, because the defendant seems to control this, which is so wrong when they have been convicted. We need to train the judiciary how to do this, and it is not going to be favourable to one side. Victims only get this time after the whole process, and I am concerned that they will not have the opportunity to digest it. They are emotionally drained and I think it could be rushed too quickly.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree with that.

Katie Kempen: Building on that, there is a need for a holistic exploration of what victims experience in the courtroom. Our report, “Suffering for justice”, referenced long waits for sentencing hearings and not being able to access special measures. The reality for victims in court is that they are standing outside court with the offender’s supporters and family, that they have to sit in the public gallery, and that they clearly feel they are being intimidated when the sentencing remarks come through. We welcome the sharing of the sentencing remarks with victims, ensuring that they understand the impact of them.

We agree that the victims’ voice needs to be at the centre of any sentencing hearing. Some victims may well want the offender to attend. In other cases I have attended, I have seen young people give their victim personal statements against people who have abused them, it was very difficult for them to be able to see the offender. I really feel that victims’ needs should be taken into consideration so that they feel they can have their say in that environment.

Baroness Newlove: May I just add something important? When offenders have been acquitted, as they were in my case—I say this because this is how it feels—the offender’s family may be in the public gallery. My family had to have police protection. It is about the environment in that sentencing court. It is not simplistic. I hope that the Government take on board the fact that there is all that going on: you having to digest a very important, very technical decision while you are being goaded and having to be protected.

[Dr Mullan]

Q A final question from me. I am conscious of time, so I will direct this question to Dame Nicole because of your particular expertise in domestic abuse.

You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very aware of dysfunctions within how domestic abuse is understood in the family court. It is positive to clarify to the court that, with certain offences, allowing parental responsibility should be considered inappropriate. Even saying that, though, I am a bit cautious about a completely black-and-white approach. I agree with the provisions in the Bill, but you would have to think very carefully about the range of other offences—for equivalent convictions against other children, absolutely, but I do not know enough about what is being proposed in terms of the range of other offences.

While we are on the subject of family court, one of the long-standing clarifications needed from Government is about a presumption of parental involvement. The Government were looking into that literally years ago, when I was first appointed as a designate, and it has not been resolved. That should be either clarified through this legislation or just clarified full stop. In the family court, the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, which is adequate in considering the safety of a child, is often confused with a presumption of parental involvement. I believe that the safety of children, who are recognised as victims in their own right in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, should be paramount.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us today.

Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: As Baroness Newlove said, it depends on the victim and the family, and the context of the situation. For many people, it would be heartening to feel that there is an ability to compel someone to come to court to hear their sentence and the consequences of their actions, which have devastated the lives of those people. But I could also imagine, especially in the context of domestic abuse, situations in which the victim, or their family if they have been murdered, would find some of that difficult. You would have to understand those dynamics.

In the context of domestic abuse, for example, there could be a very clear notion that that would be the just thing to do. There could be another example where, because of the nature of the family—keep in mind that for domestic abuse, I am looking through the lens of the fact that the victim and perpetrator are very well known to each other; that is not the case for all sorts of other crimes—there could be dynamics that are more complex. That is why what both Katie and Baroness Newlove have said, about understanding that the victim and families will feel confident and engaged and able to speak, is really important.

We must also keep in mind, especially with domestic abuse, that there could be family members and people involved as victims who have radically different views. Again, there is a complexity to this that does not necessarily always come through in a very black-and-white provision.

Baroness Newlove: Again, I want to support the family. The decisions we are making here are for the professionals to make the courtroom run seamlessly, but it could happen instantly—if the defendant just does not come down, how are we going to manage the emotions on the day, as well as the emotions they have gone through on the journey? I really want to make sure that they are supported.

I see that there is going to be a penal order in prison. I could go on a bit about that myself, but I will not—that is out of scope. I welcome that provision, but am also concerned about how it is managed. If the governor of the prison sees that that is going to be detrimental to their health and wellbeing, it might not happen, and so then where is the transparency about that being delivered for the victim? I think we need to do further work and look at that, because there is very little communication to victims. Nobody knows what they do in prison. Victims are told what they are doing, but they get very little information. For me this is a step forward, but what happens at the end of the day is far more important.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Resolve and ASB Help. We have until 10.55 for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Rebecca Bryant: Good morning. My name is Rebecca Bryant and I am the chief executive of Resolve.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Good morning. I am Charlotte Hamilton-Kay and I am the deputy chief executive of ASB Help.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Good morning. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, a shadow Justice Minister.

The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property?

Rebecca Bryant: Compensation in relation to antisocial behaviour cases is currently quite vague. Often, if you are looking at cases that are resolved through an early intervention and prevention approach, you would be looking at more of a restorative justice element, and perhaps mediation, where there is no compensation and it is more about recognising the impact of the behaviour the person has perpetrated. Once you move into the legal action arena, we have to recognise that a lot of the people who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour may not be in a position to pay any compensation—although I recognise that, from a victim’s perspective, some sort of restorative approach would be welcome.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree with that. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that when we record it, and when certain agencies take reports, there is a real grey area in how it is classified. We struggle with the classification of crime versus antisocial behaviour. It is often dismissed as a misdemeanour or, as Baroness Helen said, it is low level, so we are not necessarily going to reach the threshold at which we can look at compensation. That is impactive for victims of antisocial behaviour, because it immediately makes them feel that what they have experienced and suffered is not as important or serious as other cases that might meet the criteria. We would really need to look at that before we could go that way.

Additionally, victims of antisocial behaviour often do not report what they are experiencing because they feel they are not going to be listened to or taken seriously. Introducing a compensation element would just complicate that at this stage.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Is it ever an element of the community resolution process that a perpetrator might agree to make some kind of financial compensation voluntarily?

Rebecca Bryant: That is not something that I have come across at all. Restorative justice and community remedy can be either between the two individuals or group of individuals who are involved in the antisocial behaviour—bringing them together and doing a piece of work to recognise the impact of that behaviour—or something in the community itself, perhaps with higher visibility. There was a pilot last year around immediate justice and the impact on the community of seeing the behaviour paid back, if you like.

Restorative justice is often only one of the tools that we use to respond to antisocial behaviour. When we are talking about early intervention and prevention, we also use mediation and warnings, highlighting to the individual perpetrator the impact that the behaviour is having on the victim and the community.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Related to that is the issue of fines, which are separate from compensation. I accept your point about people’s ability to pay, and that there is always a process that ensures that fines are collected only in a way that is proportionate to someone’s means, but you can time out of fines: if you have not paid them in a certain amount of time, you do not have to pay them. Would you support that time limit being taken away, so that if someone comes into financial means later on in life, they will still be held accountable for stuff they did in the community for which they were given a fine as part of community resolution?

Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think I would, but how long is that time? I think a victim of antisocial behaviour, community safety issues or even crime wants to see some closure, move forward and move past the incident that has happened. Having something like that hanging over them for an indefinite amount of time might not enable them to have that closure.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: The bonus of fines or penalty notices for antisocial behaviour is that we hope they act as a deterrent. If they are not working as a deterrent, it does not matter what amount of time we put on them: they are not going to have the effect on the perpetrator of stopping the behaviour. Yes, there needs to be culpability —we should not just have a “get out of jail free” card if we can wait out the clock—but we need to be realistic about what they are going to achieve.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I appreciate that some of what you deal with would not end up involving a magistrate passing a sentence, but sometimes that will be the case. Would it benefit transparency for victims, even at a magistrates level, to have a record of the remarks that were made in relation to why the sentence was passed?

Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q What are the benefits of the Bill having the first ever duty to co-operate among housing providers, the Victims’ Commissioner and other relevant authorities? What will that do for victims of ASB?

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: It is a really great step. We need more accountability, and oversight of all agencies involved in managing antisocial behaviour, and the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner, is a really great start to that. There is a huge postcode lottery and disparity across England and Wales in the way that victims of antisocial behaviour are supported, the way their cases are managed and what action is taken on different behaviours. Anything we can do to bring a nationalised approach would be really beneficial to victims.

Rebecca Bryant: I think there is a balance. We welcome the Victims’ Commissioner having the authority, and the co-operation element, but the arena of social housing, local authorities and antisocial behaviour is very crowded at the moment. You have the social housing regulator, which is currently looking at housing providers in relation to the consumer standard, which includes antisocial behaviour—their approach to it, the number of cases per 1,000 and the respondents’ satisfaction with how they respond to it. That is not just for housing providers; it includes local authorities with housing stock. That is one side.

You also have the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman, which both deal with individual people who are not satisfied with the response they have received from the agency we are talking about. We are very supportive of antisocial behaviour victims and approaches being at the forefront of the Victims’ Commissioner’s mind, and her or him being able to pull together responses, require people to respond and perhaps look at themes and areas where we can strengthen our support and guidance for agencies that work in this arena, but what will that actually look like? We are currently working on that with the current Victims’ Commissioner. At the moment it is quite vague. There would have to be a tightening up of what element she is going to look at, bearing in mind that the ASB case review, the housing ombudsman, the local authority ombudsman and the social housing regulator are all looking at the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Clare Moody: Good morning. I am Clare Moody, representing the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Genna Telfer: Good morning. I am Genna Telfer, representing the NPCC.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin with the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Obviously, you will work directly with victims, and the outcome of all your work will be a sentence passed by a judge. I know from personal experience that, privately, the police can sometimes be just as frustrated with sentences as victims are. You will know that at the minute, anyone, including victims and their families, has only 28 days to appeal against a sentence they consider to be unduly lenient. Given your experience of being in court and working alongside victims, with all the trauma that they might be experiencing at that time, do you think there is any merit in extending the time available for victims and their families to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence?

Genna Telfer: That is a difficult question to start with. It is a tricky one. This would probably be better done through a victim survey of individuals who have been through the process. Although we would want to give people additional time to truly consider it, what might take someone two weeks to think about might take someone else 12 months, so what is the right timeline to put on it? I am not sure I can answer that from a policing perspective.

Obviously, our witness care teams keep victims informed and talk to them. That is absolutely something we would do. We inform them about the scheme, but we do not tell them whether they are eligible for it or not, because we think that would be better done by the CPS, which has a better understanding of how it all works. But in terms of the timeline, that is a difficult one to answer, because how long is a piece of string?

Clare Moody: I agree with Genna. I do not feel that I am qualified to say right now that if you extended this to three months or to two months—

[Dr Mullan]

Q If I may interrupt—sorry—do you think 28 days is enough?

Clare Moody: I would want to come back to you on that point specifically and separately, because I do not feel right now I could give you an informed response.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay. I would like to ask you next about sentencing remarks. Again, you work with victims; you see at first hand, through your victim care work, the trauma of a court process. Very often—outside some very limited trials—victims do not get to see sentencing remarks. A week later, it is all just what their memory tells them and what might be reported in the press. Again, based on your experience of working directly with victims through the criminal justice process, do you think there is any benefit in having sentencing remarks published, so that people can actually see what was said in court at the point of sentencing? Clare, do you want to start with this one?

Clare Moody: I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks.

Genna Telfer: I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I also want to ask you about the new power that is being introduced in the Bill to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. We are tabling an amendment to suggest that victims and their families should be consulted as part of that process. Again, based on your experience of being in the courtroom and of working with victims and families, do you think there is benefit in ensuring that victims and families are part of the discussion about what happens with attendance at hearings?

Genna Telfer: Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.

[Dr Mullan]

Do you want to add anything, Clare?

Clare Moody: In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q On that point specifically, the non-attendance of sentencing hearings, we feel that we have gone as far as we can in the Bill in terms of introducing prison sanctions and other sanctions that can be given to the perpetrators to enable their attendance at their sentencing hearings. It is the first time ever that judges will have these powers at their discretion. You mentioned concerns around “reasonable force” in getting them to the courtroom. That is one thing that is available under the Bill. The Opposition have also tabled an amendment about the ability to gag and restrain perpetrators who attend. Do you have any thoughts on that and on how workable it would be?

Genna Telfer: As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.

Clare Moody: I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will hear from the shadow Minister first.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q55 I will start by asking about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not know whether you are familiar with this scenario, but it allows anybody—including victims and the public—the opportunity to appeal against a sentence that they consider to be unduly lenient. The Government’s Bill proposes to give the Government more time to consider an application to the scheme.

We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision?

Suky Bhaker: Fundamentally, the challenge with the unduly lenient sentence scheme is that victims are not aware of it. Although increasing the timeframe would be beneficial, and increasing the timeframe for Attorneys General when it comes to reviewing the applications certainly would be, we need to address the underlying issues.

We need to get this on a par with offenders’ rights. Offenders are made aware of their right to appeal by counsel immediately, and it is often the witness care unit that informs victims. However, a lot of victims do not fall under that scheme, so would never know that they were eligible. That is what leads them to apply quite late. There are also exceptional circumstances where offenders are able to apply outside of the 28 days. That needs to apply for victims as well, so that there is parity for victims and offenders.

Andrea Simon: Although we are pleased to see that there are provisions around extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme time limit to 28 days in the Bill, we still think it is too short. Our members advocate that it should be extended further to six weeks for the Attorney General, and the 14 days to apply to the Court of Appeal should be extended as well. There definitely needs to be more time.

Getting advice from a criminal barrister is also quite important in these cases. Anecdotally, we have heard from member organisations that there is not enough time for a barrister to look over sentencing reasons. This can sometimes result in judges failing to apply, for example, the dangerous criteria to a sentence, so we think it would make a significant difference if that time was extended.

Farah Nazeer: I do not have a significant amount to add. Suffice it to say that victims—particularly of the abuses we are talking about, including sexual and domestic abuse—are deeply traumatised when they come out of that process, and need sufficient time to make a decision. They also need the right kinds of advice, and to know where to go for that advice. The pathways are often completely unclear and often victims are battling many other factors—ill health, trauma, managing children and all sorts of things. As colleagues have said, absolutely yes, but how about that wraparound support to enable victims to do that in the first place? Doing it is just not possible, even if the provision is there, if you do not have the support to do it.

We have often sought to support victims to apply, and they are just not ready at all in that first month. It is too traumatic—everything is just a fog, a haze. It takes time for that haze and that fog to clear, for your mind to be able to still and for you to think, “Actually, I’m willing to go round this a second time.”

Then the right support has to come into place—not just the legal support, but the emotional and trauma support, knowing that there is somewhere to place your children and knowing that the children will have support through the process. All that is equally important if a victim is to be able to claim justice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements. I have spoken to victims of crime who have been told that they have to change their victim statements, perhaps if they are making personal remarks about the offender. We have introduced an amendment that would minimise the restrictions that can be placed on what a victim can say as part of that process.

First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say?

Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is very much a crime of impact. At Suzy Lamplugh Trust, we predominantly work with victims of stalking and harassment and, as I say, it is a crime of impact, so the victim personal statement is paramount in terms of explaining the effects of the crime, particularly because a lot of them are psychological effects; it is not physical behaviours that we are seeing. We would argue that it is absolutely paramount that victims should be able to take that opportunity and to have the power to voice exactly what that experience has been for them. They are often left powerless within a system, and this is their one opportunity to be able to convey the impact.

Having said that, a lot of victims of stalking choose not to make such a statement because they choose for that information not to be shared with the perpetrator; often, perpetrators receive a sense of gratification in court on hearing about the impact. For us, there has to be a balance—perhaps in allowing victims to produce a statement but it not being available to perpetrators.

Farah Nazeer: I guess that something underlying this is that barristers or solicitors will often advise people to remove things irrespective, because of the way the courts will respond to it. That speaks to a wider and more problematic culture within the court system. I do not think that you can really look at one without looking at the other.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about the measures introduced by the Government to compel defendants to appear at sentencing hearings. We have tabled an amendment to suggest that when that takes place—when the judge is making a decision about that—the judge should have to consult with victims and their families about the approach to take: not to let victims and families dictate what happens, but to ensure that they are at the heart of that decision making. Do you think that victims and families would value the opportunity to at least make it clear to the court what their views on the matter are? Again, I start with Suky.

Suky Bhaker: You need to take into account the risks for the victims. Some victims would very much like and want the opportunity for the offender to be there, but for other victims of stalking that occasion is an opportunity for the offender to have contact again with them. I guess that there would be concerns from victim survivors about the potential behaviours, or how that perpetrator might play out in a court setting.

Stalking is very much about communication, so putting the victim and the offender in the same room actually fulfils the gratification of the offender on some occasions. However, we absolutely recognise that there is a sense of justice for other victims and that they very much want that offender to be there. You need to take the victim’s view into account.

Farah Nazeer: I have nothing more to add to that; it is the same across all the crimes that we work with.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I now turn to something more clearly focused on the specialist areas in which you work, which is parental responsibility. The Bill introduces a measure that means that if someone is convicted of a child sexual offence related to children for whom they have parental responsibility and they are sentenced to four years or more in prison, an order would be put in place or they would lose their parental responsibility.

There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not.

Suky Bhaker: We believe it should be extended to any child. Someone who presents a risk to their own children certainly presents a risk to other children. In fact, we would go further and say that it should be extended to include other forms of violence against women and girls as well as offences such as attempted murder.

Andrea Simon: I echo that. We definitely agree in principle with the aims to limit the parental responsibility of men convicted of a child sexual offence. That restriction should certainly be expanded to include serious sexual offending against any child and should not be limited to the individual’s own child. There is a lack of clarity in the proposals about what would happen if a stepchild was abused, for example, so we want to see those loopholes and inconsistencies closed.

Farah Nazeer: I agree. I would add that we think it should be extended further, given how long these things can take for those going through trial, those on bail, those awaiting trial or those being investigated—that is the reality of the vast majority of certainly domestic abuse cases. The consequences of ignoring that are dire. We have a report coming out next week that illustrates the impact on children in terms of harm and death when it comes to making these quite frankly unsafe contact arrangements.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Finally, one welcome measure in the Bill flips around the concept of where offenders can go and where victims are protected from seeing them, because it should be the offenders that we restrict. We should restrict their mobility so that victims can know that as long as they are not in certain places they will not run into offenders. Your organisations have probably called for that in the past. I am interested in your perspective on how important that will be for victims. Suky, would you like to start?

Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider.

Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital.

Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement.

Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.

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

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. Can I take you back to the restriction of parental responsibility? Farah, you mentioned the impact that issues around parental responsibility are having, particularly on domestic abuse victims and children. Our measure in the Bill is quite tight. We have kept it tight because this is a novel approach, so it is restricted to the criminal court element, rather than the family court element.

You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.

Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences.

It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm.

It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Paula?

Paula Hudgell: I am Paula Hudgell, and I am part of the group as well. I am the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell, who I am sure a few of you know. He was abused by his birth parents at 41 days old, and he was at death’s door. As a result of his absolutely horrific abuse he lost both his legs, along with other injuries.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran. Just for transparency, as with some of the other witnesses this morning, I want to say that we have had the opportunity to meet previously and discuss some of these issues. I want to begin by asking you about victim impact statements—or victim personal statements, as they are technically known. We have heard that people do not always get the chance to say what they want in their statements, and that they are told that they have to alter or edit them. Have either of you experienced that, and could you perhaps share that experience? As you are not here physically, I will direct things to you, Glenn, so that you know when it is your opportunity to speak.

Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that.

There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience.

Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement.

Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could.

That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly.

Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You mentioned the sentencing hearings, Paula. I want to move on to questions about the new measures to compel people to attend their sentencing hearing. First of all, we tabled an amendment to say that victims should be consulted as part of the process—that it should not just be left to a judge and that, while victims might not have the final say, the judge should be extremely mindful of what the victims’ views are. May we start with you, Paula, with your views?

Paula Hudgell: Yes, we absolutely agree. We feel that the victims should be asked about the sentencing hearings, but we also appreciate that in some cases—although you want to see the perpetrators and you want to be there to see them sentenced—some of the perpetrators really do not behave, and they can actually cause more harm to the victims and their families by being there. I know it says it is down to the judges, but the victims and their families really should be consulted on how they want to proceed.

Glenn Youens: I would say the same as Paula: it really should be down to the families. For judges, it is another case, another part of their job, but the families are the ones living that reality. If they want to see the perpetrators in court, they should be able to; if they do not want to, they should be able to put that forward. I do not think that anyone can make that decision apart from families. It is important that they are given the option. It should not just be what the judge thinks; there needs to be a conversation with them, letting them put their point across properly. Some people might want to see them; some people might not. It is really important that the families, the victims, are considered properly, and that it is not just, “This is what the judge thinks.” It needs to be a conversation with the victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q There was a discussion earlier this morning about the extent to which force might be used to compel someone to attend. We have had the opportunity to speak to other members of the group, who have suggested that even if someone was restrained, or gagged, and making a lot of noise, they would still want them there, and other people would not want them there. Do you think that is a choice that some victims should be encouraged to make and that, if they are willing to tolerate that disruption, that should be something that we listen to?

Paula Hudgell: Yes. As long as it is what the victims themselves or their families actually want, then yes, I think they should be compelled to be there. Obviously, it is slightly different, but with our VPS in a parole hearing they refused to listen to it. I do not agree with that, because you cannot see how that person reacts. It should not be down to their rights; it should be down to a discussion with victims as to whether they want it. Yes, I agree with forcing people.

Glenn Youens: I think it is down to the families. In our case, Aidan McAteer and Dean Brennan asked if they could not come to court; they wanted to do it by video link. And the judge said, “No, you have to be there. You have to attend.” For us, that was what we wanted. At the end of the day, these criminals chose to do what they did; they chose to be there. Among the victims, nobody chose to be there. The victims should be looked after and made to feel that if that is what they want, then that is what we will do, because they are the ones who have been pushed into this.

A lot of people do not have experience in court and do not have experience of the criminal side of stuff; they have been dragged into it. The least the courts can do is to make them feel as comfortable as possible. If that means the criminal being there and acting up, shouting up, doing what they want—if they still want to see the criminal’s face when they receive proper justice, the criminal should be made to attend. Whether that they should be restrained or had time added on to their sentence, they should be made to do it. What the victims’ families feel should be done for them.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I have a final question about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As you may be aware, victims and anyone else really have 28 days to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. In the Bill, the Government have chosen to extend the time available to the Government to decide on an appeal, but they have not given more time to victims and their families. We have tabled an amendment to say that victims and families should be given more time to make an appeal.

Paula Hudgell: It is very difficult when you have been through a trial or a sentencing. Your emotions are everywhere. It is so draining—it just takes over your whole life.

A lot of the time, the information is not given that you can actually appeal a sentence. Twenty-eight days is not long enough. People are going through a bereavement. As one of our group pointed out, “You have 28 days to take a T-shirt back to the shop—28 days to make a decision over that!” You may not find out until the last minute. It is very, very difficult.

Also, a lot of the time you do not know the process, unless you are from a legal background. Sometimes you are not told and that information does not filter through. Yes, it should be a lot longer, because your emotions are all over the place when you are in that situation.

Glenn Youens: As Paula said, and as Katie said in our group—“Twenty-eight days? You get longer to decide if you like an item of clothing or not.” Becky asked the CPS about how we appealed the sentence, and we were actually advised on the day not to appeal it, because it was felt that if we did appeal it, the criminal could get less time in prison. That was our first experience with it.

After that, we were planning Violet’s funeral; we had to go from there and plan our daughter’s funeral, and then we had 28 days to try and appeal the sentence. Your head was not in the right place. We did not open post for about four or five months after that. We did not answer the phone to people, because we were trying to put our life back together. But then to realise that, as you say, you have 28 days to appeal it—it is not enough time for people like us and other victims. Their first thing is trying to put their lives back together again. Then, when you are strong enough to realise, “I can go through this court case—I can go through this again,” to be told, “It’s too late now.”—I just do not think that is acceptable for families.

Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to go to the sentencing of somebody who has killed your loved one, it is really hard to express how you feel in the next few days, weeks or months. I was off work for seven months before I returned to work—it was seven months before I felt like I could go back to any kind of normality. Yet you are only given 28 days to decide whether you want to go through that court case again, and also to decide whether that is worth doing when there is a chance that he might get a lesser sentence than the already insulting sentence he has been given.

That needs looking at. It needs to be done properly, and the families need to be consulted, because I am pretty confident that most families you will speak to will agree that 28 days is not long enough to do anything in that situation.

[The Chair]

Glenn, thank you very much. We are going to have to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?

Mark Brooks: My name is Mark Brooks. I am chair of the trustees of the ManKind Initiative charity. We are a specialist by-and-for service for male victims of domestic abuse, and we work with colleagues across the sexual violence sector and related sectors.

[Dr Mullan]

Q It is really welcome that you are here. There is an understandable focus on women and girls, but these issues do not just affect women and girls, so it is great to have your representation.

I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach?

Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You mentioned children, and I want to ask you about the parental responsibility measures in the Bill. Under the Government’s proposed measure, if an offender is sent to prison for four years or more for a sexual offence against a child for whom they have parental responsibility, they will have their parental responsibility removed. Under our amendment, an offender would lose parental responsibility if they were guilty of an offence against any children, not just their own. Do you have a view about which is the preferable approach?

Mark Brooks: For it to act as a deterrent, we think it should apply in all cases. We want far-reaching consequences for anyone who commits those crimes, so we think it should be extended.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Lastly, the victim contact scheme and the helpline will be made available to a wider group of victims. Do you welcome that? What difference do you think it will make?

Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important.

In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?

Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.

Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.

Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. We have until 3.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Kim Thornden-Edwards: My name is Kim Thornden-Edwards, and I am the chief probation officer in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

Chris Jennings: My name is Chris Jennings. I am an area executive director in HMPPS, with operational responsibility for prisons and probation in the south-west and what we call south-central. I also have a national victims policy team sitting under my command—that is really why I am here today, rather than the first part of my job.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister. Forgive me, but I want to understand your capacity to give evidence as civil servants. Would I be correct in saying that, if you were asked to comment on something that is not Government policy, you are restrained in giving a view, or is that a misunderstanding from my side?

Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Would I also be correct in saying, from looking at your areas of expertise, that you do not have any particular expertise on issues such as physical restraint, the moving of prisoners and using force?

Chris Jennings: I have operational responsibility for 15 prisons, so I have some expertise, but I have never been a prison officer and do not have personal experience in that way.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you. On the issue of restraint and the use of force, would you accept that the prison service is experienced and very capable when it comes to using force in certain circumstances to manage prisoners and offenders?

Chris Jennings: Yes, I would say we are skilled in that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q If I were to tell you, and it is true, that the US judicial system has a specific legal power to allow people to be restrained and gagged as part of court proceedings—they have the training, or whatever it might be, to make that a possibility—is there anything to make you believe that we would be incapable of replicating that, even if you might disagree on the policy of it?

Chris Jennings: With the appropriate training and resources, I guess it would be possible.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will move on to talk about the expansion of the victim contact scheme. Are there resource implications for the service in extending it, and what are your initial views on how capable you will be of meeting those expanded resource requirements?

Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q To follow up on the previous question, there are long-standing concerns about staffing levels in the Probation Service. As the Bill will bring more victims under the auspices of the victim contact scheme, more victims might use it. You sound pretty confident that you will be able to manage that, but if you are already facing staffing challenges, how do you think that will look if a lot more victims suddenly want to use that scheme and helpline?

Chris Jennings: We have staffing challenges in different ways in the Probation Service. Victim liaison officers are a particular group of staff that we recruit through a particular route. It is not the same route that we recruit probation officers through, and that is not the same route that we recruit unpaid work supervisors through. There are different role types within the service, and some of them are under more pressure than others. VLOs are not one of the areas where we are under most pressure, despite your description being absolutely true for some of the other areas.

There is also a geographic spread of where we are under pressure operationally; it is not the same everywhere. Some places are very well resourced and some are less well resourced. Those combinations lead us to a place where we do not think that resourcing should be the thing that holds us back from making a success of this. Of course, we have to pay close attention to it, because if the numbers go up more than we anticipate, we will need to make sure that we resource that adequately, but we are not hugely worried about it at the moment.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: The victim contact scheme is a discrete service, so we do not transfer staff across or expect people to do a multiple brief on it. It is a discrete service that we recruit to separately. Our recruitment of victim liaison officers has been on an upward trajectory over the last 10 months. The banding and grading, and therefore the salary, of victim contact officers also increased last year, so we anticipate that there will be further uptake in terms of recruitment. Across the Probation Service, most grades saw an increase over the last year, so we are generally on an upward trajectory for staffing. You may be familiar with the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that we will look to recruit a further 1,300 probation officer staff during this financial year. We anticipate continued significant growth of probation areas over the period of the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am Alex Davies-Jones, the MP for Pontypridd and the Minister with responsibility for victims and tackling violence against women and girls in the Ministry of Justice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will start by asking you to talk about the context through which the MOJ looks at what it can learn from international examples. For example, can you confirm that, in other elements of justice policy, you have looked at Texas to learn from what the United States does and have brought that over here?

Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Great. What is your understanding of the US legal framework when it comes to the use of force, including, for example, restraining or gagging defendants in court?

Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders?

Alex Davies-Jones: I would not want to speak for them. You heard their evidence today.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area?

Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.

[Dr Mullan]

Q So can we agree that there is not anything in principle that would stop the Government instigating such a measure as is proposed in our amendment?

Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why—

Alex Davies-Jones: In the same way that anything can be done, but it is not as simple as that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Fine. Great. Thank you for your agreement that it can be done.

Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay, but taking you back to the question, what is your understanding of what the Law Commission currently says are its proposals for changes to the ULS?

Alex Davies-Jones: It is looking at a broad range of proposals around the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration.

With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says.

Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Finally, you will have heard again the evidence that the witnesses gave in relation to changes to the personal impact statements. I know you are passionate about victims’ issues, and I am sure you will have been as affected as all of us by hearing those stories. Is there any particular reason why you would not support ensuring on a statutory basis that people can say what they want to say on impact statements, with the very minor exclusions that you might have to have in a courtroom in terms of language and so on? That is what our amendment does.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement.

I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I just point out that the statement is used post conviction, so it would not influence the jury—it is for the judge. Do you accept that our amendment, which emphasises that it is for the judge to distinguish between remarks that would or would not be rightfully taken into account in sentencing, will address your concerns about the wider use and impact of the statement?

Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.

[Dr Mullan]

Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.

[Caroline Voaden]

Q I would like to talk about the measures to change parental responsibility. Could you tell us why the provision in the Bill applies only to people who have been convicted of offences against their own children and not serious sexual offences against other children?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to clarify the Government’s thinking behind why we have kept this measure quite tight. It is important to say at the outset that there are other mechanisms to remove parental responsibility from offenders and perpetrators, and those mechanisms will still remain, such as the family court process.

What this measure does is quite novel: it removes parental responsibility at the point of conviction in the criminal courts, and it is an untested measure in doing so. It is important that we can see the impact this will have on victims, survivors and, first and foremost, children. It is important to stress that perpetrators will be able to appeal this through the family courts, and they will be able to apply for legal aid through the system as a result of this.

Therefore we feel that, at this point in time, it is important to keep such a novel approach quite tight. That is why we have chosen to restrict it to offenders who have been committed of any sexual offence against their own children and been sentenced to four years or more. We are not saying that we would not be open to expanding it in the future, but, as I think we heard quite clearly throughout the evidence sessions today, we must consider the impact this could have on the family court system as it currently stands.

The family court is under immense pressure. Sadly, another element of the criminal justice system that we inherited from the previous Government is the immense pressure from the backlog. You also heard about the issues that currently stand within the family court, and how many victims and survivors, particularly victims of domestic abuse, feel that it retraumatises them. I would not want to put any other victims through that process, and that is why the Government have chosen to target this measure, as a starting point, at that specific cohort. We feel it is a novel approach; it has never been done this way, and so we have chosen to be quite specific with it.

Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary remarks and reminders for the Committee. I have had requests to allow jackets to be taken off; Members have the Chair’s permission if they wish to do so. All electronic devices should be switched to silent, and no food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail], or alternatively pass on written speaking notes to colleagues in the room. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak in any debate.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or similar, issues. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the Bill’s existing clauses.

Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I should say that he has asked to talk more generally in his opening remarks; unusually, because it is the first speech, I will say yes. This is a narrowly drawn Bill with narrowly drawn clauses but, as it is the start of the debate, I will allow discussion to go a little wider.

Clause 1

Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 13 in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim or their family if a victim is deceased.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to open the first debate on the Bill in Committee as we begin line-by-line consideration. As you explained, Mr Stringer, I thought it might be useful to list the Bill’s measures to provide a wider context for the amendments as we consider them one by one.

First, the Bill will make provisions relating to victims’ experiences in the administration of justice. Secondly, it will create a statutory power for judges to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and, if they do not, to give out sanctions that take place in prison. Thirdly, it will restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders who are sentenced for four years or more for an offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. Fourthly, it will expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, meaning more victims will be able to access it.

Fifthly, the Bill will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers so that they can investigate individual cases in certain circumstances, request information from local authorities and social housing providers, and publish an annual report on compliance with the victims’ code. Sixthly, it will increase flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors, and set the rates at which prosecutor costs in private prosecutions can be recovered from central funds. Seventhly, it will amend the time limit within which the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. Finally, the Bill will amend magistrates court sentencing powers for six either-way offences, bringing them in line with other offences.

The Opposition have not sought to amend, and will not seek to oppose, a number of the Bill’s measures, and I am sure there will be cross-party support for many of them, but we wish to push the Government to go further in other areas.

The first group of amendments relates to the provisions that are meant to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearings. It is important to lay out the value of offenders attending such a hearing. Open and transparent justice is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is often said that it is important not just that justice should be done, but that it is seen to be done.

There is something tangible and direct about an offender being present in court to hear all the elements of the sentencing hearing at first hand, in front of victims and their friends and family, the offender’s own friends and family, and potentially the wider public and the press, who help to share what happens more widely. In particular, victims and their friends and family may want to see it happening. This will often be true of the sentence itself, and the remarks that reflect back some of the impact of a crime, but it will be particularly true for the parts of the sentencing hearing when we hear directly from those affected by a crime.

Victim personal statements, commonly known as victim impact statements, are a crucial reform of our justice system that tries to give a voice to victims and their friends and family. As we will consider later in proceedings, they might not be working as well as they could be, but they remain incredibly important. Many people want to see the offender hearing those statements, and want to know that the offender cannot escape the consequences of their actions or from hearing directly from the people they have impacted. The statements may be read out by the victim themselves or by their friends and family. The authors may or may not be present. We heard evidence from Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims about the positive impact of victim personal statements in her experience of the judicial system.

I am sure we have all read and heard about recent examples of offenders having derailed the process, escaped accountability and robbed victims and their families of its healing power. In the evidence session the hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about the case of her constituent Olivia Pratt-Korbel, whose killer refused to attend the sentencing, and whose mother Cheryl has campaigned hard to right that wrong for others. I have met and spoken with Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigned for something to be done in memory of her cousin Jan Mustafa. The Minister and I have met and spoken with other campaigners.

Kyle Clifford raped his former partner, Louise Hunt, who was 25, and used a crossbow to shoot both her and her sister Hannah, who was 28, having already fatally stabbed their mother, 61-year-old Carol, at the family home in Bushey. He was given a whole-life order—which I will return to—and refused to attend his sentencing.

As MPs, we know that behind every case reported in the media will be cases that are not. But the experiences of those people are no less important, which is why the previous Government committed to introducing powers to try to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearing. I am pleased that this Government have agreed with that in principle.

Although I welcome the aim, the shadow Justice team have looked afresh at how best to achieve the right outcome and tabled good-faith amendments to make it more likely that we achieve it. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and I are both committed to never being shackled by historical thinking and approaches when it comes to ensuring that we deliver for victims and their families, and we are doing that in two vital ways.

Amendments 13 and 14 would introduce a duty to consult the victim or their family as part of the enaction of the powers in clauses 1 and 2. I talked earlier about the different people and groups that derive a benefit from the offender attending the sentencing hearing, but of all those with an interest in seeing that happen, victims and their families can be considered the most important. Although the evidence we heard was clear that not every victim would want an offender to be there, and not every victim would want to see force used and risk the disruption of proceedings to make it happen, some would.

The representations we heard from victims groups almost universally supported the idea that the process should involve consultation with victims and their families. All agreed that it would be a welcome reform. Consultation is part and parcel of what the Government do day in, day out; I am sure the Minister has spent many hours reviewing and reading consultation results. The law often requires meaningful consultation before the Government or many arm’s length bodies make significant decisions. As MPs, we all undertake our own consultations, in which we give constituents the chance to let us know their views on something that affects them.

Surely a Bill about victims—named as it is—should reflect its commitment to delivering for victims and would want wherever possible to orientate its measures to victims. A measure on consultation would do just that. Specifically, the amendments would require consultation on occasions when a judge is minded to make a decision to deny victims and family members the opportunity to see the offender at the sentencing hearing. In that scenario, it is important that victims and family members can at least know for certain that the judge was not ignorant of how important it was to them and how they would feel should the judge decide not to compel the offender’s attendance. They would be able to explain their views to the judge directly. Victim personal statements were introduced to give a voice to victims when determining sentences; we are saying victims should also be given a voice on another important matter.

The proposed change is modest but important. Just like victim personal statements, it would not dictate the outcome—a right to be consulted does not constitute a right to decide—and it would not encroach on judicial independence, as the decision rests with the judge. The pain that can be caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing is profound. Families can feel indirectly silenced, robbed of their moment to see justice done. We should at least ensure that victims are afforded the right to know that decisions about them are not taken without them. The amendments are about respect, participation and dignity. No decision that can have a profound impact on a victim should be taken without first simply speaking to them.

I ask Members of all parties to support our amendments, knowing that doing so will demonstrate a commitment to victims and their families, and ensure that their voices are heard as part of the process, as we seek to ensure that attendance at the sentencing hearing becomes as close to mandatory as we can possibly make it. I know that will be a commitment everybody shares.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the shadow Justice Minister for introducing the amendments he tabled, and the Government appreciate his support of the Bill in principle. The amendments would place a statutory duty on judges to consult victims or their families before deciding whether to use their powers under the measures in clauses 1 and 2 to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing.

I want to stress that victims and their families have been at the forefront of this legislation, and clause 1 will help to ensure that their voices and the impact of the crimes they have suffered are heard and understood by the perpetrators. We anticipate that, in making decisions, judges will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes and views of the victims and their families. However, mandating a duty to consult victims risks undermining judicial discretion and the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts in front of them.

Judges will of course consider any representations put to them by the prosecution on behalf of victims and their families, but they must also take into account the safety of prison and court staff, the efficiency and fairness of proceedings and the risks that a disruptive or resistant offender may cause further distress to victims and delays to justice. Retaining judicial discretion in such cases is therefore crucial to ensure that courts can make decisions in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including those of victims and their families. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

I understand the Minister’s desire to ensure that all the things she listed remain the purview of the judge, which is why the amendment makes it clear that they will. Nothing about consultation removes the judge’s ability to decide the factors that they wish to consider, to hear representation from others and to take in mind the safety and wellbeing of court staff and other people in the court. A duty to consult is simply that: a duty to ensure that victims are taken into account.

I draw the Minister’s attention back to victim personal statements. Prior to them being a statutory requirement, people would have made the same arguments. Of course, the judge would have provided an opportunity to consider what victims had to say, but we were clear that such an opportunity was too important, and that we needed to ensure, on a statutory basis, that the victims and their families had the opportunity to say what they wanted about the impact of the crime. I do not think this is any different. A consultation provision would guarantee that victims have a voice as part of the process, while retaining judicial independence to make the ultimate decision whether someone attends a sentencing hearing.

The Opposition will not withdraw the amendment. We think this issue is important, and I cannot reasonably think that Members will be able to explain to their constituents why they did not want to guarantee that a judge would simply have a conversation with a victim or their family about whether someone should be compelled to attend a sentencing hearing.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out from “force,” to end of line, and insert—

“so long as it is not grossly disproportionate.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, leave out from “force,” to end of line and insert—

“so long as it is not grossly disproportionate.”

Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 3, line 33, at end insert—

“41C Power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender

(1) This section applies where during attendance at a sentencing hearing an offender is disruptive of court proceedings.

(2) The Judge may order the offender to be restrained and gagged to reduce their disruption.

(3) When a Judge is minded not to make an order under subsection (2) and instead remove the offender from the court room they must consult the victim or their family if the victim is deceased.”

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to open this further debate on clauses 1 and 2. In our debate on amendments 13 and 14, we considered how we could improve the way a decision is taken. It is disappointing that Labour MPs did not feel they wanted victims and their families to have a statutory right to be heard in relation to that decision. Amendments 15 and 16 relate to how the decision will be enacted.

A decision, no matter how considered, is of little use if the tools to make it a reality are inadequate. In a further clear demonstration of our commitment to bringing renewed thinking to policy, the shadow Secretary of State and I will always seek to ensure that the balance between criminals and the victims and their families is always tipped in favour of the victims and their families, as far as is reasonable.

Members will, I hope, know that legislation that provides legal protections for those who exercise force, as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, has been on our statute books for some time now, via section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what “grossly disproportionate” means?

[Dr Mullan]

I direct the hon. Lady to the statute book and to the case law that has evolved around that phrase. If the courts, this Government or our previous Government did not think it was a meaningful distinction, I do not know why we would have it on the statute book. It was introduced to provide the greatest possible benefit to those using force, in terms of legal protection and understanding that they would not be unfairly or unduly judged as a result. As I said, it has been on the statute book for quite some time. It is a legally recognised phrase, as distinguished from “reasonable force”.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

No.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Member for Gloucester is chuntering; would he like to intervene? Did I say something that was factually incorrect?

[Alex McIntyre]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the short answer for his response to the hon. Member for South Devon is no?

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, it is on the statute book as a legally defined term. I struggle to understand why Members think it is on the statute book without any meaning. I have not heard any plans from the Government since the election to remove it.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?

[Dr Mullan]

Absolutely. It surprises me that Members think it is a novel concept when it has been on the statute book for quite some time.

We want to ensure that the individuals tasked with using force to bring offenders to court have the legal protections they need in order to act with confidence. We do not want offenders to think that all they must do is attempt to resist violently in order to escape the outcome sought by the families who have campaigned for a change in the law.

Although the notions of additional time to serve and prison sanctions may change behaviour in some cases, we must reflect on the sort of people we are dealing with and the sentences they serve. We should expect a willingness to offer violence from the sort of person who will barge into a family home and shoot into it without any thought to the family in it, as the perpetrator who killed Olivia Pratt-Korbel did. Do we really think that a man who is willing to violently murder three people with a crossbow, and who is never getting out of prison, would be particularly perturbed by not being able to go to the gym or watch TV? These are the sorts of people we are dealing with, and if we do not make physically forcing attendance our main goal, the Bill risks failing in its aims.

Some victims and families might prefer that someone gets punished if they do not attend, but what many of them will really want is attendance. Our amendment would make it more likely that we achieve that. I urge Members who do not want to look back on a missed opportunity, which will lead to offenders again and again not attending hearings, irrespective of the measures in the Bill, to support the amendment.

It is one thing to bring an offender to court, but we have to consider how they will behave. Amendment 23 would give judges the power to restrain or gag disruptive offenders in the courtroom rather than remove them entirely. Crucially, if a judge is minded not to issue such an order but instead to remove the offender, the amendment provides that they must consult the victim or their family. If offenders learn that all they need to do if they are dragged into court is scream and shout and disrupt proceedings, what do Members think is really going to happen? Is the sort of man who brutally murders two women and stores them in the freezer, as the killer of Jan Mustafa and Henriett Szucs did, and knows that a long sentence awaits him really going to be impacted by a short addition to his custody time?

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member believe that people capable of such violence would be equally violent with a probation officer or a police officer taking them to court?

[Dr Mullan]

I absolutely believe that people will be violent, which is why we tabled amendment 15 to ensure that officers are able to use the level of force necessary to compel offenders to attend. If we do not do that, what are we going to achieve? The kinds of offenders who have brought this issue to our attention will be more than happy to resist physically. Are we really saying that the purpose of these measures is just to punish people? I do not think it is. I think their purpose is to get people into court for their sentencing hearings. In combination, our amendments would ensure that that happens, or at least make it significant more likely.

[Caroline Voaden]

We absolutely agree that it is preferable to have the perpetrator in court to face justice and hear their sentence. However, I listened carefully to the evidence of Baroness Newlove, who said that we want to avoid this becoming a spectacle and all about the offender. The sentencing hearing is the moment when the victim hears what sentence the offender will get for the crime that they have been subjected to. It is about the victim, and justice for them; it should not become some circus sideshow for the offender to create havoc in the courtroom. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a point at which it is not beneficial to bring the offender into court to create such a sideshow?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. If Members wish to catch my eye, I do not think they will have any difficulty, but we cannot have interventions turning into speeches.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Member raises an important point. That is why amendment 23 specifically includes a duty to consult victims and their family members on the use of the power. We heard evidence, which I had anticipated, that some victims and their families will not want to see the offender. That is why the judge should consult them and, if that is their clear and settled view, take that into account when making the decision. The point is well made, and that is why our amendment takes that issue into account.

I have spoken directly to several people involved in these types of cases. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. She was absolutely clear that even if exercising the power in the amendment meant someone disrupting proceedings and creating a spectacle, as the hon. Member for South Devon described, she would want to see it happen, and there will be many other people who feel the same way. For those who do not, there is no pressure for it to happen. That is why we have said that the judge should speak to people about the power before using it, for the important reasons that the hon. Member gave.

I return to the point that I fear that we will end up worse off because we will have told the public, “We can get these people into court,” but actually the worst offenders will just not come or resist. That is why we need to increase the level of force and ensure that they cannot just make a noise to get out of the whole process. The people on whole-life orders, for example, are some of the worst offenders, who we most want to see in court. They are the ones who would be least bothered by the sanctions, and they would just make a noise in order to not have to be in court.

If we overcome that first hurdle, as a result of our amendments on the use of force, and get offenders into the dock, we also need the power to ensure that they cannot just scream or shout their way out of it. I have to say that I was genuinely shocked by Labour Members’ questioning on this measure during the evidence sessions. Restraint of people through force is practised in a wide variety of settings by a wide variety of people on a regular basis. I have no doubt whatsoever that the practice can be extended to our courts.

As much as I respect the training and expertise of aeroplane crews, I do not consider them to be uniquely qualified in the ability to restrain people in a chair. I urge Members to reflect on any initial resistance that they may have to this measure. Do they sincerely think that what aeroplane crews can achieve up in the air is not achievable in a courtroom? Common sense tells us that this measure is eminently achievable. I was pleased to hear evidence from a senior police officer and a senior staff member of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—and, indeed, to hear the Minister herself accept—that it is possible in principle. I am confident that the majority of the British public will agree with us, and I wonder how Members who choose to vote against the measure will explain that action to their constituents.

I will deal briefly with how someone might be gagged —that is to say, silenced—by giving a simple example. I only need to do so briefly, because it really is a very simple matter. In August 2018, a US judge, John Russo, asked for a robber, Frank Williams, to be silenced after he refused to be silent and continued to disrupt the court’s proceedings despite being issued with 12 warnings. Based on their questioning during our evidence sessions, I know that Members struggle to conceive of how that might be done, so I will alleviate their concerns and tell them how it was done: they just placed some tape over his mouth. The US legal system is quite clear about the legal right for an offender to be restrained and gagged. Members can, should they wish, look up the relevant rulings in the US judicial system.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I am struggling to see how a piece of tape can silence somebody. Somebody with respiratory conditions, or whatever, might even suffocate as a result. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the medical reasons for not gagging somebody?

[Dr Mullan]

Absolutely, and it would be for the judge to decide in all circumstances whether it is appropriate. I will be happy after this sitting to send the footage from that case, and the evidence of someone successfully being gagged by having tape placed over their mouth. This is really simple stuff that is being done in other parts of the world and I do not understand why Members find it so difficult to understand.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is clearly suggesting using physical restraining techniques in a court setting. Does he agree that those techniques could be used in any other part of court proceedings, including, perhaps, during the trial itself? We would be setting a precedent for our system here. It would not just be about sentencing; you are arguing that we can use physical restraint, including gagging, within the court setting, which is not currently what we do in our courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Let me lay down some ground rules. Can we try to stick to parliamentary language? In this case, “you” means me, and I am not arguing anything.

[Dr Mullan]

If the hon. Member wants to suggest where else such restraint might benefit victims and their families, I will absolutely support his case if I think it is legitimate. As I have said, my focus and the balance I want to strike is, as far as possible, in favour of victims and their families, and it is not about overly concerning ourselves, outside of clear medical reasons, with the rights and wellbeing of the criminal, who at this point has been convicted. This is not rocket science. Putting a bit of tape over someone’s mouth is effective. It is done in other countries. I really do not see why Members find it so difficult to understand.

Earlier, I touched on the matter of victims’ and their families’ views about this measure. I have heard directly from family members of victims who accept that this sort of approach could be disruptive but still support it. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. Another member of Justice for Victims, Katie Brett, suffered the loss of her sister Sasha, who was raped, stabbed more than 100 times and had her body set on fire by her killer. Katie would have wanted him to be restrained and gagged, if that was what it took.

I could go on, but I think that the point is made. I am, of course, mindful that not everyone will feel that the way that we have included in our amendment the requirement to consult victims and their families is appropriate, given earlier votes against that approach. However, I think that our amendments, in combination, will provide an effective measure that balances what some victims will want against what other victims may not want.

Members will have to decide who they want to get behind: the kind of people who seem to feel uncomfortable about restraining and putting tape over the mouths of rapists, child abusers and murderers; or victims and their families who want to see that done. The choice is clear, and we on the Opposition Benches are clear what measure we will support.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Amendments 15 and 16 would change the circumstances in which force may be used to bring an offender to court. They would effectively extend those circumstances to situations in which disproportionate—but not grossly disproportionate—force is required to secure attendance.

Based on the debate we have had, it might be beneficial if I explain how the system currently works. The use of force by prison officers is currently justified, and therefore lawful, only if it is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We are quite deliberately legislating to permit the use of lawful force, which is a test that is well understood and used throughout the criminal justice system. I remind hon. Members that the previous Government used the same test in their attempt to get this measure passed.

Prison and prisoner escort staff are trained to employ the lawful use of force and are experienced in making judgments about the circumstances in which the use of force is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. They are also trained in the use of existing approved techniques for moving reluctant or resistant prisoners safely around the prison and court estate. In recent cases, such as that of Nicholas Prosper, we have seen how they effectively employ the same techniques to restrain offenders and bring them to court to hear justice being done.

Clearly defined boundaries for the use of force, which are well understood by custody officers, ensure that escorting staff are not subject to unreasonable or unmitigated risks when bringing offenders to court. Where it is deemed unsafe or unreasonable to use force, prisons will discuss with courts how best to proceed. Where attendance is considered necessary, the court can consider making a direction for the offender to appear via live video link. That option is more manageable for the prison to enforce and minimises the potential for impactful disruption to proceedings, which can, as we have heard, lead to a spectacle in the court.

An offender who is deemed too violent or disruptive to attend court in person or by live link would, under these measures, be found in contempt of court and subject to a further prison sentence or other punishment. We are going further than the previous Government and ensuring that, where offenders do not take responsibility and face victims’ families, they are punished.

Offenders should not be forced to attend court if it would risk the safety of custody officers or court users, or disrupt proceedings, causing undue distress and further delay to victims and their families. Our measures strike the right balance in requiring that the use of force must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary, ensuring the safety of all court users and minimum disruption to court proceedings.

Amendment 23 would give judges the power to order a disruptive offender to be restrained and gagged in court during their sentencing hearing. It would also introduce a duty on the court to consult victims or their families before making a decision to have the offender removed from the hearing instead. The Government appreciate that an offender’s refusal to attend their sentencing hearing, or their disruptive behaviour during that hearing, can cause anger and upset for victims and their families, and we heard that during the evidence sessions. That is why the measures in the Bill reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearings and behave appropriately in court. They give judges the powers they need to do what is right in each individual case.

Decisions on the use of restraints to manage offender behaviour are a matter for prison officers and prison escort staff. They will make decisions about the use of force depending on the circumstances of each individual case. The use of force must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and restrained prisoners must be brought to court using approved techniques in our prison system for moving individuals safely. Gagging prisoners is not an approved technique in our prison system and is unlikely to be considered a lawful use of force in these circumstances. Its use may in fact increase the risk of violence or disruption to the point where officers would have no choice but to remove the offender from court. Amendment 23 is therefore unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes.

We will not allow offenders to achieve the outcomes they intend of continuing to traumatise victims and families or disrupting proceedings, by not attending court or causing a circus or spectacle. Should a judge deem it necessary, the offender will be removed and the judge can add an additional sanction to punish them properly. Forcing disruptive prisoners to remain in court at any cost would jeopardise officer safety and delay proceedings and could cause unnecessary distress for victims and their families. Is that what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle intends with his amendments? They are unlikely to achieve the intended objective of the Bill, which is to ensure that offenders face up to their crimes and hear the impact of their actions on victims and their families. A more productive and realistic approach would be to punish the offender for disobeying the order to attend their hearing and failing to show any respect for victims and their families or the court.

The measures in the Bill were produced in consultation with families; they asked for them and we listened. Our measures give judges the option to punish any adult offender who, following an attendance order, becomes disruptive in court and is removed from the hearing, by ordering up to two additional years in prison, an unlimited fine and/or the imposition of numerous potential prison sanctions. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw his amendment because of the risk of unintended consequences and the prevention of justice for victims and their families.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the Minister for her response. She says that judges will have the powers they need. As I think I clearly explained, those powers might be helpful in some circumstances, but for the very worst offenders—the kind that have been in the news and have caused us to think more clearly about this issue, in particular those on whole-life orders, for whom a sentence extension means nothing—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I implore the hon. Gentleman, in his efforts to ensure that offenders face families and justice, to explain why none of the additional measures that he proposes were in the previous Government’s Bill.

[Dr Mullan]

As I have said very clearly, I am a shadow Justice Minister now, and the new shadow Secretary of State and I make justice policy. I am not afraid to go further than previous Governments, and I will not be restrained by what they did. I did not make those previous policies; it was not my decision how they were enacted. I am confident that the public will respond positively to our attempts to go even further on these measures.

As I was saying, the worst offenders, who are in our minds when we consider these offences—those on a whole-life order, for example—do not care about a custody extension because they cannot have one. They are never getting out of prison, so they are never paying a fine. The Minister listed examples of sanctions, which included not being able to watch TV or go to the gym. Do we really think those are the sorts of measures that will have hardened, violent criminals quaking in their boots? I do not think they are.

The Minister said the measures in the Bill were developed in consultation with victims. I have absolutely no doubt that victims will welcome them—the sanctions, prison time extensions and fines. They are all welcome sanctions and will be appropriate for a whole range of victims, but some of the very same victims that she consulted—I spoke to two of them—would also welcome a further strengthening of the measures. If all a criminal has to do to get out of being in court is make noise—that is literally the test we are putting before ourselves today—there will be very many of them who are happy to do that in order to ensure that they do not have to face the accountability of the system.

The Minister talked about what is legal now. We are legislating—we are making the law—so it is up to us what is legal. We can make the decision that something is legal. I have given a concrete example of another jurisdiction where the sort of restraint that we propose is used successfully—it has not been tried and found not to work; it is used successfully. There is absolutely no reason not to assume that we can make it a success in certain situations in this country.

Our amendment 23 would not compel the judge to act—there is no compulsion. The judge would remain able to decide, but they would be given the clear power to act in this way if they think it is appropriate in all the circumstances. I am confident in the validity of the amendment and the positive impact it would have on victims and family members who were willing to see it used and felt that the potential disruption to the court proceedings was a price worth paying.

As the HMPPS staff member and the police officer we heard evidence from attested to, such a change in policy would take training and resource. Of course, we would expect the Government to develop training in support of the enactment of the measure. A lack of such training right now is no reason not to make the power available to judges.

I am conscious of the time, and the fact that we might wish to push this measure to a vote at a further stage, so I will not seek a Division today. However, we remain convinced of the legitimacy of this measure and will ensure that it is voted on at a later stage so that the public can understand which side Government Members are on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2 inserts equivalent provisions in proposed new section 259A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in respect of offenders attending service courts, such as a court martial.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that, unamended, this measure will simply require an offender to make a lot of noise in order to get out of all the things that she is saying about them actually being at the hearing? Sanctions are there, but in terms of them actually being at the hearing, all they will have to do is make some noise.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that intervention, but I disagree with the hon. Member. We have seen most recently cases in which offenders have been brought to court despite their reluctance. The prison officers and court staff have been able to get them there with the use of reasonable force. Then they have started to disrupt proceedings, but once the judge has explained to them some of the measures that are available currently—not these sanctions, because we have not yet made this law, but those measures that are currently available—that has resulted in the sentencing hearing being allowed to go ahead. What the hon. Member says is not always the case.

[Dr Mullan]

I absolutely accept that it will not always be the case, but does the Minister accept that some people will not be bothered by those measures and will be able simply to use noise to escape accountability?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We need to be careful on what we deem as noise. If, as we have heard in the Committee’s evidence sessions, an offender is beginning to make the sentencing hearing a spectacle or a circus and that is causing more distress to the victims and their families and preventing the course of justice, the judge will have the power to remove the offender from the court. However, with our new measures, the judge will have the power to impose these sanctions on them in prison, issue the unlimited fine and impose more time in prison. That will still be a measure even if they attend, cause a spectacle and have to be removed. They will be punished, and that will be explained to them if they continue to carry on.

I go back to the Armed Forces Act and the effect that these new measures will also have on service courts, because that is important. We need to remember that justice is done in a number of courts in our country and not just in the Crown court. Offenders before service courts who commit a contempt are liable for a fine or 28 days’ service custody—or, alternatively, the offence may be considered by a civilian court for the purposes of contempt of court proceedings. Where an offender is ordered to attend a service court from prison, but fails to do so or—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said—attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct, they may similarly receive a prison sanctions order.

I recognise that these provisions may not guarantee that every offender will attend their sentencing hearing when so ordered or that they will not create a spectacle during the sentencing hearing. However, these measures reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearing and behave appropriately. We need to ensure that justice is seen to be done by victims, their families and the wider public, to create trust in our justice system. The measures will ensure that offenders are appropriately punished for failing to do that. Judges will retain the discretion to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them. I therefore urge that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces

Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”—(Dr Mullan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer]

It is very clear that a child of a sex offender is at risk, regardless of whether the sex offender has committed that offence against their own child or another child. The amendment would seek to broaden the provisions for removing parental responsibility from children of sex offenders.

I would like to share some of my professional experience. I used to work in a domestic abuse charity, where I ran a women’s refuge and had safeguarding responsibility for the families that have fled violent and often sexual abuse. There were numerous occasions when we had to facilitate parental contact by enabling a mother and her children to meet the perpetrator of that abuse, which was court mandated, even though they had fled that abuse, supposedly to a position of safety. As a person with safeguarding responsibility, that puts professionals in an impossible situation, but that is nothing compared with the position in which it places the parents, who have to take their child to a position that is desperately unsafe.

We would seek to broaden the measures in clause 3 so that somebody who is convicted of a serious sexual offence, regardless of the length of the sentence and of who that sexual offence was committed against, would not have parental responsibility for their children. If they have been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, their own child is at risk. At the moment, the children of sex offenders are at more risk than other children in society. We believe this is a very important measure, and it needs appropriate resource allocated to it.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of our amendments 17 and 18. As has been said, the Bill currently requires prohibited steps orders, which remove parental responsibility, only for those receiving custodial sentences of four years or more, and only if they have parental responsibility for the victims of those offences. In the evidence session earlier this week, the witnesses were absolutely clear that this provision, as currently drafted, is too narrow.

Amendment 17 seeks to widen the court’s duty to protect children from those convicted of serious sexual offences. It would move the threshold and ensure that anyone imprisoned for a sexual offence triggers the court’s duty to protect children by considering a prohibited steps order. We believe that is a more appropriate line to draw for this measure, which is essentially when an offence reaches a level of seriousness that hits the custodial threshold.

Amendment 18 is of even more vital importance, and it was also strongly supported by the witnesses in their evidence. It would close a troubling loophole in clause 3—although I am not sure whether “loophole” accurately describes it; it is an enormous omission. At present, the duty to make a prohibited steps order applies only when the child victim is someone for whom the offender has parental responsibility. That is an unacceptable narrowing of protection, and the logic of this measure is indefensible.

The Government believe that it is right to remove parental responsibility for someone who is convicted of a very serious sexual offence against a child, but only if it is against their own child or a child for whom they have parental responsibility. That makes no sense, and it is no surprise that the witnesses were universally against it. Amendment 18 would ensure that anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence is subject to a prohibited steps order, regardless. Again, I ask Members to think about how they might explain their position on this amendment to their constituents.

Amendment 24, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is essentially aiming for the same outcome, but perhaps we have a slightly different interpretation of where we place the threshold. Amendment 24 specifies “serious sexual offence”, while we have used the custodial limit as the trigger in attempting to achieve the same outcome. It is something that we could commit to looking at in future stages of the Bill, if we can secure a better understanding of how we distinguish between serious and non-serious offences.

We are sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat aims, and I think we have a shared aim on not just the threshold, but particularly the fact that this measure will be enacted only when the child who has been the subject of the crime is one for whom the person has parental responsibility. I do not see the logic in drawing the line in the way that the Government have, separate to any questions about the level of severity.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments: amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato); amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde); and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.

Amendments 17 and 24 seek to remove the four-year custodial threshold for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. The restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious and far-reaching measure. It must be applied with care and in a manner that is a legally robust, while also protecting the most vulnerable. The requirement for a four-year custodial sentence provides a defined marker of seriousness.

This thresholds aligns with existing sentencing frameworks. Section 244ZA and schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specify a list of serious offences, including child sexual offences, that are considered serious enough to warrant that the offender must serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than the standard half when they are sentenced. The amendment would lower this threshold and require the Crown court to make the prohibited steps order when the offender is sentenced for any period of imprisonment or detention.

I want to be clear that any offence against a child is unacceptable and one of the most heinous crimes in society. Restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious step and not a decision to be taken lightly. That predetermined marker of seriousness ensures that any order made by the Crown court happens automatically only where the offender has committed serious and grave offences against a child who they are supposed to look after.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister has a wealth of colleagues around her who are covering these issues, including—as I understand it—the Home Office Minister responsible for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). What does this Minister say to the Home Office Minister about her previous position that a provision of the kind that the Government have drafted was too narrow? Has this Minister spoken to her colleague about that, and does her colleague personally agree with the measure as currently drafted by the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I agree with that point. It is important that we recognise, as I have stated, that there are other measures to remove a person’s parental responsibility for their own child through the family courts. I stress that this is a novel approach. We need to look at the justice system as a whole; we cannot consider our various courts in isolation. The measure being carried out in the Crown court could make an impact on the delays that exist in the family courts, thanks to the backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. I do not wish to exacerbate that, or to traumatise any other children and families who are going through the family courts, by further increasing that backlog. For that reason, we wish to keep the measure quite small and novel, as it is untested at present; however, once we have seen how it works, there is the possibility perhaps to go further in the future.

[Dr Mullan]

We all recognise that this is a novel measure. I do not think that anyone is suggesting introducing a blanket measure. For example, we have used the custodial threshold as a narrowing measure and the Liberal Democrats have used a serious sexual offence as a narrowing measure. The Minister is talking about the balance that needs to be struck, but surely the balance is not being struck correctly when the decision is that only a child for whom someone has parental responsibility brings this measure into scope. Surely that is not the right balance, despite the weighing exercise that I appreciate the Minister has to undertake.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to note that a line does need to be drawn, as the hon. Member has recognised; there does have to be a balance. In the previous Government’s version of the Bill, there was a different threshold, which was child rape of any child. We have changed that.; in this version, the measure is any child sexual offence where there is four years or more in custody, but only of the offender’s own child. As a Government, we have determined that as the necessary threshold. That is different from the previous Government’s threshold, which was only child rape. I think that recognises the difficulty in drawing a balance here.

We need to take a more limited approach for the time being, especially initially, to ensure that, as I have already said, the family court is not overwhelmed by endless appeals from perpetrators causing even more traumatisation to victims, and especially children. This is essential so that other victims and families with cases in the family court are not detrimentally impacted.

Our intention with clause 3 is to tackle the cases with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. That is why we have chosen to focus the measure in the way that we have. It is important that we properly understand the impact any additional family court proceedings will have on the children and families involved. The cohort in scope of this measure is at the highest risk of immediate harm from the perpetrator, which is why we have chosen to focus on that cohort. This does not prevent an application being made to the family court for parental responsibility to be restricted in other circumstances, as is already available.

Amendment 8 suggests using the Crown court to gather evidence on the best interests of the child and the level of risk the offender poses to the child. Doing so would place a significant new burden on the criminal court, meaning less capacity to hear criminal cases and even longer waiting times for those seeking justice. The proper forum for that consideration to happen is the family court, where the judge can hear from all relevant professionals and have access to any necessary reports before making a decision that will always be based on the best interests of the children involved.

We are already going further than the previous Government did with their Criminal Justice Bill. Those proposals were limited to child rape; our measure includes not only child rape, but a broader range of child sexual offences. Most important of all, the previous Government talked of change, but failed to deliver. We will deliver this change to protect children. We all have a huge amount of sympathy for families in these circumstances, and I want to do all we can to support them in getting the right outcome for their children.

New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, seeks to expand the instances where the Crown court will be under a duty to restrict the exercise of a perpetrator’s parental responsibility at the point they are sentenced to 10 years or more for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for the child.

I reassure the hon. Member that there are already clear powers in the family court to restrict parental responsibility where it would be in the best interests of the children involved. If a parent or other interested party wishes to make an application, they can do so. Where relevant, the family court is able to and will remove parental responsibility or restrict it to the point that it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way.

The existing law is clear that in every case, the court’s paramount consideration must be what will be in the best interests of the child. We cannot rule out that sometimes it may not be in the child’s best interests for parental responsibility to be removed or restricted, particularly where the child is not the direct victim of the offence. However, as the Lord Chancellor and I have said, we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure. While we cannot support new clause 13, we remain committed to ensuring that the law robustly protects children. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work to strike the right balance on this issue.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can continue to develop this important legislation in a way that is principled and practical and gets the balance right for children.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 6

Ayes: 2

---

Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Dr Mullan]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “not” to end of line 25 and insert

“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.

(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”

This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.

I will keep my remarks brief. As we have said, these measures require balance and consideration for all parties concerned. We were surprised that the Government’s proposed measure would not cause a prohibited steps orders to automatically fall away if someone is acquitted of an offence. It might seem obvious to say this, but if someone is acquitted of an offence, they are innocent. They have not done anything in the eyes of the law, so I struggle to see why we would continue to insist that, if they are subject to a prohibited steps order, the onus is on them to get it removed.

On the other side of things, if a prohibited steps order is in place and has not been challenged, and someone remains guilty but is on a lesser sentence, the balance falls in the other direction and it should remain in place. Although she may tell me that this was our position in government too, I am interested in hearing from the Minister why the Government do not feel that it is appropriate for such an order to be removed if someone is acquitted.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The amendment seeks to amend the process in clause 3 if an offender has been acquitted or had their sentence reduced on appeal. The Bill provides a clear route for considering a prohibited steps order following an appeal that has resulted in an acquittal or a reduction in the offender’s sentence. In such cases, the relevant local authority will be under a duty to bring an application to the family court to consider whether the original order should be upheld, varied or discharged.

The drafting of the amendment is deficient and risks creating confusion. It would provide that any prohibited steps order made under proposed new section 10C of the Children Act 1989 would cease to have effect where a person is acquitted, effectively discharging the order. In practice, there would be no order in place to discharge the original prohibited steps order, and therefore no documentary evidence that the order had been discharged. Compounding that, the amendment would retain an obligation for the relevant local authority to make an application to the family court to consider the prohibited steps order, under proposed new section 10D(2), and yet there would be no order for the family court to consider, because it would have ceased to have effect.

In short, the amendment would not make sense in practice and would risk creating confusion in a context where clarity is particularly important.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the Minister for that feedback. Perhaps we need to consider how the amendment is drafted, but does she accept the principle? There is no other example I can think of where someone is acquitted of an offence, because they are innocent, but they remain subject to any provisions whatever that were related to the conviction. Perhaps the amendment needs to be redrafted, but surely the Minister agrees in principle that someone should not be subjected to a consequence of a conviction that has been overturned.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We need to remember that for a criminal case to have been brought, the child or another party will have made an allegation of serious sexual abuse committed against that child, and that will have been followed by criminal proceedings and an initial guilty verdict. The relationship between the child and the accused parent may have completely broken down during that process. When the family court reviews the case, the judge will undertake a holistic review of all the circumstances, including the acquittal, before deciding what is in the best interests of the child.

We must also remember that the prohibited steps order does not form part of the sentence when it is made by the Crown court. The order is not part of the punishment, or an additional punishment, for an offender; it is a tool to protect children who have been the victims of a dreadful crime, and their families. Even where the individual is acquitted—I have huge sympathy for those who are found innocent and acquitted—it is likely that the case will have gone through lengthy proceedings, and complex family dynamics will be involved. We must keep in mind the overarching aim of protecting children and doing what is best for them. That is why the order will not be automatically discharged following a successful appeal.

I think it is important that if there is a successful appeal, there is a clearly defined process during which the best interests of the children involved are considered, which is why we have put that measure in place. We understand that following a successful appeal, it is important that decisions about a prohibited steps order are made quickly. That is why the process already included in clause 3 requires the local authority to make the application within 30 days of the acquittal. By placing the duty to make the application on the local authority, we are reducing the burden on the families involved, at what will already be a difficult and potentially traumatic time. Moving the proceedings to the family court centres deliberations in the correct forum. The family court will consider whether varying, discharging or, indeed, upholding the order will be in the best interests of the children involved, which I am sure we can agree is what we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily answer that point. We are not saying that we would not remove the prohibited steps order; of course there will be a route to remove it. If the offender or alleged perpetrator is then acquitted through the Court of Appeal, there should always be a route to do that, and there will be within 30 days. However, the correct route for doing that is the family court, which will have all the reports available to determine the best interests of that child’s welfare, given everything they have been through, rather than the Crown court, which is not equipped to make that assessment.

[Dr Mullan]

Can the Minister give me any other example in our legal system where someone who has suffered a consequence directly as a result of a conviction that is then overturned is required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows from that overturned conviction? I cannot think of any. If someone is exonerated, everything falls away. This measure is specifically linked to someone being found guilty; if they are then essentially found not guilty, they will have to take further steps. Nobody else who is essentially found innocent has to do other things to get things removed from them.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister cannot think of any and, off the top of my head, stood here right now, I cannot think of any either, but that goes to the heart of the reason why we need to keep these novel measures quite tight—it is because of their potential impact. Primarily, my interest, and the interest of the Government, is to protect children and child victims, and I put my faith in the family court system to do what is in the best interest of the child following an acquittal, given everything that that child—that victim—has been through. We must remember that if the perpetrator is acquitted in the Court of Appeal, there is still a child victim and a crime that has been committed against that child.

[Dr Mullan]

With respect, there is not a victim. The person has been acquitted, and there is not a child that has suffered anything, any more than if the person was found not guilty in the first place. I respect the Minister’s comments on how the amendment might be better drafted, but the Government have to accept that they are introducing an extremely unusual interpretation of what happens to someone when they are found not guilty, compared with every other bit of the justice system that I am aware of. Someone who is found not guilty is innocent; the court has decided that the accusation made did not transpire.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That is exactly why we have included a route to remove the prohibited steps order, and we feel the appropriate route for that is the family court. That is the measure in the Bill, and it still stands that that is the safest route to protect the welfare of the child in the circumstances, given what—I was going to say, “I can only imagine”, but I cannot even imagine it—will be an immensely traumatising and awful experience for everyone involved. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister made heroic efforts to explain the logic and context of how we ordinarily deal with these matters. We think the prohibited steps orders are an important enhancement for the safeguarding of children, but I cannot imagine a scenario, even in circumstances in which the offence has not been found proven, in which the children the Minister talks about will not have had the involvement of social services and other steps taken to ensure their wellbeing more generally.

This measure is specifically about parental responsibility, and I find it difficult to understand why the Government are setting a precedent that an innocent party should be required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows specifically from their conviction. I appreciate the feedback on the drafting of the amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but the Government need to think very carefully about the precedent they are setting in relation to what happens to innocent people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

Division 7

Ayes: 5

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 10

---

Labour: 10

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 7, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 9.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 7, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 16.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 7, leave out line 20.

This amendment, along with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that there has to be a review by the family court in all instances where a prohibited steps order is issued.

[Dr Mullan]

We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.

The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.

Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.

We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.

Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.

As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.

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

The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.

First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.

In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.

This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.

Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.

The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.

On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.

The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clause 4 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

Our approach of updating the victim contact scheme and establishing a new dedicated victim helpline will give victims much-needed confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release, which will help them to feel safe.

[Dr Mullan]

As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.

I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.

Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.

The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.

To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.

[Dr Mullan]

Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.

I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Committee heard in the evidence sessions how important it is to tackle antisocial behaviour, and how important these powers will be in terms of getting to grips with this issue, which plagues all our communities. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Mullan]

Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.

My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.

I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.

It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.

The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Mullan]

As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:

“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”

The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Appointment of Crown Prosecutors

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.

This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a

“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.

We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.

I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert

“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out

“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”

and insert “such a person”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.

This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.

Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert

“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out

“persons appointed under subsection (1)”

and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.

The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.

I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.

I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.

[Dr Mullan]

The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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