Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey Farnsworth(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member has articulated extremely well that these things can be done differently and have a different outcome. I heard about case management directly from Liverpool Crown court. It has an aggressive approach to case management: it swept the cases and was clear whether it needed to be hearing a case or whether it could do any work to get a plea. It does a lot of work, and if every court was doing that, it would deliver different outcomes. The Minister might rightly point out that different courts have different circumstances, but surely the goal should be to correct those circumstances so that the positive things enabling some courts to bring the backlogs down can be done everywhere.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My point follows on from the powerful point the hon. Member is making about the need to look at good practice, which is something we should all get behind. Over my many years of working for the Crown Prosecution Service, I saw various schemes aimed at doing just that, but unfortunately, given that we are here today, they did not sort out the issue entirely.
Does the hon. Member recognise the evidence Sir Brian Leveson gave specifically about Liverpool Crown court, in which he cautioned against suggesting that that case could simply be replicated across the whole country? Liverpool Crown court deals with a single police force and Crown Prosecution Service, and has a very small local Bar that work together well. Although we would like it to be, that is not necessarily the case across the country. Does the hon. Member recognise that those circumstances are unique and may not be possible for the whole country?
Dr Mullan
Yes, absolutely. In the NHS, I worked on what we might call change and improvement programmes or quality improvement programmes. We worked hard to replicate the best clinical practice everywhere, but it is simply not possible to directly replicate everything that goes on in every unit, although that is not to say that we cannot do some of what goes on. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden pointed out, we are not talking about a single court; that is why I was clear about looking at this on a regional basis. I do not think that the data in any of these regions is getting better because of one court that has specific circumstances that cannot be replicated. That is why we have to show a high degree of interest in understanding what can be replicated and in trying those measures.
As we heard from the representatives of the criminal Bar and the circuit, we should give them a chance to try some of these things before we do something so unprecedented that will lead to a curtailment of rights. Nobody thinks that the other, positive parts of the Bill, or the measures that do not even require legislation, take away from anything else; they are just exceptionally positive things we could be doing where we do not pay some kind of price. Surely, we should try those before taking the step proposed in the Bill. Whether or not we think this step is reasonable—Labour Members have made it clear that they do—I doubt they think it will not lead to a loss in relation to jury trial rights.
Dr Mullan
I draw the Committee’s attention to my remarks at the outset of our proceedings: our judicial system, victims and defendants and how we manage crime in this country are my personal priorities. That is primarily the reason why I sought to be elected to this place, so I will never disagree that justice should get a higher priority than it has historically. I also pointed out that Labour Members more broadly have accepted that justice getting insufficient priority in our political system has gone on for many decades.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington is right in pointing out the backlogs that existed prior to the pandemic, and they were actually lower than those we inherited from the previous Government. If we are talking purely about what happened with the backlogs, our record prior to the pandemic was an improvement on that of the previous Labour Government. That does not mean it is okay; that does not mean we say, “We did a great job,” but it is important, in balancing and understanding the debate, to know that.
In terms of what we did in relation to the covid pandemic and all the challenges it posed, we had uncapped sitting days and Nightingale courts, and we took steps to try to address the backlog. I served on the Justice Committee, scrutinising what the Government were doing at that time. I was very frustrated, because we would visit Nightingale courts and one of the biggest challenges they faced was the lack of certainty about whether they would be renewed in the future. I questioned Ministers at the time about that. To all of us on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, it was obvious that those courts would need to carry on for longer—why not just get on and agree that and let them run in that sustained way? There were many things we could and should have done better. That is not to say that we did not do anything or that, prior to the pandemic, our record did not compare favourably to that of the previous Labour Government.
As I said, in that particular example we introduced the innovation of making the provisional data available earlier. In June, given the challenges with that data being wrong on occasion, a decision was taken to temporarily stop publication, to see if we could close that gap. If that data is significantly different from the revised published data, there is sense in looking again at the methodology and seeing whether the gap between the provisional and final data can be closed. But here we are, almost a year later, and the Government have not chosen to reinstitute the publication of that provisional data. I think everyone on the Committee would benefit from seeing that data, so I would be interested to know whether that is the basis on which the Minister has said the backlogs in some regions are not going down, when in fact, from the evidence and data I have seen, they are.
Our amendments are aimed at delivering a fairer system. Amendment 23 also seeks to achieve that outcome, in a more specific but equally valid way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, human beings in criminal cases are not neat, so we need a degree of flexibility. There is not flexibility in all parts of the system at the moment, but allowing a judge, on their own, in these types of cases, to allocate, hear the case, determine guilt and issue a sentence is unprecedented in our judicial system—
Linsey Farnsworth
District judges in the magistrates courts sit alone every sitting day and hear cases and trials. They then go on to sentence if that person is convicted, or to release them if they are acquitted. That happens every day, so there is precedent within our criminal justice system. District judges hear the most serious and complicated cases that go to the magistrates courts. So there is already precedent for this, and indeed in the youth court as well.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am afraid I have to disagree with the hon. Member, because the youth court has powers to sentence people for up to two years, so it already has higher sentencing powers than magistrates. Many of the cases we are talking about in the Crown court bench division would command a sentence of perhaps two years.
Dr Mullan
I covered that in earlier remarks, when I pointed out that those people are not adults, so it is a different set of circumstances. If the hon. Member is asking me to be ultra-specific—I am happy to be—what is proposed is unprecedented for cases of this nature, with adults, with these sentence lengths. That is, of course, the vast bulk of our justice system. There are lots of things that we do differently for children than we do for adults in the justice system. I am not familiar with arguments suggesting that those distinctions cannot be made, and that something we do with the youth custodial element or judicial process must therefore be perfectly acceptable with the adult estate. We do not do that.
Linsey Farnsworth
But the hon. Member is happy that youths are treated fairly in the criminal justice system, even if a single judge hears their case.
Dr Mullan
Again, we talked about this before. There are degrees of fairness. Specifically on whether a defendant will get a judge who is as fair as possible in terms of representation, understanding their background and so on, I think it is less fair than a jury system. But I made it clear that other factors are given greater weight in the youth court. For example, the intimidation that a young defendant might feel in the adult court versus the youth court is given greater weight. I might think overall that the deal, so to speak, for the youth defendant is fair and reasonable, but that does not mean that I cannot say that the absence of a jury might be less fair for a youth defendant in some regards.
Linsey Farnsworth
I think the hon. Member is saying this is a balancing exercise. It is about having a fair trial, but one that is equipped within our criminal justice system. That is exactly what the Government are doing here. Of course we need fair trials, but we also need a criminal justice system that is fair, and justice delayed is justice denied. That is not fairness. Would the hon. Member recognise that?
Dr Mullan
To use the word that the hon. Member used at the start of her intervention, it is a balance. We in the Opposition are clear that the Government have that balance wrong, which is why we oppose the measures. As I said, the Government want to have this both ways: on the one hand, when it suits them, they say that it is a balancing exercise, but on the other hand, when we point out flaws in the balance, they say, “Everything’s fine. You would be just as happy in a trial with or without a jury.”
The Government should be consistent. If the Government just said, “This is a balancing exercise. There will be some detriment to people as a result, but we believe that it is right”, and then stuck to that line, at least it would be intellectually coherent. The Minister might think that makes it a debating point, but I think it is pretty important in politics to be intellectually coherent. We take a different view from the Government.
The other point that we think is different, too, is that the proposal will not achieve the desired outcome. Even if we agreed, in theory, that the balancing exercise was correct and that the trade-off that the Government seek to achieve were a reasonable one to make against the loss of the rights that we are talking about, we do not think that the Government will get those outcomes. We therefore think that the Government’s argument is fatally flawed in two respects, which is why we continue to oppose the Bill.
As I said, fairness is important. We focused on the example where a first-time offender might end up with fewer rights in our judicial system than a repeat offender; in respect of, for example, loss of respect, reputation, employment or income, the person who has more at stake has their rights removed. That is a point made clearly by JUSTICE, which supports our amendment 39. JUSTICE states that the three-year threshold is likely to lead to outcomes that are seen as unfair by those within the system and by the public. Repeat offenders are more likely to qualify for a jury trial, because their previous convictions would push the likely sentence above three years, while first-time offenders committing the same offence may be denied a jury trial.
When we put that to Ministers, as I said, they say that it is perfectly fine for those people to have a trial without a jury, and that is fair. Ministers also say, however, that they are keeping jury trials for the most serious cases—but if they are keeping it for the most serious cases, they must at some level accept that it is a superior system in some way. Otherwise, why keep it for the more serious cases, as they define them? The Government cannot hold both positions coherently.
Absolutely, as I said, the core issue is fairness. The Government want to have it both ways in this argument, but of course the defendants will not get to have it both ways. The defendants will just have what they are told by the judge, without any ability to exercise their rights in the way that they think is fair or consistent with the broader point. We therefore continue to press our amendment 39 and that is why I ask Labour Members to think carefully; this might not be universal, but how many of them would feel happy if they—with their previous good character, and all the damage that could happen to their reputation and income from a conviction—were not allowed to have the option of a jury trial? I cannot say for sure, but potentially some of them might feel differently then.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting)
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey Farnsworth(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may request a different judge to preside over the trial than the judge who made the determination that the case was suitable to be tried without a jury.”
This amendment enables the defendant to request a different judge to try the case than the judge who determined that the case was eligible for trial without a jury.
The amendment draws into acute focus the challenges with public confidence and the risk of clouding judicial decision making that the proposals of a new judge-only court bench division will create.
It is important to set out the distinctions between different types of allocation decisions both now and in the future, if the proposals are passed. It is important to restate that we have summary-only cases based on the offence type rather than anything subjective, and then we have the indictable-only offences, again based on the offence type. In our previous debate on allocation, I pointed the Minister to grey cases, such as drug dealing and burglary offences, that are triable either way. At the moment, if it is about three of those offences, they have to go to the Crown court. I ask the Minister for clarity at some point about how they will operate.
Presently, we have what I sometimes call a clear and distinct separation of powers—a separation between those anticipating sentencing outcomes and those deciding sentencing outcomes, and a powerful safeguard for where that is not the case. Under the Bill, those lines will be blurred in a new and novel way, because the judge anticipating sentence length in the Crown court can then determine guilt and sentence length, and potentially issue a longer sentence of more than three years. That is important for the defendant and, in certain scenarios, for the victims and bereaved.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley, with her expertise, earlier described the fact that allocation and sentencing take place in the magistrates court, but importantly, the defendant can elect, and say no to their being involved in that process. They can say, “I want a jury trial; I want the judge who passes the sentence to be separate from the people involved in allocation.” Of course, the scenario is one in which a defendant is unlikely to have a reasonable claim of bias against their interests in relation to the sentence.
We discussed why someone may prefer a jury trial, even if the sentence might be higher. However, if we are talking about the defendant’s ultimate view about the judge, it is unlikely that someone in the magistrates court—if the case stays in the magistrates court—will say, “You chose to keep me here because of a shorter sentence, so I think you are biased in giving me a longer sentence.” They already have a positive disposition about the view of the sentencing.
More importantly, there are strict limits on the sentence length if a case stays in the magistrates court. It cannot go beyond what the initial judgment was. If the court decides, during or at the conclusion of the trial, that the sentence should be higher, it is up to someone else to pass that sentence. It goes to the Crown court for sentencing.
Linsey Farnsworth
It is true that the case has to go up to the Crown court, but it is not for the purposes that the hon. Member would like, as it were. It is because the magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers have been reached, and therefore they do not have the power, as opposed to it being preferable that the case go to somebody else.
Dr Mullan
That was not the point I was seeking to make, so I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying.
I sometimes wonder what victims think. Do they sometimes follow a case, hear the evidence and then think it should be getting more than the magistrates’ limits? Do they question whether the magistrates, who have a preliminary view about whether the case will hit a certain maximum at the outset, have come to the trial with some degree of bias about what outcome might be? Do they think the magistrates would therefore have some reluctance, even having heard the evidence in full, to pass a sentence that is beyond their powers and send the case up? Of course, magistrates do reallocate sentencing. As we have said, just because I feel there is a risk of a perception of bias does not mean I think we should scrap the whole lot and never let magistrates pass a sentence, but seeing that things are not perfect on balance does not mean that we accept them.
These proposals will add a degree of seriousness because of the potentially significant differences between possible sentence lengths. The sentencing guidelines for the offences are narrower than we will perhaps see with triable either-way cases, which have already been curtailed at a certain level of seriousness and might go up to an even greater level of seriousness.
If the clause passes unamended, the scenario could be as follows. A Crown court judge will receive an outline of the case, and make an initial judgment on the likely sentence outcome. They will decide, for a triable either-way offence, whether a sentence is likely to be more than three years. That same judge could then hear that case. That is the same judge whom a victim or bereaved family member could reasonably—perhaps not correctly, but reasonably—perceive on some level had already made a decision about the case, because of course they have: they have taken an initial view of the case and on what the outcome was likely to be. Importantly, that is not something that happens in any way shape or form with the jury trial system, where the two things are separate.
We all agree that perception as well as reality is important in our justice system. It is possible that some victims or bereaved family members might question whether the judge, who formed a view, is not best placed to then objectively and fairly decide what the actual sentence should be, if it should be longer than three years. They might even be concerned that passing a sentence of more than three years would suggest that they had got it wrong in their initial view. Again, we do not have to form a view about how likely or unlikely that is; we should form a view on what the perception of that will be. As politicians, we are very used to the concept that perception is important. Even if someone has not necessarily done something wrong, whether the public perceive that they might have done something wrong is important.
All that can be readily and simply avoided through our amendment, which would introduce a separation of powers, as I have described it. This is a modest and narrow amendment. It will provide a greater degree of confidence in the new system; even if the Minister is happy to proceed with the system, I am sure she would accept that it has generated questions and debates about rights and impartiality. This amendment is a very simple and modest way in which the Minister can minimise that. I know she wants maximum possible confidence in the new system, so I hope our amendment achieves that and that she can support it.
As we are still discussing allocations and who will or will not be allocated to different parts of the court, I would also be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on triable either-way offences, such as drug dealing and burglary offences, where multiple versions go into the Crown court at the moment. What will happen to those cases in relation to allocation as part of the new division?
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.
(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”
This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.
It is my pleasure to speak in support of amendment 42, tabled in my name, which really drives at the heart of the question of fairness in relation to this new system. It would prevent a judge, sitting alone, from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that, if that is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial. Again, related to the important points I made earlier, it also introduces the element of “must”.
Again, we have to revisit the process of allocation; triable either-way offences will be allocated on the basis of sentence length. That is the important part for us to consider here. The Government have agreed that the suitable manner in which to allocate offences to trial with or without a jury is based on sentence length. We can only conclude, therefore, that the Minister accepts that the possible consequence—the possible time in prison—is intrinsically linked to the fairness, reasonableness, desirability or however the Minister might want to describe it of remaining with a jury trial.
In this case, if criminals—because they will have been convicted at this point, we can say criminals rather than defendants—ended up with a sentence of more than three years, they would have a reasonable basis on which to say that their treatment was not in keeping with the Government’s own decisions about what would be preferable in relation to fairness. Let us be clear: I spend a lot of time working with victims and campaigning for longer sentences for offenders, and I think that, across the board and for many decades, our sentencing regime for convicted criminals has been insufficiently punitive and has given insufficiently long sentences. But that does not mean that I do not think that there is a fair and proper way of going about that.
I agree with the Government that sentence length is inherently related to fairness in regard to whether someone gets a Crown court trial with or without a jury—although, in my view, it should always be a jury trial—but a convicted criminal now will look at this and say that he has a sentence greater than he otherwise should have expected to get, and that, if the judge had anticipated correctly that sentence at the outset, he would have had a jury trial. That would be his reasonable conclusion.
Linsey Farnsworth
On that point, what are the hon. Member’s thoughts in relation to a magistrates court where a magistrate has made a decision that a case is suitable for summary trial but then they have the opportunity—or the right if you like—to commit somebody for sentencing at the Crown court if the offence turns out to be more serious than had originally been envisaged? Actually, the safeguard for the expectation of the defendant is dealt with at an early stage—at the allocation stage—when the defendant is told of the decision that the case will stay in the magistrates court, but they could be committed in due course to sentencing in the Crown court.
Dr Mullan
That goes straight to the point we discussed earlier about why it is important to separate the two, because in this scenario it is the same person all the way through. Ultimately, the sentencing process ends up being separate to the people who decide whether or not someone is guilty, and they will have decided the mode of trial, as well.
Linsey Farnsworth
Can I also just mention Newton hearings? A defendant has pleaded guilty but does not accept all the allegations that the prosecution’s case sets out—perhaps the most serious aggravating feature. Then, there is a Newton hearing, at which a judge sits and decides what the factual situation is and goes on to sentence as well. There is already precedent in the Crown court for a judge to hear evidence, make a decision based on the evidence, and pass sentence. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s view on that is.
Dr Mullan
This is a great opportunity for me to learn and understand an element of the system that I did not understand—I know about it, rather than understand it.
I will go back to the point that we have made repeatedly. We are designing a system from scratch here. We have the opportunity to do things exactly as we want to. We do not have to be forced into replicating other elements of the wider system; we can design this system as we best think it should operate. I think that the best thing in this scenario, in which we are starting from scratch, would be to say to somebody that they should be able to derive the benefit of having a jury trial if the case is of a nature that the Government themselves agree would typically enjoy the benefits of a jury trial. This is just inherently a fairness question.
That is why we have replicated the process—in a positive way—in a magistrates court. The decision is the decision that has been made; the court cannot go above it. That is because we say that in a magistrates court, if someone seeks to go above that court, that is not the right place to do that; it would not be fair and reasonable. We are making a similar point here in relation to mode of trial, for jury trial.
We think that the amendment is sensible, reasonable, balanced and does not prevent the Government from undertaking their reforms; it is not what could possibly be described as a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and accept the amendment.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey Farnsworth(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mullan
The hon. Gentleman’s question articulates the gap between what the Opposition and the Government think about these issues. Actually, for a case like the first example, the sentence passed will be almost irrelevant to the person. If they are found guilty and convicted of an offence, they will suffer all the consequences that I have talked about whatever sentence they are given. Such consequences do not exist for the individual in the second example; they do not have employment or a reputation to lose.
The Government also often portray the assumption that people are guilty—if they are accused, they are guilty. The whole point of the jury trial system is to allow what we have all agreed, at some point and in some ways, is the fairest and most balanced way to determine guilt. The Justice Secretary himself has talked in detail about how it is the fairest way to determine guilt. When someone’s decision is going to have huge consequences for the accused’s life, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want the fairest mode of determining that guilt.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying two different things? At the start, I heard him say that we have fairness across the whole criminal justice system, but he seems now to be suggesting that magistrates court trials are inferior and less fair. Is that the position of the Opposition?
Dr Mullan
As I said, it is actually the position of the Justice Secretary, in his own report, where he said that the fairest and most balanced element of the justice system is jury trials. If the hon. Member thinks it is odd for me to hold that view, perhaps she should have a conversation with the Justice Secretary.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey Farnsworth(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mullan
It absolutely does—but the Minister is not doing what Sir Brian recommended. She is rejecting his approach, but when we want to reject his approach, she asks how we can possibly question what Sir Brian has to say on such matters. That is the reality of what is happening. It is a consistent flaw that the Government cannot undo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating the nature and seriousness of so many of the offences we are considering. She also sought a firm answer on, for example, the modelling of the increases in guilty pleas that we might expect owing to the increase in the length of suspended sentences.
We had a debate about, “Well, it’s in the explanatory notes, not in the impact assessment,” as if that was just immaterial. The Minister and her officials will know very well that there is a big difference between what goes into an impact assessment, given the statutory nature of that document and everything that the Government have to do before they put things into it, and what a Government can put out in what is effectively a non-statutory document. They could really put anything in there that they wanted to.
Of course we would expect the Government to be fair, frank and honest, but the reason why we have impact assessments—and the reason why, when Labour Members were in opposition, they hammered the Conservatives repeatedly about what did or did not go into an impact assessment in particular, as opposed to broader documents—is that it has a statutory footing and is important in its own way. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating what was absent from that impact assessment.
We talked about the Crown Prosecution Service, and there was an attempt to say that what a senior member of the management said, one would assume—
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Mullan
I will finish the sentence, and then I will.
Of course, we would assume that they had done that in consultation with other leadership figures, so we might reasonably say that they speak on behalf of the senior leadership team of the CPS, but there was an attempt to say that their views can somehow be taken to represent the views of the many people who work across the CPS—
Linsey Farnsworth
Mr Guest was giving evidence to the Justice Committee in his capacity on behalf of the CPS. He was talking with authority from the CPS, on the organisation’s behalf, on its official policy position. It is fair to say that the CPS, as Tom Guest said, is in favour of the structural reform we are making, is it not?
Dr Mullan
Nothing that I have said is in disagreement with that. The point we are making is about whether that reflects the wider, individual views of all the people who work for the CPS. I am not aware that the CPS, for example, undertook an internal staff survey. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene and tell me whether the CPS asked people about that? I am not aware that the CPS undertook an internal consultation exercise. Did the CPS consult all the many people who work for it and say, “This is our position. This is what we think”? How did it come to its view about these decisions?
The hon. Lady is very welcome to intervene and talk about how the CPS formulated its position in the way that she sought to talk about it, covering all the different people who work for the CPS. As I explained to her, I know there are people who work for the CPS who do not agree. She may well know people who do agree, but some do not agree. I took the liberty of re-contacting one of the people who works for the CPS over the Committee’s lunch break. Their—quite rightly—anonymous and private view, which they are entitled to hold and express to me is that, as a prosecutor, we should all be very worried when a state prosecutor wants to do something that further curtails the rights of defendants. I might not express it in those terms, but that is how someone from the CPS expressed it.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the formal policy position of the organisation of the CPS is as she described, but she was not right to refer to it as being meaningful because it covers lots and lots of people who have had no formal engagement whatsoever in helping the CPS to come to that conclusion. It is a bit like the Minister getting up and saying, “The Ministry of Justice is a big organisation and we all think this is what should happen.” The Minister knows that her civil servants are asked to produce policy; what they actually think about it and whether they agree with it is totally irrelevant, and she would never use the size of the organisation to add weight to the strength of her argument, because it is nonsense. As I pointed out when His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service gave evidence, people are not allowed to give their individual views; it is a policy position that the organisation has to hold.
Dr Mullan
My final point in opposition to clauses 1 and 2 is that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is not here today, would have had a lot to say during our proceedings. He is a Labour MP who has quite literally never rebelled against the Labour Whip. Ms Butler, you have probably been here longer than all the rest of us, so you know that in our parties we have the usual suspects, who rebel when they get the opportunity and take any chance to disagree with the governing party—we all have a sense of what that means. The hon. Gentleman is not one of the usual suspects. He is a passionate practitioner. He will have dealt with clause 2 cases. He will have sat in court and dealt with the sorts of things that clause 2 covers.
Linsey Farnsworth
Clause 2 relates to measures that have not come into force yet, so my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East cannot possibly have any experience of that.
Dr Mullan
Sorry—I am not clear that there will not be real-world consequences in the kind of ways that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will understand. The Minister nodded her head when I suggested that fewer people will get a Crown court trial as a result of clause 2. The Minister indicated from a sedentary position that it is correct to say that fewer people will get a Crown court hearing specifically as a result of clause 2. If the Minister can clarify that, I am very open to hearing her. I ask Labour Members to think very carefully about the fact that one of their own, who is not one of the usual suspects, is so vehemently opposed to the change.
Sentencing Bill
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey FarnsworthWednesday 29th October 2025
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Act 2026 View all Sentencing Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
Dr Mullan
I note that the Minister is nodding.
We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.
New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.
This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.
The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.
A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.
Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.
Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.
However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:
“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”
She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.
I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.
I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.
MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.
My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.
Criminal Justice
Debate between Kieran Mullan and Linsey Farnsworth(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Linsey Farnsworth
We inherited a particularly drastic situation, which will not be turned around overnight. The Minister will speak on behalf of the Government, but I expect the Government to make these difficult decisions until we are in a better position. That may have to be reviewed in due course. I do not speak for the Government, but I trust them to ensure that the public are safe and that there are places available, by whatever means, so that dangerous criminals can be put in jail.
We must move beyond crisis management. This mission-driven Labour Government are investing to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) was right to point out that that contrasts starkly with the 500 prison places that the previous Government created in 14 years. However, it is clear that the solution to overcrowding cannot simply be to build more prisons, but instead lies in breaking the cycle of reoffending.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As a member of the Select Committee, you will want to be accurate in what you say about prison places—
Linsey Farnsworth
I recognise that prison places were created, but we are talking in net terms, and net, there were 500 extra places. [Interruption.] We are certainly not happy with only 500 places, net, over 14 years. That is why this Government are taking action to increase prison places in real terms.
We must sort out the cycle of reoffending, which places a massive strain on the system. Almost 60% of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year, and in those instances, focusing on what happens after a crime has been committed is the best way to prevent future offending. We do not need a justice system that is bigger; we need one that is fairer and more effective. Our ambition and reforms to make our streets safer cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. They must be backed by proper sustained funding, particularly to support the Probation Service, which is at the heart of a functioning and fair justice system.
That takes me back to a project in Nottingham that I was proud to be involved with in the early 2000s. It was the community justice initiative under the last Labour Government’s “respect” agenda—yes, I am that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.