Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Lamb and Sarah Sackman

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of allowing greater use of evidence from automated enforcement technology in trials.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

It is the prosecution and the defence who decide what evidence to put forward in a criminal trial, including deciding whether to put forward evidence from automated enforcement technology. Once that evidence has been put forward, the magistrates and the judge have a duty to ensure that only admissible evidence is presented to a jury.

[Peter Lamb]

The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?

[Sarah Sackman]

We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.