Courts and Tribunals Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

Not yet; I am conscious of the time.

The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year.

In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment.

Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.

I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill.

I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial.

I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog.

Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.

Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

In the magistrates court, only those who earn less than £21,000 a year—less than a full-time job at real living wage rates—are entitled to legal aid. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real danger in that in terms of access to justice?

[Andy Slaughter]

That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place.

In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.

As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session.

I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts.

Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the freedom of women to walk the streets without fearing for their physical safety? What does he say about the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape, and who are waiting six years between reporting to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those are liberties that matter, too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.

[Sarah Russell]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and understand that his concerns about the Bill are genuinely rooted. None the less, the presumption of parental involvement being revoked in this Bill is absolutely critical, and I do not understand how he can proceed with a reasoned amendment that would kill the entire Bill on that basis.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.

[Sarah Russell]

The Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying.

I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end?

Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? We need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, but first I want to remind the House why these reforms matter to victims. When the powerful wave of the MeToo movement washed over us in 2017, almost 10 years after the incredible Tarana Burke began the MeToo programme in US schools and women began to share their stories, I froze when I heard on the radio what Harvey Weinstein had been doing in plain sight. I spent the rest of the day scrolling through courageous women’s stories online, and despite my horror at each of their experiences, I felt relief and hope. I felt relief that we could share our stories of experiences that I know every woman in this Chamber and, unfortunately, every woman and girl in the UK, has at some level had to endure. And I felt hope that this would be a watershed moment and that there would be no more Harvey Weinsteins. Recently, however, we have come to learn of the monstrous abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, reminding us that this fight is by no means over.

Regardless of whether a victim has survived a high-profile repeat offender or abuse from someone they knew and trusted at home or at work, they deserve justice. The Tories utterly failed victims in their 14 years. They ran up a huge backlog. Some women victims have said recently that they have waited 10 years, and that is a 10-year sentence for them. We cannot accept these delays. Over 90% of all criminal cases are already heard fairly without a jury by magistrates.

Clause 8 of the Bill puts restrictions on evidence or questions about a survivor’s sexual history. That should never have been part of the trial in the first place. Clause 17 will mean that courts will no longer have to start from the presumption that parental involvement will always be in the interests of a child. Women’s Aid has called this

“a significant shift in the ‘pro-contact’ culture”

that puts children at risk. This change will be incredibly encouraging for one of my constituents whose ex-partner was convicted of child sex offences and who has seen her children’s wellbeing massively impacted. I pay tribute to the campaigners here today, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Today we can move the dial towards a system that does not unfairly advantage perpetrators and does not retraumatise victims.

[Sarah Russell]

On that point, there is a backlog in the family courts of 110,000 cases, more than what we are discussing, and legal aid rates for family law have not gone up since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important move but we need to do more?

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree that we need to do more. As a recipient of legal aid myself in the past, I know how important it is that its budget is increased.

It is almost 10 years since the birth of the MeToo movement. We must now ensure that we deliver on the hope that it engendered. Real change is needed. I back survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and I therefore back the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to support this Bill, particularly clause 17— Jack and Paul’s law—to finally repeal the presumption of contact in the family courts. It is the result of 11 years of campaigning by my incredible constituent Claire Throssell MBE, who is in the Gallery today, following the tragic deaths of her beautiful sons, Jack and Paul. They were killed in a house fire by their father, a known domestic abuser. Their dad lured Jack and his nine-year-old brother Paul into the attic with the promise of a train set, but he started 14 fires around their family home, killing himself in the blaze.

Jack and Paul’s deaths happened during a two-hour, court-ordered, unsupervised contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The state failed Jack and Paul; it failed to put their wellbeing first, after a decade of their father’s abuse, neglect and coercive control of them and their mother. This House must act today and vote through this Bill to save the lives of a future generation of children by ending contact at any cost.

The presumption of parental involvement is a legal principle in the Children Act 1989 that means that any parent, even those who are known domestic abusers, should always be given contact with their children, but the retention of presumption continues to be fatal. Some 68 children—that we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents since Women’s Aid started research on this issue. This Bill presents a life-changing opportunity to prevent such deaths and puts children’s wellbeing at the heart of our family courts.

[Sarah Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is absolutely crucial that we fund contact centres properly, so that there are properly supervised options for courts to order?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed. In combination with the provisions in the Bill to effect structural reform, to stop criminals from gaming the system and to triage trials effectively, such measures will embed a child-centred and victim-centred approach in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to the fact that I am a solicitor with a current practising certificate who has appeared before tribunals historically.

I will speak briefly today about the £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in our courts. We have heard that the Justice Secretary will commit £287 million to it. That is a large sum of money, but it is not enough.

I want to talk about the fact that legal aid rates have not gone up since 1997. The Justice Secretary is looking at increasing them significantly, but unfortunately that is moving them from £40 an hour to £60 an hour. In private practice, most solicitors would expect to be billing about five times that to run their firms. It is just not enough.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I am afraid I will not.

When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When the time from reporting a rape to an actual trial is, on average, six years, bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of the next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.

Anyone who has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Not every barrister exhibits those traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that:

“A recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the Bar which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, ‘have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views with others who may be offended by them’.”

[Kim Johnson]

The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training on racism and misogyny to support people to be brought into the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend believe that those kinds of training courses can work?

[Sarah Russell]

Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?

I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Criminal Court Reform

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

We must of course solve the immediate problem of accidental releases, which are a huge issue. However, for longer-term planning, we have a very high vacancy rate in our prisons. I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the work on bringing that down, but will he look at the Justice Committee’s recommendation to produce a 10-year plan for the prison system workforce in the same way as we do for the NHS?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce.

Sentencing Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

The new clause will never bring back the victims who have been lost, nor heal the pain felt by those left behind, but it may offer some closure if such crimes do not go unpunished and if causing a fatality does not occur with impunity. I thank hon. Members who have supported the new clause and ask everyone to vote in favour of it this evening.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Huntington (Ben Obese-Jecty) for speaking to his new clause, although I do not support it because the minimum needed to cause death by careless driving is a momentary lapse of concentration. Of course, he was talking about a death, and I am not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but a full lifetime driving ban meaning that someone who had a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 still cannot drive at 55 does not feel proportionate. However, I agree that we should look much more closely at all driving-related offences, including all offences relating to dangerous driving, careless driving and, in particular, causing death by dangerous driving. Those are horrendous crimes.

I have met families who have been bereaved in that way, and those have been some of the most impactful conversations I have had in my life. The impact on those families simply cannot be overstated. We are expecting the road safety strategy imminently, and I hope that these matters will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at sensibly, because it is a really important topic.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast.

[Sarah Russell]

I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.

For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.

New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.

Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Dr Mullan]

Does the hon. Member think it appropriate for an immigration judge to support and advocate for a charity that is actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented? Should an immigration judge be involved in an organisation like that?

[Sarah Russell]

I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody?

[Sarah Russell]

The hon. Member appears to be ignoring the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which fundamentally, at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference, and also the fact that the application of the law should not be subject to political interference in this place. That is absolutely fundamental. Judges are not getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous leftie positions. The picture that is sometimes painted by those on the Opposition Benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks?

[Sarah Russell]

The members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. They are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs, and that will be affecting judicial recruitment. We need immigration judges to be able to stand up and serve the judiciary. Many judges take a pay cut to become a judge, and they deserve our genuine respect. They work very hard in a system that has been grotesquely underfunded for 14 years.

Lastly, I would like to mention new clause 40, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it might not be in the exactly right format for the Government to it take forward today, but I hope that the Minister will consider how we will deal with the fact that people are not receiving training when they are on remand and are often released at the end of that time. It is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.

I have asked previously in the Justice Committee about what work is done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences. In my opinion, we are missing an opportunity for people, without accepting any sort of guilt, to engage in services that many would benefit from, considering their general behaviour, irrespective of whether their original offence was related to domestic abuse. In fact, all of us could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People spend a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like it to be. That brings me back to my original point. Government Members absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we also believe in rehabilitation, and the emphasis on that in this Bill is very much to be welcomed.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I will speak to my new clauses: new clause 4 on probation capacity and new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I also support new clauses 2 and 3, as well as new clauses 19 and 30, which relate to relate to IPP sentencing.

First, let me commend the diligent work of my constituent, Rhianon Bragg, and fellow activists who have helped place vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of the Bill, particularly in relation to the restriction zone conditions in clauses 16 and 24. I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further clarification on the details of those measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhianon and other victims and survivors. The measures entail putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than the victim, and that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.

I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.

Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.

Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that

“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”

In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.

Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as

“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.

Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

My local women’s prison is HMP Styal, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Clink Charity, which does work in developing people’s skills in hospitality. Its ability to operate in HMP Styal collapsed completely because, as there was such a shortage of prison officers, the women were locked up for so much of the time that it was simply unable to provide the service. In other prisons, the charity is being forced to retender for contracts on a commercial basis. It is a not-for-profit that was set up to do that work. I encourage the Minister—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—to review whether contracting in the Ministry of Justice is really working as we need it to in that regard.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. There is some really fantastic work being done, which I will come on to, and it is essential that we find ways of enabling even more of that, because time stuck in prisons does not improve behaviour; it makes it worse. In the last year of the Conservative Government, we saw assaults on prison staff increase by 23%.

The £15 million investment in body armour and Tasers announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks shows that he is giving prison staff the tools they need to do their jobs safely, but anything we can do to reduce the chances of violent incidents deserves our full support—that includes meaningful activities such as work in prisons—because those on the frontline in our prison system deserve our full support.

Prison officers at HMP Ranby told me what a difference it made to the behaviour of prisoners when they were doing work—when their days had purpose. As well as the improved behaviour that work for prisoners leads to, nearly a fifth of the earnings of prisoners who work out of prisons on licence goes to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act levy, which supports victims of crime. We have a Government committed to investment and reform and taking a long-term view of what is needed for a justice system that works. Our Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord Timpson, was a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle.

I have sought to be candid about how bad things are in some of our prisons, but I also want to talk about some of the brilliant work already happening, which can be built on and scaled up. I praise the hundreds of employers who are pointing the way forward. In Derby, we have Pennine Healthcare, an employee-owned medical equipment manufacturer, and its successful experience of employing prisoners has led to its long-term vision for rehabilitation-focused employment opportunities, for itself and potentially across the sector.

Pennine supports a release on temporary licence scheme. I was proud to welcome the former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to its headquarters in Derby. I went with him to HMP Ranby to see where Pennine is establishing a workshop, which it calls Project Phoenix. It will operate as an extension of the Derby site, and it will also prevent manufacturing from being offshored to competitors 7,000 km away in China. It could not have been more positive about the motivation and work ethic of the prisoners working for it.

That is a practical solution to meet some of the workforce challenges facing UK manufacturing, at a time when many employers share with me the difficulties that they can have in recruiting people with the skills that they need. It could create a pipeline of trained workers who can have jobs that they know how to do available to them when they leave prison. The difference that could make to offenders’ chances of avoiding another turn of the revolving door of reoffending is clear.

I am the parliamentary champion for the Rebuilding Futures Alliance—the RFA—whose mission is to break the cycle of reoffending by creating smarter pathways into work, often in rail. The evidence is extraordinarily compelling in showing that employment reduces reoffending.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member will know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on getting things right for victims. That is something we take very seriously, and it needs to be done properly, with victims, in order to get it right. I hope that the independent sentencing review report will contain things that give us confidence about moving forward and about the way we work with victims.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The Conservatives appear to have forgotten quite a number of things, and I think it might be a good time to remind them. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous partial privatisation of the Probation Service was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences—including rape and murder—committed by those on probation skyrocketed. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the long tail of Conservative failure, which overshadows everything that we must do now?

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this debate.

There is an interesting paradox at the heart of this scheme. The fundamental eligibility requirements are that

“You must apply as soon as it is reasonably practicable“

and that

“this should normally not be later than two years“

after the incident occurred. That is the time limit for adults, which can be extended “due to exceptional circumstances”. If the person was under 18 at the time of the incident, an application must be received by their 20th birthday if the incident was reported to the police before their 18th birthday, or

“within two years of the first report to the police, if the incident was reported to the police on or after“

the person’s 18th birthday.

I was sexually harassed as a teenager—nothing that would have met a criminal standard—and it never occurred to me to apply for these sorts of things. That is not something that enters the head of someone aged 18, 19 or 20, let alone the victims of child rape and sexual abuse. First, we should accept and implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. That is a basic moral requirement. Secondly, we should look at the “exceptional circumstances” rules, which allow someone who did not manage to apply as soon as reasonably practicable, or within two years, to apply if

“due to exceptional circumstances an application could not have been made earlier; and the evidence provided in support of the application means that it can be determined without further extensive inquiries by a claims officer.”

That is a much tighter exception than most legal “exceptional circumstances” exception rules. It basically requires that there be no work to do on the part of the agency that would be required to investigate. I do not understand why whether people get compensation is determined by what inquiries a claims officer would be required to make. I do not think that represents justice.

Significant numbers of claims are being refused; in 2023-24, nearly 2,000 were refused because they were not submitted within the time limit, and another 765 were refused because of a failure to report as soon as reasonably practicable. What we do not have statistics on, as far as I am aware, is the number of people who do not apply in the first place because they know that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. I suspect that it is substantial. It seems to me that whether someone hears about the scheme in the first place, or can meet the requirements, is very much an accident of their life chances and various other factors. That is no way to determine whether people should receive compensation.

At the moment, we are listing Crown court cases for more than two years hence. The police can take more than two years to investigate a crime. About 21% of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme take more than two years to conclude; in fact, 2.8% of them take more than five years to conclude. We habitually accept, and have done for some time—although we may not like it—that it can take the state more than two years to deal with a crime, but we do not accept that it can take more than two years for a victim to deal with a crime. That seems, to me, a fundamentally irrational and indefensible position.

In this country, we let people make a breach of contract claim six years after the breach of contract occurred, but we will not let them take more than two years to process their trauma. That is not, in my opinion, the right position for the state to take.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be.

In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted.

However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards.

Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing.

Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria.

The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called.

Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why.

I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should.

On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion.

I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response:

“I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

[Sarah Russell]

Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?

[Dr Mullan]

I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine.

It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that.

Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner.

We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service.

The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all.

I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime.

I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim.

Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year.

One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions.

At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery.

Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it.

My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports.

I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended.

Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation.

That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation.

There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service.

We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.

[Sarah Russell]

If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me finish the point. If hon. Members do not like the answer, perhaps they should hear it in full.

The Sentencing Council made it clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from what was ultimately put before this Labour Government. The council said in the previous iteration that pre-sentencing reports would usually be required. There was a presumption that pre- sentencing reports would come forward, but importantly, it preserved full discretion. The guidance that was ultimately brought forward, which was given the nod by the Justice Secretary’s officials who were present at the final meeting of the Sentencing Council, made a significant distinction: it said that such reports “must” be requested. That removed the discretion available to judges, which was a very significant difference.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have the pre-sentence report guidance in front of me. It says:

“When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary”.

It then goes on to describe various circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be considered necessary and may “normally be considered necessary”. It does not remove judicial stipulations and interventions completely, and to suggest otherwise is not accurate.

[Robert Jenrick]

The guidance does not use that phrase. It says a report would “usually” be required. That is an important point, because it removes discretion. Of course, there might be instances in which a judge would not request a report, but I think it would be extremely unlikely, in practice, that a judge would choose not to take forward a pre-sentence report, in the light of the new guidance. That is why we felt it so important to take action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The guidelines we are talking about came into force—or would have done—under this Labour Government. I will not return to everything I said earlier, but those of us who were in this Chamber on the day that I revealed this issue all know that neither the Justice Secretary nor any of her Ministers had the faintest idea that any of this was happening. I watched the Justice Secretary look to her Ministers; she was greeted by blank faces. They had no grip on what was happening in their Department.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool makes the good point that the issues that we are discussing predate this Labour Government. This is a broader issue facing our country. We all have to be defenders of equality under the law. I do not seek equality of outcome in our criminal justice system; I seek equality of treatment. That is the heart of a fair criminal justice system. That may be a point of difference between some of us in this House. All I seek is for every person in this country—man or woman, regardless of their religion or the colour of their skin—to be treated exactly the same by the law.

Everywhere we look in the Ministry of Justice, we see this ideology. The most worrying part is that I think the Justice Secretary knows this. She stood here and said that the appearance of differential treatment before the law is particularly corrosive, and I agree wholeheartedly with her.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make progress.

The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault.

We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

Clearly, Parliament needs to have oversight of revisions to sentencing guidelines, so that they reflect the will of Parliament.

The Government failed to act and have now brought forward this lacklustre measure. In the past few months, my hon. and right hon. Friends have uncovered multiple instances of two-tier principles being applied to bail, probation and other judicial matters. This is not a one-off, or a whistleblowing “fix it and move on” situation; it is systemic and endemic. We need much more radical reform than the Government are bringing forward today.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have to wrap up. When will the Government get serious, get a grip and put an end to this, once and for all?

Domestic Abuse Offences

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for speaking so movingly and convincingly.

I want to raise the case of a constituent who has come to me with multiple problems to do with her abusive husband. He is not yet her ex-husband, because he is stalling the divorce process, and hiding and dissipating assets. I worked briefly in family law, so I know that this is by no means an unusual situation and that, in most cases, it is the man who is involved in perpetrating this sort of thing. If this was happening in any other situation—for instance, between two business partners—such actions would be prosecuted as fraud, but when pursued through the family court, as they are all the time, they are not prosecuted at all; they are just treated as one of those things.

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. An example of coercive or controlling behaviour is economic abuse, including coerced debt, controlling spending and similar activities. However, in this case the husband is no longer directly controlling or coercing the wife because they are separated; he is just spending all of their money and she cannot stop it.

Economic abuse that relates to deliberately dissipating someone else’s assets is not really dealt with. Many victims of domestic abuse have their personal finances ruined in the course of their relationships. It is a real problem that any insolvency solution that might help them to rebuild their finances involves having their home address and other personal details published online in the insolvency register. That deters a lot of people from getting involved in the insolvency solutions that would enable them to start to rebuild their finances and their lives.

One can apply to withhold the details of addresses and so forth, but that involves paperwork, possible court proceedings and a fee of £300, which is a huge amount of money for someone who is already in an insolvency process. There is a strong argument that we need to reform the process and potentially make the insolvency register private.

Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for securing the debate. I thank Cheshire Without Abuse, which does work in this area in my constituency, and the Money Wellness service, which people can engage with if they are having money difficulties.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has brought to mind a circumstance that I, as an elected representative, have witnessed on a number of occasions over the past few years. A married man has secured a loan on a joint account held with his wife but then, when the relationship fell apart and all the money in the bank was away, she was left with the loan, so she was done over twice. That is an example of a situation that could be sorted out in the legislation that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to, and I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the issue.

[Mrs Russell]

I have seen instances like that within my own social circle. It is not unusual and a lot of the people involved appear to be people who would have engaged with the bank. I know banks have some safeguards around this sort of thing now, but they are inadequate and people are often left in terrible financial situations.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I wish him luck with his campaign.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am sorry to hear how long victims in my hon. Friend’s constituency are waiting. That is why we are taking urgent action to bear down on the Crown court backlog, not only by increasing sitting days this year, but by committing to record numbers of sitting days next year. Of course that will not be sufficient to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims, and that is why we need to hear from Sir Brian Leveson and implement reform in due course.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

19. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

This Government are funding a record 110,000 Crown court sitting days, which is 4,000 more than the previous Government funded. To bring down the backlog we must embrace reform, and that is why I have launched an independent review into the efficiency of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. This Government will deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Mrs Russell]

In 2016, 120,000 cases were disposed of—concluded—in the Crown courts. That figure was never achieved again by the Conservative party, and by 2022 the figure was 17% lower. Conservative Members like to blame covid for everything, but there were problems in the system well before that. There has been a systematic failure to modernise processes in our courts for years, as we on the Justice Committee hear far too often. What more can we do to use technology to make our courts more efficient and, most importantly, ensure faster outcomes for victims?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to note the issue of falling disposals—in layman’s terms, the number of cases that are completed. The rate of disposals has indeed fallen in recent years, which why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson, as part of his review, to consider how we improve the efficiency of our courts, including further technical or AI-related reform that might assist cases to move more quickly through the system. We will need a three-pronged approach: more funding, which I have already delivered; once-in-a-generation reform, which Sir Brian Leveson is looking at; and going further and faster on productivity and efficiency in the system. That is how we will get swifter justice for victims.