Victims and Courts Bill
Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
We will now hear oral evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.45 am. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am Dr Kieran Mullan, Committee member and shadow Justice Minister. You will be aware that at least part of the Bill aims to make changes to how the unduly lenient sentence scheme operates. Can you explain what, if any, role the CPS currently has in challenging or referring cases where it feels that the sentence is unduly lenient?Q
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q There have been reports of victims of crime and their families not even necessarily being aware of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Does the CPS have a role in ensuring that there is a good awareness of the scheme, at least among victims and their families, and, if so, how effectively do you think you are playing that role?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You will be aware that there is a 28-day time limit on the ability of anybody, including victims and their families, to appeal a sentence, given your experience of working directly with victims and their families around that crucial period. I have heard that it is not appropriate to expect a victim and their family to manage, consider and make an appeal during that 28-day window, considering some of the momentous events that might be happening to them during that period. Does the CPS have a view on whether a wider timeframe for victims and their families might be beneficial, based on your experience of working with people who are deeply traumatised at that point in time?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Just to make you aware, the Law Commission’s current consultation paper says that it does not recommend any change to that time period, so I am interested in your views on that question specifically.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Moving on to victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements, I have heard directly from victims and family members that they are sometimes told to remove things from these statements that they would like to say—for example, personal remarks directed at the offender. The CPS plays an important role in working with victims and their families on those statements. Have you seen examples of the CPS advising that statements need to be changed?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Thank you. One of the amendments that the Opposition are tabling would introduce a greater freedom for victims and family members to speak more freely in their victim impact statements, with the proposal that the judge makes the choice of distinguishing between what is or is not relevant to sentencing. Would the CPS, in your branch at least, have any objections to allowing victims greater freedom to say what they would like at sentencing hearings?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you, Sarah, for coming to give evidence to us today. How do you think the measures currently in the Bill will help with the prosecutorial capacity issue that we have at the moment?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q What do you see as being the future benefits of having extra capacity within the CPS as a result of the measures in the Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q You mentioned the Law Commission review of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. How important do you feel it is that we let the Law Commission complete that before we make any changes to the ULS?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Which areas of the Bill, if any, do you think will pose challenges for the Crown Prosecution Service?Q
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q What impact do you think broadening the potential pool of prosecutors will have on the backlog in the court system?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q Do you not have any concerns about the quality of the service if you are widening the pool to people with other qualifications?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
I have two questions. The first relates to queries raised around the associate standard, for which you are looking to recruit. Are there any minimum standards that you would look for in any candidate for the new associate roles, and what is the current vacancy rate at the CPS that we need to fill through this? The second question concerns private prosecutions. Do you think there will be any potential impact on the CPS in terms of an increase in the use of private provision and prosecutions?Q
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
A quick question: would you support the publication of sentencing remarks to support transparency, and to enable victims to reflect on what was said in court?Q
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and Victim Support. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I should say for transparency that I have had the opportunity to meet Katie and Baroness Newlove to discuss some of the matters before us today. I will begin by asking a question to all three witnesses. Do you think that the current 28-day time limit for victims and their families to appeal an unduly lenient sentence is sufficient, or should victims and their families get more time?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to move on to questions about the victim personal statement, commonly referred to as a victim impact statement. I know we have discussed this, and there is widespread reporting that it has been suggested to individuals that they have to make their statements say different things and not necessarily criticise the defendant, even though they have been convicted and are guilty at that point. We have put forward an amendment to try to remove those curtailments on what victims can say in their impact statements. Do you have experience of victims being told they cannot say what they want, and would you support us doing what we can to reduce those restrictions?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to ask about the requirement for defendants to attend the sentencing hearing. I have spoken to victims who are quite robust in wanting to see that implemented, even if a defendant is disruptive. We have tabled an amendment to give a judge an explicit right to restrain and gag a defendant if necessary. We have also said that, if a judge is minded not to compel a defendant to appear, or not to restrain them rather than have them removed from court, victims and their families should be consulted about that decision. If they are not going to be there, at the very least a judge should hear clearly the views of victims and families. Would you support a measure that ensures they are consulted? Would you support measures that say, if the victims support it, and it means the defendant being there restrained and gagged, we should consider it?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q A final question from me. I am conscious of time, so I will direct this question to Dame Nicole because of your particular expertise in domestic abuse.
You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us today.
Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I will come back to you, Baroness Newlove, and then I would like to bring you in on this, Katie. In the Bill, we are introducing a victim contact scheme with, for the first time ever, a dedicated helpline for victims and survivors to get that information. In relation to your report, Dame Nicole, we know that many offenders for domestic abuse get less than 12 months of custodial sentence, which makes them ineligible for the contact scheme. For the first time ever they will have a helpline that they will be able to call. What difference will that form of communication that we are bringing in with this Bill make to victims and survivors?Q
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Before you come in on that point, Katie, obviously you will be aware of the new domestic abuse flag that we are bringing in as part of the sentencing review, so that will be possible in future.
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
What do you think will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact schemeQ ?
Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)
Good morning to you all. Baroness Newlove, you published a report last year on the experiences of victims of antisocial behaviour. To what extent do you think the Bill’s antisocial behaviour measures meet the recommendations of your reportQ ?
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Do you support the publication of sentencing remarks in the interest of transparency, supporting victims and their families, and wider public confidence in seeing justice delivered?Q
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
We have talked a great deal about the changes in definitions around victims. We have also talked about the role of social landlords. Is not one of the challenges in implementing this Bill making the many stakeholders that come into contact with victims clear that they are dealing with a victim, and them knowing what a victim is and what their responsibilities are once they realise that?Q
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
There are three people on this panel. Please be focused.
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Q I have a question for Baroness Newlove, in the first instance. I understand that there are new measures in the Bill that allow you to look into individual cases for the first time. Is that something you broadly welcome, and how do you envisage that working?
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Am I out of time, Dr Murrison?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
You are, but you can ask a question very briefly.
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
Q My first question on the commissioner’s powers has already been asked. My second question is on magistrate powers in the Bill. Obviously, six provisions have been included, and you mentioned last year that court backlogs are a real issue. Are there any other powers, within the magistrates’ powers that have been granted, that you would seek to include that would reduce the timeframes and also ensure victims’ redress?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Order. I am very sorry to interrupt, but we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
We will now hear oral evidence from Resolve and ASB Help. We have until 10.55 for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Good morning. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, a shadow Justice Minister.
The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Is it ever an element of the community resolution process that a perpetrator might agree to make some kind of financial compensation voluntarily?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Related to that is the issue of fines, which are separate from compensation. I accept your point about people’s ability to pay, and that there is always a process that ensures that fines are collected only in a way that is proportionate to someone’s means, but you can time out of fines: if you have not paid them in a certain amount of time, you do not have to pay them. Would you support that time limit being taken away, so that if someone comes into financial means later on in life, they will still be held accountable for stuff they did in the community for which they were given a fine as part of community resolution?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I appreciate that some of what you deal with would not end up involving a magistrate passing a sentence, but sometimes that will be the case. Would it benefit transparency for victims, even at a magistrates level, to have a record of the remarks that were made in relation to why the sentence was passed?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q What are the benefits of the Bill having the first ever duty to co-operate among housing providers, the Victims’ Commissioner and other relevant authorities? What will that do for victims of ASB?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q What measures to improve the situation around antisocial behaviour would you have liked to see in the Bill that are not in it?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q Rebecca, you talked about situations in which there is a complex mixture of housing and mental health issues, and possibly drugs and alcohol, and the housing association or local authority struggles to move the person on because it is not clear where they would go. Do you think the agencies involved have the tools and resources they need to comply with the Bill in respect of the Victims’ Commissioner?
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
Q In my experience, housing is often at the heart of antisocial behaviour and the related problems and, of course, at the heart of that is usually the tenant. What are your views about how the provisions in the Bill can be effectively communicated to tenants so that they have knowledge of what their rights are and how to access them, in relation to local authorities and social landlords?
Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)
Q Good morning both and thank you for coming to give evidence. We have rightly discussed antisocial behaviour in depth. I know from my own email inbox that it is a huge scourge on my constituents’ lives in Erewash. Broadly, what is your general assessment of how the Bill’s measures on antisocial behaviour will help us to tackle it as a whole?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
I thank colleagues for the timeliness and focused nature of their questions. I thank the witnesses for sparing their valuable time this morning to come and give evidence to us.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Hello. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin with the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Obviously, you will work directly with victims, and the outcome of all your work will be a sentence passed by a judge. I know from personal experience that, privately, the police can sometimes be just as frustrated with sentences as victims are. You will know that at the minute, anyone, including victims and their families, has only 28 days to appeal against a sentence they consider to be unduly lenient. Given your experience of being in court and working alongside victims, with all the trauma that they might be experiencing at that time, do you think there is any merit in extending the time available for victims and their families to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q If I may interrupt—sorry—do you think 28 days is enough?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Okay. I would like to ask you next about sentencing remarks. Again, you work with victims; you see at first hand, through your victim care work, the trauma of a court process. Very often—outside some very limited trials—victims do not get to see sentencing remarks. A week later, it is all just what their memory tells them and what might be reported in the press. Again, based on your experience of working directly with victims through the criminal justice process, do you think there is any benefit in having sentencing remarks published, so that people can actually see what was said in court at the point of sentencing? Clare, do you want to start with this one?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I also want to ask you about the new power that is being introduced in the Bill to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. We are tabling an amendment to suggest that victims and their families should be consulted as part of that process. Again, based on your experience of being in the courtroom and of working with victims and families, do you think there is benefit in ensuring that victims and families are part of the discussion about what happens with attendance at hearings?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Do you want to add anything, Clare?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
On that point specifically, the non-attendance of sentencing hearings, we feel that we have gone as far as we can in the Bill in terms of introducing prison sanctions and other sanctions that can be given to the perpetrators to enable their attendance at their sentencing hearings. It is the first time ever that judges will have these powers at their discretion. You mentioned concerns around “reasonable force” in getting them to the courtroom. That is one thing that is available under the Bill. The Opposition have also tabled an amendment about the ability to gag and restrain perpetrators who attend. Do you have any thoughts on that and on how workable it would beQ ?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Bringing it back to victims, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to be about, one of the new measures in the Bill concerns the victim contact scheme and a dedicated helpline for victims, so that they can have and request information about their perpetrators—for example, about conditions placed on them—and their cases. As frontline officers, dealing with this every day, what difference do you think will that make to victims and survivors?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q How do you see the new powers that the Bill gives the Victims’ Commissioner affecting work with police and PCCs, particularly on victims of antisocial behaviour?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q Thank you for coming in to give evidence. In areas such as support for victims of sexual violence and rape, helplines have been closed down over the past few months and years because of a lack of funding. How confident are you that the funding and resources will be there to set this helpline up and keep it going further down the line?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q As a police and crime commissioner, would you like to see increased funding for other victim services?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q Are you confident that the helpline will give victims the information they need about the perpetrator? Will things be joined up enough for a national helpline to be able to answer a question that could come in from anywhere in the country? As far as I understand it, there will not be different helplines in different police areas.
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q It sounds like quite a lot of work to do behind the scenes to make this function properly.
Sally Jameson (Labour/Co-operative, Doncaster Central)
Before I ask my question, I declare my interest as a member of the Prison Officers Association, a former POA branch chair, and a former prison officer at the rank of SO trained in control and restraint, PAVA and SPEAR.Q
I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Q To pick up on this theme, Assistant Chief Constable, the police show all the time that it is possible to move and restrain people legally, do they not?
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Q So how is this different?
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that—
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?
Elsie Blundell (Labour, Heywood and Middleton North)
Good morning, both; thank you for appearing this morning. There are lots of cases in my constituency, and I am sure in those of other Members as well, where housing associations are not taking strong enough action against tenants who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. We have heard from you and from the previous panel; there are lots of different agencies involved. How do you see the role of the police working alongside the Victims’ Commissioner, housing providers and other agencies to combat antisocial behaviour? How do you think the Bill could help make that relationship and partnership working more fruitful?Q
Elsie Blundell (Labour, Heywood and Middleton North)
Q Sometimes in my experience there is an unwillingness, but I appreciate what you say. Clare, have you got any comments on that?
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Q I just want to pick up the point on the Opposition amendment about the power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. I am particularly mindful that we are talking about a sentencing hearing, at which point someone will have been found guilty and convicted. I think the general sentiment from victims and the public is that at that point the rights of the victim and their family come first, and that should be front and foremost in the projection of what goes on in the court, in order to see justice delivered. I am mindful that in other jurisdictions, including the US, there are powers to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. Do you have any further thoughts on that?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Good afternoon. The air conditioning is doing its usual thing, so if anybody feels the need to strip off, please do so within reason. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? Looking around the table, I see that they do not.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Q Good afternoon, folks, and welcome. We will now hear oral evidence from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Women’s Aid. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Thank you. We will hear from the shadow Minister first.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I will start by asking about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not know whether you are familiar with this scenario, but it allows anybody—including victims and the public—the opportunity to appeal against a sentence that they consider to be unduly lenient. The Government’s Bill proposes to give the Government more time to consider an application to the scheme.Q55
We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to ask about victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements. I have spoken to victims of crime who have been told that they have to change their victim statements, perhaps if they are making personal remarks about the offender. We have introduced an amendment that would minimise the restrictions that can be placed on what a victim can say as part of that process.
First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to ask about the measures introduced by the Government to compel defendants to appear at sentencing hearings. We have tabled an amendment to suggest that when that takes place—when the judge is making a decision about that—the judge should have to consult with victims and their families about the approach to take: not to let victims and families dictate what happens, but to ensure that they are at the heart of that decision making. Do you think that victims and families would value the opportunity to at least make it clear to the court what their views on the matter are? Again, I start with Suky.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I now turn to something more clearly focused on the specialist areas in which you work, which is parental responsibility. The Bill introduces a measure that means that if someone is convicted of a child sexual offence related to children for whom they have parental responsibility and they are sentenced to four years or more in prison, an order would be put in place or they would lose their parental responsibility.
There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Finally, one welcome measure in the Bill flips around the concept of where offenders can go and where victims are protected from seeing them, because it should be the offenders that we restrict. We should restrict their mobility so that victims can know that as long as they are not in certain places they will not run into offenders. Your organisations have probably called for that in the past. I am interested in your perspective on how important that will be for victims. Suky, would you like to start?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you for giving evidence today. Can I take you back to the restriction of parental responsibility? Farah, you mentioned the impact that issues around parental responsibility are having, particularly on domestic abuse victims and children. Our measure in the Bill is quite tight. We have kept it tight because this is a novel approach, so it is restricted to the criminal court element, rather than the family court element.
You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you. That is really important.
I want to take you on to the victim helpline and the victim contact scheme. Suky, the Bill will for the first time ever bring victims of stalking and harassment into the victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence. What difference will that make to victims and survivors? Could you outline the importance to victims of being able to access timely communication?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Do any of you want to comment on the importance of the victim notification scheme?
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Coming back to parental consent—at the risk of labouring the point—you have all said that you would like that to be extended. Do you think that removing the minimum requirement of a four-year sentence would help to protect more children?Q
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Q What difference do you think the measures proposed in the Bill will make to victims and survivors, and what might the gaps be?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue?Q
The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?
My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?Q
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Very briefly, if you would, as we are running out of time.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Thank you very much to the witnesses for your time this afternoon; we are most grateful.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Justice for Victims, and we have until 3 pm for this panel. We have Mr Glenn Youens online—can you hear us, Glenn? Would you like to start by introducing yourself?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Thank you very much indeed. Paula?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am Kieran. Just for transparency, as with some of the other witnesses this morning, I want to say that we have had the opportunity to meet previously and discuss some of these issues. I want to begin by asking you about victim impact statements—or victim personal statements, as they are technically known. We have heard that people do not always get the chance to say what they want in their statements, and that they are told that they have to alter or edit them. Have either of you experienced that, and could you perhaps share that experience? As you are not here physically, I will direct things to you, Glenn, so that you know when it is your opportunity to speak.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You mentioned the sentencing hearings, Paula. I want to move on to questions about the new measures to compel people to attend their sentencing hearing. First of all, we tabled an amendment to say that victims should be consulted as part of the process—that it should not just be left to a judge and that, while victims might not have the final say, the judge should be extremely mindful of what the victims’ views are. May we start with you, Paula, with your views?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q There was a discussion earlier this morning about the extent to which force might be used to compel someone to attend. We have had the opportunity to speak to other members of the group, who have suggested that even if someone was restrained, or gagged, and making a lot of noise, they would still want them there, and other people would not want them there. Do you think that is a choice that some victims should be encouraged to make and that, if they are willing to tolerate that disruption, that should be something that we listen to?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I have a final question about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As you may be aware, victims and anyone else really have 28 days to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. In the Bill, the Government have chosen to extend the time available to the Government to decide on an appeal, but they have not given more time to victims and their families. We have tabled an amendment to say that victims and families should be given more time to make an appeal.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Glenn, thank you very much. We are going to have to move on.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you both for coming today. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking to you both previously a few times, so in the interests of time I will allow other Committee members to ask questions.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
I am grateful to you, Minister.
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Q What will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme? Do you think that the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
That was nice, short and pithy, if I may say so; I wish some of my colleagues were as succinct. There are no further questions, so thank you both very much indeed, Glenn and Paula. I know how difficult this must be for you, and I very much appreciate your giving your time today. What you have said will be very important in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q It is really welcome that you are here. There is an understandable focus on women and girls, but these issues do not just affect women and girls, so it is great to have your representation.
I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You mentioned children, and I want to ask you about the parental responsibility measures in the Bill. Under the Government’s proposed measure, if an offender is sent to prison for four years or more for a sexual offence against a child for whom they have parental responsibility, they will have their parental responsibility removed. Under our amendment, an offender would lose parental responsibility if they were guilty of an offence against any children, not just their own. Do you have a view about which is the preferable approach?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Lastly, the victim contact scheme and the helpline will be made available to a wider group of victims. Do you welcome that? What difference do you think it will make?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important.
In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Q Do you think the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims?
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Q Do you see any gaps in the Bill, or areas where you would like it to go further?
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
Thank you, Mark, for coming here today. I want to draw your attention to the provisions on compelling offenders to attend their sentencing. First, I am genuinely quite interested in your specific perspective on that. Secondly, we have heard evidence today that the use of force, if it were to become disproportionate, risks making a spectacle of the offender, drawing attention away from the victim. Do you have any thoughts on thatQ ?
Elsie Blundell (Labour, Heywood and Middleton North)
Thank you for giving evidence today. It is important that we do not forget the plight of men and Q boys who are affected by violent or sexual crime. We need to make sure there are clear pathways for those men to secure justice and support. You have made it clear that you welcome the helpline. How do you think we can make sure that the helpline and the victim contact scheme reach all eligible victims, including men from marginalised, disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds? How do you think we could do that?
Jack Rankin (Conservative, Windsor)
Q As the official Opposition, we have tabled an amendment to increase the force with which the justice system can compel the convicted to come to their sentencing hearings. We are particularly keen to make sure there is a duty to consult the victim or their family, where the victim is deceased. Is that something you would support?
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences?Q
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Q As a quick follow-up, what if it was a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Mr Brooks, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.
We are coming to the penultimate panel, and it is quite likely that the final panel will be punctuated. If so, since the Minister will be on the Front Bench for the business to come in the Chamber, I do not propose to call her back—I hope that is satisfactory. Hopefully we will get everybody in and the two remaining panels will not be interrupted, but I am expecting a vote shortly before the hour, so it is quite possible that they will be.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. We have until 3.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister. Forgive me, but I want to understand your capacity to give evidence as civil servants. Would I be correct in saying that, if you were asked to comment on something that is not Government policy, you are restrained in giving a view, or is that a misunderstanding from my side?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Would I also be correct in saying, from looking at your areas of expertise, that you do not have any particular expertise on issues such as physical restraint, the moving of prisoners and using force?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Thank you. On the issue of restraint and the use of force, would you accept that the prison service is experienced and very capable when it comes to using force in certain circumstances to manage prisoners and offenders?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q If I were to tell you, and it is true, that the US judicial system has a specific legal power to allow people to be restrained and gagged as part of court proceedings—they have the training, or whatever it might be, to make that a possibility—is there anything to make you believe that we would be incapable of replicating that, even if you might disagree on the policy of it?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I will move on to talk about the expansion of the victim contact scheme. Are there resource implications for the service in extending it, and what are your initial views on how capable you will be of meeting those expanded resource requirements?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
To follow up on the previous question, there are long-standing concerns about staffing levels in the Probation Service. As the Bill will bring more victims under the auspices of the victim contact scheme, more victims might use it. You sound pretty confident that you will be able to manage that, but if you are already facing staffing challenges, how do you think that will look if a lot more victims suddenly want to use that scheme and helplineQ ?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q Are you confident that you have the resources and capacity to give the officers involved in the victim contact scheme the training they require in domestic abuse, abuse and traumatic sexual violence and their particular effects on the victims they will deal with through this helpline?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
Q I have two questions. First, is it correct to say that your officers in court settings are not trained to gag prisoners or to engage in restraint of prisoners to present them before the court? Would it require wholesale retraining of officers in the system to engage in that change of behaviour?
My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim?
Sally Jameson (Labour/Co-operative, Doncaster Central)
I have already declared my interests but, for the purpose of the panel, I am a member of the Prison Officers’ Association and a former officer at rank of SO, and I am trained in all the relevant uses of force.Q
I want to come back to the point about compelling attendance at sentencing hearings. The Government’s Bill states that a relevant officer may,
“for the purpose of delivering the offender to the courtroom, use reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate.”
That is in relation to the existing use of force policy framework and the relevant Prison Service orders that apply to it. Do you agree that, when you look at the use of force framework, the words “necessary”, “proportionate” and “reasonable” relate to the whole spectrum of use of force, from the very lowest level, such as a guiding hold, right to the top level, and therefore the word “restraint” in the amendment tabled by the official Opposition does not detail what existing restraint would be used that is not already covered in the current policy framework?
My second question is this. I have never heard or seen gagging in any Prison Service policy, so from your operational experience, what implement would you suggest would be used for gagging and how would it be applied?
Ruth Jones (Labour, Newport West and Islwyn)
Thank you both for coming before the Committee. You were both quite upbeat about the ability of the Probation Service to deal with the changes, which is great, but when I have talked to probation officers in Wales, they have said that they find their caseload extremely challenging and there are issues with covering the workload they have already. You have talked about geography and how different areas have different abilities. How are you going to manage the measures in the Bill in order that you can deliver the victim contact scheme and victims helpline, but also ensure that victims feel that they are at the centre of the Bill?Q
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Thank you very much indeed. What you have said will be very useful in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I will start by asking you to talk about the context through which the MOJ looks at what it can learn from international examples. For example, can you confirm that, in other elements of justice policy, you have looked at Texas to learn from what the United States does and have brought that over here?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Great. What is your understanding of the US legal framework when it comes to the use of force, including, for example, restraining or gagging defendants in court?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q So can we agree that there is not anything in principle that would stop the Government instigating such a measure as is proposed in our amendment?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why—
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Fine. Great. Thank you for your agreement that it can be done.
Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Okay, but taking you back to the question, what is your understanding of what the Law Commission currently says are its proposals for changes to the ULS?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Finally, you will have heard again the evidence that the witnesses gave in relation to changes to the personal impact statements. I know you are passionate about victims’ issues, and I am sure you will have been as affected as all of us by hearing those stories. Is there any particular reason why you would not support ensuring on a statutory basis that people can say what they want to say on impact statements, with the very minor exclusions that you might have to have in a courtroom in terms of language and so on? That is what our amendment does.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I just point out that the statement is used post conviction, so it would not influence the jury—it is for the judge. Do you accept that our amendment, which emphasises that it is for the judge to distinguish between remarks that would or would not be rightfully taken into account in sentencing, will address your concerns about the wider use and impact of the statement?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q I would like to talk about the measures to change parental responsibility. Could you tell us why the provision in the Bill applies only to people who have been convicted of offences against their own children and not serious sexual offences against other children?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q I think you have answered my follow-up question, which was whether you think that if somebody has committed a serious sexual offence against a child, they should not have parental responsibility for any child.
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q One more question on that: why did you settle on four years?
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat, South Devon)
Q If the four years is reduced on appeal, would that measure still stand?
Anneliese Midgley (Labour, Knowsley)
I thank the Minister for listening to my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who was killed by a stranger when she was nine years old. He did not attend his sentence hearing. You listened to her and acted. Another part of her ask, which is in the Bill but not spelled out so much, is for sanctions if the offender refuses to turn up to the sentence hearing. Can you say a bit more about what that would look like? What mechanisms—they are not currently in the Bill—can be used to compel them? The point that my constituent made is that, for someone whose sentence is four years or even 10, a few extra years would be compelling, but if it is life imprisonment, that would essentially be meaningless.Q
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Q Minister, do you agree that violent offences can be as serious as sexual ones?
Bradley Thomas (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Q I have a constituent whom I met a few months ago. Forgive me—you may have heard me mention this on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. My constituent is probably in a unique situation. She is a serving detective. Her ex-partner, who was a detective, is serving a sentence in excess of 10 years for having raped her, and he continues to enjoy indirect parental access rights. My constituent is excessively concerned that the continuation of access rights in an indirect form—usually in the form of a letter that often conveys coercive messaging and veiled threats to her—is hindering not just her welfare, but that of their children. In addition, under the current arrangement, as she and I understand it, if she were to take a large life decision, she would still have to consult her ex-partner, because of the continued parental access rights and responsibility that he enjoys while serving his prison sentence. Do you agree that, if someone commits a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child, their parental access responsibility should be restricted?
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. We have had an awful lot of questions this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about individuals who are avoiding judgment and avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. I am a new Member, but I understand that the measures in the Bill about asking offenders to attend Q their sentencing were part of a previous Bill, before the general election. In what ways are the measures in this Bill stronger than the measures in the previous Bill?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
I call Adam Thompson—let us be quick.
Adam Thompson (Labour, Erewash)
We have heard a number of times today how this Bill can work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill in several areas. Could you comment on how the two Bills will work together to tackle antisocial behaviourQ ?
Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat, North East Hampshire)
Q I want to follow up on parental responsibility. I know we have talked about this a lot, but I think it is really important. To follow up on your point about appeals through the family court, have you looked into alternatives to that, such as appeals through a different court or no appeals at all?
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)
Thank you very much, Minister; brilliantly timed. That brings us to the end of today’s session with seconds to spare, I think.