(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7A and 7B in lieu.
“Provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a victim (“V”) requests the Secretary of State to supply V with a transcript of sentencing remarks that are relevant to V.
(2) The Secretary of State must supply the transcript to V, or arrange for the transcript to be supplied to V—
(a) free of charge, and
(b) before the end of the period specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
This is subject to regulations under subsection (3) and Criminal Procedure Rules under subsection (5).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision about how a request under subsection (1) is to be made;
(b) make provision about the information to be provided in making such a request;
(c) provide for exceptions to the requirement in subsection (2) to supply a transcript of sentencing remarks;
(d) provide that, in circumstances specified in the regulations, a transcript must be provided with the omission of information so specified;
(e) make further provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular—
(a) confer a function (including the exercise of a discretion) on the Secretary of State or another person or description of person;
(b) make provision which refers to Criminal Procedure Rules (including as amended or replaced from time to time).
(5) Criminal Procedure Rules may make provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2) (including any provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (3) or by virtue of subsection (4)(a)).
(6) A power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—
(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes.
(7) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations under this section.
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) In this section—
“sentencing remarks” means remarks made by a judge of the Crown Court in England and Wales when sentencing an offender for an offence;
“victim” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to a victim.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Sentencing Bill return to your Lordships’ House for, I hope, the final time. Subject to your Lordships’ agreement, the Bill will have completed all its stages and will shortly become law. That moment will be hugely significant for our prison and probation services. It will put them on a sustainable footing and deliver punishment that works. I am very proud of having played my part in taking the Bill through Parliament. Apart from a brief Bill on the Sentencing Council, this is my first experience of getting a Bill through, and I have been struck by the fantastic teamwork from everyone involved.
I will briefly set out the Government’s rationale for disagreeing with Amendment 7 and tabling our own amendments in lieu. Before I do so, I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. In keeping with their approach throughout the passage of the Bill, they have engaged constructively and openly. Once again, their interventions have made this a better Bill.
The Government fully supported the intention of Amendment 7: to promote transparency in the courts and improve the experience of victims as they navigate the justice system. We could not accept it as drafted due to the risk that it would significantly increase judicial workload at a time when courts are working intensively to drive down the court backlog. However, I am delighted that we have tabled an amendment in lieu, which expands the provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts, free of charge, to all victims who request them. This new clause represents an important step forward for victims, ensuring that they are able to request and receive relevant sentencing remarks for free.
Sentencing remarks set out the judge’s reasoning, helping victims to understand how the sentence was reached without having to visit the courtroom—an experience that can be retraumatising for many. This change will embolden victims to look back on their bravery, and to process their experience at their own pace. This clause also delivers a major step forward for transparency more broadly, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and free of charge. This is consistent with Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and the 2017 Lammy Review, which sought to shape a more open justice system fit to serve every victim.
The detail on timeframes and processes for providing transcripts will be set out in regulations, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is that the regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. This timeframe will support requests under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently allows referrals up to 28 days after sentencing. I also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we are considering his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend this deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the honourable Member for Chichester in the other place for raising important questions about the definition of “victim” and why it is necessary to allow for exceptions. We are carefully considering the scope of the definition of victim for these purposes, but I assure noble Lords that this clause does not restrict us to a narrow definition. We will ensure that there is as much consistency as possible in the definition of victim for the purpose of the code, and we will specifically consider the circumstances that the honourable Members for Chichester and Bexhill and Battle raised in the other place yesterday, where a victim is personally unable to request sentencing remarks. We have no intention of restricting access in these circumstances.
Further details will be set out in regulations, including any necessary safeguards or limited exceptions. We will ensure that any exceptions are limited, and our intention is that all victims will be able to request and receive their Crown Court sentencing remarks free of charge. But there may be circumstances where exceptions or omissions are necessary; for example, to protect the identity of another victim. I reassure noble Lords that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations carefully.
I can also confirm that an assessment of the previous pilot for free sentencing remarks for rape and serious sexual offence victims is under way. The results will be published shortly. This explores application volumes, costs of provision and any feedback from the courts on the process. It also includes applicant survey feedback, shared by victims or by those applying on their behalf.
This change represents a profound step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown Court will have the right to access, free of charge, a clear explanation of how the sentence was reached. This is a landmark moment for transparency and open justice and a meaningful improvement for victims across the country. I urge all noble Lords to support the Government’s Motion, and I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks and the explanation he gave for the government amendment in lieu of our own amendment. I also thank him for his sustained engagement with Peers across the House, both in and outside the Chamber.
The Government have now committed to publishing sentencing remarks for all Crown Court trials, and we thank the Minister for this step. It was only in response to our successful Conservative amendment that the Government finally acted. It was regrettable that they opposed our original amendment in both Houses, but we welcome their amendment as a step forward in the right direction.
Sentencing remarks explain the judge’s reasoning in determining the sentence imposed. This is important not only for the victims, whose lives are disrupted in the most profound way by crime, but for the transparency required in the justice system. The provision of sentence remarks upon request will mean that victims who are unable to visit the courtroom, whether for practical reasons or because the experience is simply too traumatising, will be able to understand the reasoning behind sentences handed out to offenders.
This amendment builds on the work of the previous Conservative Government, who successfully piloted free access to sentencing remarks for victims of murder, rape and other sexual offences. This amendment now rightly widens that scope to all victims. It is wrong that a victim of, for example, aggravated burglary should have to pay to read the reasoning behind the sentence of the criminal who robbed their shop. This was a clear gap in the law that will now be filled.
The government amendment contains provisions for the timeline and processes for providing transcripts to be set out in regulations. I thank the Minister for his assurance that regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. Under our current system, victims have just 28 days to submit an application for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This can be a complex legal process to contend with in less than a month. It is our intention, as indicated by the Minister, to double the time that victims have available to 56 days. I am grateful that the Minister shares my commitment to ensuring that victims receive their transcripts before that point. Without timely access to these remarks, victims would risk being shut out of the scheme and denied access to justice.
Finally, I turn to the matter of publication. Open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy and sentencing will no doubt become more complex and discretionary under this Bill. We therefore believe that, in principle, sentencing remarks should be made available to the wider public to maintain transparency and accountability. Although the Government are unable to commit to the public release of sentencing remarks at this point, we note the progress made on this issue and we will raise the matter again during the passage of the Victims and Courts Bill.
This amendment represents a significant step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. It ensures that those affected by crime can access the reasoning behind sentences, and it builds on a clear Conservative record of reform. While there is more to do, we have now made real progress, and we will continue to press for full public access to sentencing remarks in future legislation.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks will no doubt repeat some of the niceties, but I too am glad to see this step forward. I shall ask the Minister some questions on the government amendment.
First, there is the phrase
“sentencing remarks … relevant to”
the victim will be supplied. From what the Minister has said, is that distinguishing one particular victim from another victim in the same case, or what is meant by sentencing remarks relevant to the victim? I have to say that, if I were a victim, I would think that everything that was said in sentencing would be relevant. It also occurs to me that, if the court is required to edit the remarks before supplying them, that is actually more work for the court, which is something that the Government are obviously aware of. I take it that “remarks relevant to the victim” are different from
“circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to a victim”,
in paragraph (11) of the proposed new clause. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by “circumstances” in this context?
There is also provision for the “omission of information” and making
“further provision about the supply of a transcript”,
which I take it covers not supplying it, though I am obviously not pushing that point. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am concerned to know about publication. A number of us have heard from the Lady Chief Justice of the progress that has been made and the success in using new technology in this context. I also ask what consultation is planned on circumstances, on exceptions and so on—the various points that will be covered by the regulations.
The Minister has said, and we are grateful for this, that answers will be given to questions asked by my honourable friend the Member for Chichester. Briefly, they are whether the term “victim” is to be the same as the definition used in the victims’ code, including where the victim is unable personally to request sentencing remarks; and, where the amendment provides for exceptions, what sort of exceptions—this goes back to my point about consultation—and what sort of information may be omitted. And possibly overarching all this, will the Government be publishing a review of the pilot that was carried out recently? We have heard about it, we gather it has been successful, if limited, so can we hear more about it?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we will also support the Government on their amendments in lieu. I say at the outset how grateful I am, and we on these Benches are generally, to the Minister and the Government for tabling the amendments in lieu, which mean that victims will have full transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. These will explain the reasons that offenders have been sentenced as they have and will enable victims to understand those reasons, come to terms with them and consider them.
I am also grateful, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for the Minister’s kind remarks about me and him, and for his engagement with us throughout the course of this Bill and on these amendments in lieu. This Bill, which we agree is a better Bill for its passage through this House, has benefited enormously from the work that he, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and the whole of the Bill team have put into providing an expert and collaborative approach to the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the amendments are certainly an improvement. Obviously, the Bill does not go as far as many of us would have liked, but it is still a pretty good Bill. In fact, if every Government Minister engaged as well and as comprehensively and listened as carefully as the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, this House would be a much calmer place. Perhaps he could give a few lessons to other people sitting on the Front Bench.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their insightful contributions to today’s debate. I would like to think that my years of doing business deals have helped in trying to get this through. What I have learned doing business deals is that the way to get a good deal is to listen to everybody and, where good ideas come from all places, you take them on board: that is how you get a good deal. I hope the Sentencing Bill is a good Bill, because my colleagues and I have listened and it has been a very constructive process.
On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I think I answered a number of those points in my opening speech, but I will carefully go through Hansard. Where I did not refer directly to their questions, I will write to them with exact details, and I am very happy to meet up to go through those points.
For me, victims come first and it is our intention to provide full sentencing remarks. We want to focus on the victims of the case, not the victims of different crimes. The involvement of family in this will be dealt with through regulations. We have a broad definition of “victim” and the exceptions will be very limited, but I want to make sure we get this right. We need to make sure that victims are not retraumatised by the process and, where some very vulnerable victims in a small number of cases may not be capable of asking for these, we need to make sure that that is dealt with. I am very happy to write and meet up to get this right.
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution. I again thank all noble Lords for their careful and constructive engagement through the Bill’s passage. That expertise has strengthened it in many important respects. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his expert guidance. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support, and the Minister for Sentencing for guiding the Bill so skilfully through the other place.
Finally, I thank all the officials across government for their skill and devotion to delivering the Bill. They are a really great team. I beg to move.