Westminster Hall
Monday 19th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 15 hours, 51 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Potentially. Of course, it's a pleasure to see you change it, Mr. Mondale. Seven. Six. 4553. Two sentence reductions for guilty pleas. I would like to begin by competition. This petition has garnered 400,000 signatures across the UK, which is a protection for the petition. For guilty pleas in controlling and coercive cases. And it goes on to say, I want the government to introduce legislation so that defendants charged with controlling aggressive behaviour cannot receive a sentencing reduction to be entered after initially using this should be known as privacy law. It goes on to say victims of coercive control often wait months or years for trial.
Reliving trauma. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive the reduced 30. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging to stress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reduction as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced. I used to be the chair of North Ayrshire Women's Aid. That's the local women's aid service in my constituency, and this is an issue which is deeply important to me. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse, which wear down, wears down a victim's self-confidence and freedom over a period of time, leaving the victim exploited and dependent on their abuser.
Paris Shears, the petitioner, told me of her experience. Her ex-partner was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour alongside other very serious offences. Paris waited over 500 days for the trial, but her ex-partner changed his plea on the day of the trial. He then received a sentence reduction and the charge of controlling and coercive behaviour was no longer pursued. Since that day, Paris has dedicated her time to beginning and growing this petition, as well as telling her story online and through the media. And she should be commended for how much time and effort she has selflessly put into this.
Many women and some men go through situations like this and sadly, many never leave. Paris should be very proud of herself for not only getting out, but for raising awareness about coercive control. Hopefully the work that she has achieved with this petition could save other women from these kinds of dangerous situations. And what is most important in this debate and discussion is that survivor impact remains central. Going through a criminal trial can be a horrific and very difficult experience for victims, who have to then relive their trauma in order to get justice, and can be used by the abusers as another form of abuse towards the victim.
Currently, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act of 2015 sets out controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as having a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Like the Sentencing Council guidelines for other offences, guilty pleas can result in a potential sentence reduction. This is in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act of 2020, and the reduction in sentence for a guilty plea guideline. The principle of reducing a sentence for a guilty plea is long standing in England and Wales, and now set out in the legislation of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to issue a guilty plea guideline, the most recent of which was published in 2017 after a public consultation. A usual reduction is one third for a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of the proceedings, and this goes down to one quarter for guilty pleas issued after the first stage. The maximum reduction is one tenth. When the plea is entered on the first day of the trial, and this could be decreased to zero for any. Please enter during the course of the trial. Courts are incentivised to reduce sentences for guilty pleas in order to encourage defendants who know they are guilty to plead guilty as early as possible.
This can save the court time and money, as well as the victims, from having to attend court and give evidence. However, it is important to note that Sir Brian Leveson conducted an independent review of the criminal courts, which recommended that the maximum reduction should be increased to 40% when guilty pleas are made at the earliest opportunity. I will give way.
Reliving trauma. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive the reduced 30. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging to stress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reduction as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced. I used to be the chair of North Ayrshire Women's Aid. That's the local women's aid service in my constituency, and this is an issue which is deeply important to me. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse, which wear down, wears down a victim's self-confidence and freedom over a period of time, leaving the victim exploited and dependent on their abuser.
Paris Shears, the petitioner, told me of her experience. Her ex-partner was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour alongside other very serious offences. Paris waited over 500 days for the trial, but her ex-partner changed his plea on the day of the trial. He then received a sentence reduction and the charge of controlling and coercive behaviour was no longer pursued. Since that day, Paris has dedicated her time to beginning and growing this petition, as well as telling her story online and through the media. And she should be commended for how much time and effort she has selflessly put into this.
Many women and some men go through situations like this and sadly, many never leave. Paris should be very proud of herself for not only getting out, but for raising awareness about coercive control. Hopefully the work that she has achieved with this petition could save other women from these kinds of dangerous situations. And what is most important in this debate and discussion is that survivor impact remains central. Going through a criminal trial can be a horrific and very difficult experience for victims, who have to then relive their trauma in order to get justice, and can be used by the abusers as another form of abuse towards the victim.
Currently, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act of 2015 sets out controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as having a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Like the Sentencing Council guidelines for other offences, guilty pleas can result in a potential sentence reduction. This is in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act of 2020, and the reduction in sentence for a guilty plea guideline. The principle of reducing a sentence for a guilty plea is long standing in England and Wales, and now set out in the legislation of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to issue a guilty plea guideline, the most recent of which was published in 2017 after a public consultation. A usual reduction is one third for a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of the proceedings, and this goes down to one quarter for guilty pleas issued after the first stage. The maximum reduction is one tenth. When the plea is entered on the first day of the trial, and this could be decreased to zero for any. Please enter during the course of the trial. Courts are incentivised to reduce sentences for guilty pleas in order to encourage defendants who know they are guilty to plead guilty as early as possible.
This can save the court time and money, as well as the victims, from having to attend court and give evidence. However, it is important to note that Sir Brian Leveson conducted an independent review of the criminal courts, which recommended that the maximum reduction should be increased to 40% when guilty pleas are made at the earliest opportunity. I will give way.
16:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm very grateful to you for giving way. She's setting out a very clear case. One of my constituents contacted me because she had been the victim of coercive control and domestic abuse, and was set to wait up to two years for the court case to come forward because her former partner had entered a not guilty verdict. There were still proceedings in the family court where there was no treatment acknowledged because of that situation. Would the hon. Lady agree with me that this is a matter of real concern, that delays in the criminal justice system, allowing potential abusers to continue to exercise their coercive control through the family courts, and it would be important for the government to look closely at how to address this matter as well.
16:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I can say I do agree with with what has just been said. I think he raised he raised important points. So moving back on to controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Almost all those convicted for coercive control are men and most victims are women. In fact, analysis of Merseyside Police domestic abuse data found that 95% of coercive control victims were women and 74% of perpetrators were men. This is a crime which clearly disproportionately affects women, and tackling it must be a priority for the government.
There are different strategies we can consider to improve the experience of victims of coercive control and their time spent in the justice system justice system. One strategy is to look at improved judicial training on coercive control, so that judges and others can better recognise those situations where defendants are toying with their victims. There can be more consideration of sentencing guidelines and greater awareness of what coercive control is among the public, so that victims feel more comfortable to come forward. The government responded to this petition on the 11th of May 2026 and referred to our recent Violence against Women and girls strategy.
It is encouraging to see £13.1 million of funding towards launching the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection. It is also good to see that since the 3rd of February 2025, anyone convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour sentenced to 12 months or longer is automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements. This requires the police, probation and prison services to work collaboratively on managing the risks that these individuals pose in our society. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I think it is very important that this debate was held now, and that Paris's work in bringing attention to the victims of coercive control has been highlighted.
Domestic abuse is something that 1 in 5 people experience in their life, but only a quarter of the crimes are reported. I hope that by bringing attention to domestic violence in settings like these, even just one woman feels brave enough to leave a dangerous situation. This behaviour is one of the most insidious forms of abuse. Abusers can control all aspects of the victim's life, creating a world of fear and intimidation. They isolate victims from family and friends and rob them of their independence. I think it is important to highlight some of the common examples of coercive behaviour for example, financial control, deprivation of basic needs like food or support services such as hospital or GP surgery, monitoring a partner's online activity and in some cases, using spyware.
It is key that women in these situations know that this behaviour is not usual, and that they can get out with help with the help of others. I mentioned I was previously chair of North Ayrshire Women's Aid, and I would encourage anyone who thinks they might need help to get in touch with any relevant local services. It is never too late to leave and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's response today on this important issue, as well as hearing from other members in the chamber today.
There are different strategies we can consider to improve the experience of victims of coercive control and their time spent in the justice system justice system. One strategy is to look at improved judicial training on coercive control, so that judges and others can better recognise those situations where defendants are toying with their victims. There can be more consideration of sentencing guidelines and greater awareness of what coercive control is among the public, so that victims feel more comfortable to come forward. The government responded to this petition on the 11th of May 2026 and referred to our recent Violence against Women and girls strategy.
It is encouraging to see £13.1 million of funding towards launching the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection. It is also good to see that since the 3rd of February 2025, anyone convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour sentenced to 12 months or longer is automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements. This requires the police, probation and prison services to work collaboratively on managing the risks that these individuals pose in our society. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I think it is very important that this debate was held now, and that Paris's work in bringing attention to the victims of coercive control has been highlighted.
Domestic abuse is something that 1 in 5 people experience in their life, but only a quarter of the crimes are reported. I hope that by bringing attention to domestic violence in settings like these, even just one woman feels brave enough to leave a dangerous situation. This behaviour is one of the most insidious forms of abuse. Abusers can control all aspects of the victim's life, creating a world of fear and intimidation. They isolate victims from family and friends and rob them of their independence. I think it is important to highlight some of the common examples of coercive behaviour for example, financial control, deprivation of basic needs like food or support services such as hospital or GP surgery, monitoring a partner's online activity and in some cases, using spyware.
It is key that women in these situations know that this behaviour is not usual, and that they can get out with help with the help of others. I mentioned I was previously chair of North Ayrshire Women's Aid, and I would encourage anyone who thinks they might need help to get in touch with any relevant local services. It is never too late to leave and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's response today on this important issue, as well as hearing from other members in the chamber today.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to start by thanking the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate. And my constituents who have signed this petition. Above all, I would like to thank my constituent parishes who is in the gallery today, and is the reason we are all present in this chamber this afternoon. It has been a privilege to support Paris as she has brought this campaign forward. She has taken the worst experience of her life and turned it into a fight to change the law so that no other victim has to go through what she did.
I'm incredibly proud to be her member of Parliament and to speak on her behalf today. I would like to start by saying a little bit more about what happened to Paris, because her story is the reason this petition exists. Paris's ex-partner was charged with several offences, including intentional strangulation and controlling and coercive behaviour, for which he pleaded not guilty. For over 530 days, Paris prepared to stand in court and relive what had happened to her, carrying the fear of giving evidence, of facing her former partner and of not being believed. On the morning of the trial, the defendant then changed his plea, and for that he was given a reduced sentence for sparing Paris the ordeal of a trial.
Despite what he had already put her through. When Paris heard the sentence, she fell to her knees and curled up in a ball, crying, as she puts it. He got handed a suspended sentence. I'm still living with a life sentence. No one should ever have to say that about our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that a defendant can continue their cycle of abuse and still be rewarded with a reduced sentence for changing their plea at the last possible moment. Guilty pleas exist for a reason to spare victims the ordeal of a trial, but a plea entered on the day of the trial spares them nothing.
And this matters, especially in cases of coercive control, because this particularly insidious form of abuse is about power. It is about trying to control every aspect of another person's life. When a defendant pleads not guilty and then holds out until the morning of the trial, that control carries on. Only now it is exercised through the courts. Paris law would stop this. While it is welcome that some domestic abuse crimes have been excluded from the early release scheme, it doesn't go far enough. Domestic abuse doesn't end when an offender is convicted, and an offender's release can be one of the most dangerous periods a survivor will face.
Our police forces, probation services, courts and specialist domestic abuse organisations are already struggling to monitor perpetrators of abuse and breaches of release. Releasing more domestic abuse offenders early will only place an even greater pressure on a system that is already failing to cope. I would be grateful if the minister could clarify how domestic abuse. How many domestic abuse offenders the government expects to be released under this scheme? If the government gets this wrong, survivors will pay the price. They and their families may be forced to abandon their homes, their children's schools, their jobs and support networks, which will plunge domestic abuse services and refuges into even greater demand.
Domestic abuse is one of the most despicable crimes, and those convicted of these offences should not be eligible for early release. We understand why our prisons are full. Years of neglect and mismanagement under the previous conservative government let the court backlog spiral and left victims waiting unacceptably long periods of time for justice. However, the answer to tackling the crisis of overcrowding cannot be solved by transferring the risk from prisons directly into the homes and communities of survivors. Violence. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, with 1 in 4 women having experienced domestic abuse and a woman being killed by a man every three days in the UK.
Greater action is needed to tackle this epidemic. Last December, the government published its strategy with the aim of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. This is absolutely a welcome ambition, but this ambition must be matched by practical steps, and Paris law is exactly the kind of practical step that the target demands. Young people of all ages must be taught what a healthy relationship looks like, what controlling behaviour is, and how to report problems at home. Paris told me that she believes that if she had received education like this, much of her trauma could have been avoided.
The best way to help protect future women from coercive and controlling relationships is to make sure they are able to recognise the warning signs early on. Paris has been brave enough to tell her story and fight for a change in the law. It is now time for action and I urge the minister to back Paris law and make sure no survivors of coercive control suffer the same injustice, that the current gap in our judicial system allows.
I'm incredibly proud to be her member of Parliament and to speak on her behalf today. I would like to start by saying a little bit more about what happened to Paris, because her story is the reason this petition exists. Paris's ex-partner was charged with several offences, including intentional strangulation and controlling and coercive behaviour, for which he pleaded not guilty. For over 530 days, Paris prepared to stand in court and relive what had happened to her, carrying the fear of giving evidence, of facing her former partner and of not being believed. On the morning of the trial, the defendant then changed his plea, and for that he was given a reduced sentence for sparing Paris the ordeal of a trial.
Despite what he had already put her through. When Paris heard the sentence, she fell to her knees and curled up in a ball, crying, as she puts it. He got handed a suspended sentence. I'm still living with a life sentence. No one should ever have to say that about our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that a defendant can continue their cycle of abuse and still be rewarded with a reduced sentence for changing their plea at the last possible moment. Guilty pleas exist for a reason to spare victims the ordeal of a trial, but a plea entered on the day of the trial spares them nothing.
And this matters, especially in cases of coercive control, because this particularly insidious form of abuse is about power. It is about trying to control every aspect of another person's life. When a defendant pleads not guilty and then holds out until the morning of the trial, that control carries on. Only now it is exercised through the courts. Paris law would stop this. While it is welcome that some domestic abuse crimes have been excluded from the early release scheme, it doesn't go far enough. Domestic abuse doesn't end when an offender is convicted, and an offender's release can be one of the most dangerous periods a survivor will face.
Our police forces, probation services, courts and specialist domestic abuse organisations are already struggling to monitor perpetrators of abuse and breaches of release. Releasing more domestic abuse offenders early will only place an even greater pressure on a system that is already failing to cope. I would be grateful if the minister could clarify how domestic abuse. How many domestic abuse offenders the government expects to be released under this scheme? If the government gets this wrong, survivors will pay the price. They and their families may be forced to abandon their homes, their children's schools, their jobs and support networks, which will plunge domestic abuse services and refuges into even greater demand.
Domestic abuse is one of the most despicable crimes, and those convicted of these offences should not be eligible for early release. We understand why our prisons are full. Years of neglect and mismanagement under the previous conservative government let the court backlog spiral and left victims waiting unacceptably long periods of time for justice. However, the answer to tackling the crisis of overcrowding cannot be solved by transferring the risk from prisons directly into the homes and communities of survivors. Violence. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, with 1 in 4 women having experienced domestic abuse and a woman being killed by a man every three days in the UK.
Greater action is needed to tackle this epidemic. Last December, the government published its strategy with the aim of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. This is absolutely a welcome ambition, but this ambition must be matched by practical steps, and Paris law is exactly the kind of practical step that the target demands. Young people of all ages must be taught what a healthy relationship looks like, what controlling behaviour is, and how to report problems at home. Paris told me that she believes that if she had received education like this, much of her trauma could have been avoided.
The best way to help protect future women from coercive and controlling relationships is to make sure they are able to recognise the warning signs early on. Paris has been brave enough to tell her story and fight for a change in the law. It is now time for action and I urge the minister to back Paris law and make sure no survivors of coercive control suffer the same injustice, that the current gap in our judicial system allows.
16:44
16:44
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I thank my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate. I also thank Paris. She is in the chamber in the gallery for bringing forward the petition and everyone who has supported it, both in my constituency and constituencies up and down the country. When I was a police officer, I worked in CID and child protection, and I know how much we ask of people who report abuse, both domestic and abuse and other ways they have to. Victims and survivors have to talk about deeply personal experiences, provide evidence and answer difficult questions, often all whilst worrying about what will happen when the person they reported actually finds out.
And that's a big concern from victims and survivors all the time. And in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, that can be particularly difficult. Someone may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them. Everyone's everything's their fault. And no one, no one takes on board what they say. They might try and take the children into into it and say that children will be lost if they go through the court system. And the control affects almost every part of their daily life. Who they see, how they spend their money, where they go, whether they feel able to make decisions even for themselves.
And we should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police. Often it takes, on average around seven years or it used to when I was policing, for someone to even report something. And reporting, as we all know, doesn't necessarily mean that someone even feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure to withdraw their statements from from either the perpetrator themselves or other members of society, and they may spend months, sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence.
And by the time the trial date arrives, they've already been through a great deal. And that's why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. A defendant can maintain currently a not guilty plea throughout that period, change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. And for the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It'd be very difficult for police officers to accept as well. I might add, so victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work, arranged childcare.
They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when this happens. And the late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases that they don't have to go through court. But it doesn't undo what they've been through to get to that stage. And under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally currently attracts a one third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial. And that is subject to exceptions, and I understand the reasons for that approach fully.
You know, an early guilty plea, as you said, can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence. It can reduce delays and free up court time. And even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. It's important to remember that, and that matters. And we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience. But we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom. We cannot assume or appreciate that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse, and defendants do have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute.
But equally, we should be prepared to recognise that the cases we're perpetrators use proceedings to exert even further pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process, and is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I'm not sure. It's always clear that the person sitting in court listening to the sentence is aware of the implications of that, and accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands that the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important.
Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account. I would therefore like the Minister to address three points, if he may. Firstly, will the government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris's proposals to remove the reduction, where a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors of domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors, the judiciary should all be involved in that work and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions, whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what would mean what that would mean for the people given evidence.
Those are the questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition. Secondly, how will the government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are dealt with and identified early, where someone's being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressure to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections. And lastly, will the minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They should have the opportunity to ask questions and get answers that they can understand and deserve.
The government this government has committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control is right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, males as well, can be victims and people experience this abuse, must also be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse, and I therefore hope the minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward.
All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system, and we need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.
And that's a big concern from victims and survivors all the time. And in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, that can be particularly difficult. Someone may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them. Everyone's everything's their fault. And no one, no one takes on board what they say. They might try and take the children into into it and say that children will be lost if they go through the court system. And the control affects almost every part of their daily life. Who they see, how they spend their money, where they go, whether they feel able to make decisions even for themselves.
And we should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police. Often it takes, on average around seven years or it used to when I was policing, for someone to even report something. And reporting, as we all know, doesn't necessarily mean that someone even feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure to withdraw their statements from from either the perpetrator themselves or other members of society, and they may spend months, sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence.
And by the time the trial date arrives, they've already been through a great deal. And that's why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. A defendant can maintain currently a not guilty plea throughout that period, change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. And for the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It'd be very difficult for police officers to accept as well. I might add, so victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work, arranged childcare.
They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when this happens. And the late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases that they don't have to go through court. But it doesn't undo what they've been through to get to that stage. And under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally currently attracts a one third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial. And that is subject to exceptions, and I understand the reasons for that approach fully.
You know, an early guilty plea, as you said, can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence. It can reduce delays and free up court time. And even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. It's important to remember that, and that matters. And we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience. But we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom. We cannot assume or appreciate that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse, and defendants do have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute.
But equally, we should be prepared to recognise that the cases we're perpetrators use proceedings to exert even further pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process, and is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I'm not sure. It's always clear that the person sitting in court listening to the sentence is aware of the implications of that, and accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands that the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important.
Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account. I would therefore like the Minister to address three points, if he may. Firstly, will the government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris's proposals to remove the reduction, where a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors of domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors, the judiciary should all be involved in that work and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions, whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what would mean what that would mean for the people given evidence.
Those are the questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition. Secondly, how will the government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are dealt with and identified early, where someone's being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressure to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections. And lastly, will the minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They should have the opportunity to ask questions and get answers that they can understand and deserve.
The government this government has committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control is right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, males as well, can be victims and people experience this abuse, must also be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse, and I therefore hope the minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward.
All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system, and we need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.
16:50
16:50
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Chairmanship today. My constituency of Saint and Mid Cambridgeshire has one of the highest numbers of signatures on today's petition, and there is a clear desire to support Paris Scheer's campaign, and I'm pleased to be here today to show my support and to urge the government to put victims at the heart of every stage of its approach to tackling domestic abuse in Cambridgeshire. 16% of all recorded crimes were domestic abuse related. Last year there were 59 arrests per 100 domestic abuse related crimes and 31 cases of domestic abuse per. 10,000 adult women were deemed high risk, enough to be discussed at multi-agency risk assessment conferences.
Those are deeply concerning statistics. Of course, we all want to see those figures reduced to zero, and it is alarming that virtually none of them have significantly reduced in Cambridgeshire for the past five years, particularly pertinent to today's debate, however, is the number of those high risk cases that are repeat issues in Cambridgeshire. The number of cases that are repeatedly discussed at those multi-agency risk assessment conferences is 38%, as compared to 29% nationally, and our area has been consistently above average in this way for the last five years. Now, it may be that higher repeat referrals partly reflect agencies getting better at spotting repeat victimization, and I do hope that is part of it.
But it also suggests that too many of the most serious cases are coming back around, and that something in the system is letting that cycle continue. Now, the issue at the centre of this debate. Sentence reductions for guilty pleas is a good idea. In theory, there is a huge court backlog that has worn away public confidence in the criminal justice system, and it's allowing criminals to get away with their offences. A graduated system for sentence reduction provides little reward to the offender for waiting to change their plea, and it speeds up proceedings where a guilty verdict may have been reached anyway.
But in Paris's case, as in so many others, the unique and insidious nature of domestic abuse means that what should be a way of clearing the case backlog for simple cases has been repurposed by abusers into a tool to maintain control over their victim until the very last minute. We cannot continue to let that happen. The Sentencing Council's guideline is clear about why the discount exists. A guilty plea normally reduces the impact of the crime on victims and spares them from having to give evidence. In most cases, that holds, even a late plea spares a victim the witness box.
But coercive control is different because the wait itself is part of the harm. Every month, a perpetrator maintains a not guilty plea. Plea is another month in which they shape their victim's life. A plea on the morning of the trial does not undo that. It is often the final act of control. The guidelines assumption that a late plea still benefits the victim simply does not fit these cases. Now, the law already gives courts room to recognise this. Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to consider not only the stage at which a guilty plea was indicated, but the circumstances in which it was given.
So will the Minister ask the Sentencing Council to look specifically at how those circumstances are assessed in controlling or coercive behaviour cases, and whether tactical delay by a perpetrator should reduce or remove that discount altogether. Now, Paris's campaign speaks to wider concerns about the lack of support in place for victims of domestic abuse, including that coercive and controlling behaviour through the whole judicial process. And that goes beyond the criminal courts. Several constituents have contacted me about serious problems in the family courts, for example, where victims are being failed by irregularities in the provision of special measures.
It was welcomed that automatic eligibility for measures such as protective screens and curtains, support persons and private testimony was expanded to domestic abuse victims in 2021. But that that counts for little if those measures are not actually in place on the day. In much the same way as a last minute guilty plea, the continual failure to put appropriate protections in place for victims when they attend court is simply allowing their abuse and emotional distress to continue. So has the minister considered making special measures, the standard in courtrooms, to ensure no victim would ever be without them?
And what does he think to recommending that proceedings be suspended where promised protections have failed to be put in place? A report from the victims Commissioner in 2021 noted huge gaps in our understanding of the demand and supply of these special measures, and recommended that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office develop a develop a national protocol for data collection on it. That protocol has now been in place since 2024, and I would appreciate hearing how the data is being used to make improvements in the provision of those measures. Mr. Mundell The victims need to be put first at every stage, in every bit of guidance, through real measures to protect them, both in court and outside it.
The government has committed to updating the controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance before the end of 2026, and I hope it will be keeping that promise for Paris and for the thousands of others who are being and have been failed by the system. Thank you chair.
Those are deeply concerning statistics. Of course, we all want to see those figures reduced to zero, and it is alarming that virtually none of them have significantly reduced in Cambridgeshire for the past five years, particularly pertinent to today's debate, however, is the number of those high risk cases that are repeat issues in Cambridgeshire. The number of cases that are repeatedly discussed at those multi-agency risk assessment conferences is 38%, as compared to 29% nationally, and our area has been consistently above average in this way for the last five years. Now, it may be that higher repeat referrals partly reflect agencies getting better at spotting repeat victimization, and I do hope that is part of it.
But it also suggests that too many of the most serious cases are coming back around, and that something in the system is letting that cycle continue. Now, the issue at the centre of this debate. Sentence reductions for guilty pleas is a good idea. In theory, there is a huge court backlog that has worn away public confidence in the criminal justice system, and it's allowing criminals to get away with their offences. A graduated system for sentence reduction provides little reward to the offender for waiting to change their plea, and it speeds up proceedings where a guilty verdict may have been reached anyway.
But in Paris's case, as in so many others, the unique and insidious nature of domestic abuse means that what should be a way of clearing the case backlog for simple cases has been repurposed by abusers into a tool to maintain control over their victim until the very last minute. We cannot continue to let that happen. The Sentencing Council's guideline is clear about why the discount exists. A guilty plea normally reduces the impact of the crime on victims and spares them from having to give evidence. In most cases, that holds, even a late plea spares a victim the witness box.
But coercive control is different because the wait itself is part of the harm. Every month, a perpetrator maintains a not guilty plea. Plea is another month in which they shape their victim's life. A plea on the morning of the trial does not undo that. It is often the final act of control. The guidelines assumption that a late plea still benefits the victim simply does not fit these cases. Now, the law already gives courts room to recognise this. Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to consider not only the stage at which a guilty plea was indicated, but the circumstances in which it was given.
So will the Minister ask the Sentencing Council to look specifically at how those circumstances are assessed in controlling or coercive behaviour cases, and whether tactical delay by a perpetrator should reduce or remove that discount altogether. Now, Paris's campaign speaks to wider concerns about the lack of support in place for victims of domestic abuse, including that coercive and controlling behaviour through the whole judicial process. And that goes beyond the criminal courts. Several constituents have contacted me about serious problems in the family courts, for example, where victims are being failed by irregularities in the provision of special measures.
It was welcomed that automatic eligibility for measures such as protective screens and curtains, support persons and private testimony was expanded to domestic abuse victims in 2021. But that that counts for little if those measures are not actually in place on the day. In much the same way as a last minute guilty plea, the continual failure to put appropriate protections in place for victims when they attend court is simply allowing their abuse and emotional distress to continue. So has the minister considered making special measures, the standard in courtrooms, to ensure no victim would ever be without them?
And what does he think to recommending that proceedings be suspended where promised protections have failed to be put in place? A report from the victims Commissioner in 2021 noted huge gaps in our understanding of the demand and supply of these special measures, and recommended that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office develop a develop a national protocol for data collection on it. That protocol has now been in place since 2024, and I would appreciate hearing how the data is being used to make improvements in the provision of those measures. Mr. Mundell The victims need to be put first at every stage, in every bit of guidance, through real measures to protect them, both in court and outside it.
The government has committed to updating the controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance before the end of 2026, and I hope it will be keeping that promise for Paris and for the thousands of others who are being and have been failed by the system. Thank you chair.
16:57
16:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Mr.. It's a pleasure to be here. And your chairmanship. I'm grateful to my friend for North Ayrshire and Arran for the way in which she introduced the petition , and also, of course, to Paris for. And her MP who is here to represent her, the member for Eastleigh, for the work that they've done to draw this particular issue to the attention of the House. I'm also grateful to for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the petition calling for the removal of sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive behaviour cases. This petition, known by many supporters as Paris Law, reflects a growing concern.
I think it is a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its impact on victims, its ongoing impact on victims. It's not something that comes and goes. So before I address the petition itself, I just want to pay a particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Now, Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death by suicide in August of 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor, and her death is a tragedy that profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community.
Whilst nothing can undo that loss in her particular case, it's important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints and he was charged and he was imprisoned eventually. But I also want to pay tribute to Hayley's mother, Ruth Yates, who's campaigned tirelessly since Hayley's untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She's worked relentlessly so that Hayley's story could be heard and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley went through. And she's shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak.
I'm grateful to the Minister for Victims and violence against Women and Girls. The member for Pontypridd, who recently met with Ruth and I to discuss the circumstances of Hayley's case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it. But at its heart, today's debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. Now, when Parliament created the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, which I think was a breakthrough in itself, it hadn't been recognised in the law before, it did recognise an important truth that domestic abuse isn't always physical.
It can be psychological, emotional. It's deeply insidious. It's often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation, manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who are experiencing this of their independence, their confidence, their sense of self, their sense that they can have an impact on what's happening in their own lives. So the petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction, where they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. And the concern that this speaks to is that victims can spend months.
Indeed, the member for Mid Cambridgeshire has just set it out in his own contribution, as did the member for the forest of Dean. Forest of Dean. Speaking from his experience as a police officer. But the concern is that victims can spend months and years at the moment preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court, anticipating having to face the perpetrator again in court, feeling like they're still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they've been charged with. And sometimes this causes even more pain and trauma only at the end for the defendant to perhaps change their plea and then get given some kind of credit for it.
And I think that is the reduced sentence is the even if it's only 10%, it's still them getting credit for effectively stringing along the the person who they're victimised and then getting credit at the end of it. So for many victims, this can feel like an extension of the very behaviour and the that they've endured for years sometimes, and that that the justice system is seeking to, to hold that person to account for. So the uncertainty, the delay, the emotional toll can all compound the harm that's already caused by the abuse. In Hayley's case, she was subject to violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and sustaining other serious injuries.
Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later changed his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18 month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four month sentence was added consecutively. I don't think many of our constituents understand the way in which the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively, and as a as a as a lawyer myself, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents.
What seems natural to somebody who's been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those who are having to deal with the justice system, perhaps for the first time in the most difficult of circumstances. So while concurrent sentencing is, of course, part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone's committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim, it's right that we then question whether the sentence can actually that runs concurrently is adequately reflecting the full extent of that violence and the harm that is caused. There's a there is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation, which renders somebody unconscious and death.
It's a very fine line between those two things. So the trauma faced by those people who survive such an experience is long lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken already in the debate, the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for guilty pleas. The principles are long established part of our justice system. Early guilty pleas save court time. Reduced costs can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence which can be an ordeal. These are important objectives and particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs, which have been going on for a number of years now, leaving victims having to wait longer and longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence.
And so in those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of, of, of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody's guilty. But however, the cases we are discussing today do represent unique challenges. This is an offense that's built around the patterns of manipulation and control. And so it's therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they'll have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court.
Is this not just another instance of that person controlling the life of of the the witness, the victim in this case, many survivors have told us that justice isn't solely about the final sentence. It's also about the process. It's about feeling heard. It's about feeling believed and respected. It's about ensuring the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control of victim feels doesn't necessarily end when that perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned, or no longer in direct contact with them. It certainly didn't. For Hayley, the fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make, and whether they ever feel safe again.
And although this debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions and controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley's attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault through that judicial process, she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator. Even while he was in remand on prison before he was found guilty. So I'd like the minister in his reply to consider three specific issues. And will the government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control, and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt?
Will the government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and long lasting repercussions of it for victims? And will the government give consideration in the Victims Code and their Violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled, even when their perpetrator is in prison, and that adequate provision be made to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people. The strength of feeling behind this petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong, and as we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family, and a story.
And we should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. So I hope that today's debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book because it hasn't always been. But we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.
I think it is a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its impact on victims, its ongoing impact on victims. It's not something that comes and goes. So before I address the petition itself, I just want to pay a particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Now, Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death by suicide in August of 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor, and her death is a tragedy that profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community.
Whilst nothing can undo that loss in her particular case, it's important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints and he was charged and he was imprisoned eventually. But I also want to pay tribute to Hayley's mother, Ruth Yates, who's campaigned tirelessly since Hayley's untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She's worked relentlessly so that Hayley's story could be heard and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley went through. And she's shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak.
I'm grateful to the Minister for Victims and violence against Women and Girls. The member for Pontypridd, who recently met with Ruth and I to discuss the circumstances of Hayley's case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it. But at its heart, today's debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. Now, when Parliament created the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, which I think was a breakthrough in itself, it hadn't been recognised in the law before, it did recognise an important truth that domestic abuse isn't always physical.
It can be psychological, emotional. It's deeply insidious. It's often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation, manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who are experiencing this of their independence, their confidence, their sense of self, their sense that they can have an impact on what's happening in their own lives. So the petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction, where they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. And the concern that this speaks to is that victims can spend months.
Indeed, the member for Mid Cambridgeshire has just set it out in his own contribution, as did the member for the forest of Dean. Forest of Dean. Speaking from his experience as a police officer. But the concern is that victims can spend months and years at the moment preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court, anticipating having to face the perpetrator again in court, feeling like they're still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they've been charged with. And sometimes this causes even more pain and trauma only at the end for the defendant to perhaps change their plea and then get given some kind of credit for it.
And I think that is the reduced sentence is the even if it's only 10%, it's still them getting credit for effectively stringing along the the person who they're victimised and then getting credit at the end of it. So for many victims, this can feel like an extension of the very behaviour and the that they've endured for years sometimes, and that that the justice system is seeking to, to hold that person to account for. So the uncertainty, the delay, the emotional toll can all compound the harm that's already caused by the abuse. In Hayley's case, she was subject to violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and sustaining other serious injuries.
Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later changed his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18 month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four month sentence was added consecutively. I don't think many of our constituents understand the way in which the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively, and as a as a as a lawyer myself, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents.
What seems natural to somebody who's been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those who are having to deal with the justice system, perhaps for the first time in the most difficult of circumstances. So while concurrent sentencing is, of course, part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone's committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim, it's right that we then question whether the sentence can actually that runs concurrently is adequately reflecting the full extent of that violence and the harm that is caused. There's a there is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation, which renders somebody unconscious and death.
It's a very fine line between those two things. So the trauma faced by those people who survive such an experience is long lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken already in the debate, the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for guilty pleas. The principles are long established part of our justice system. Early guilty pleas save court time. Reduced costs can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence which can be an ordeal. These are important objectives and particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs, which have been going on for a number of years now, leaving victims having to wait longer and longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence.
And so in those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of, of, of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody's guilty. But however, the cases we are discussing today do represent unique challenges. This is an offense that's built around the patterns of manipulation and control. And so it's therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they'll have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court.
Is this not just another instance of that person controlling the life of of the the witness, the victim in this case, many survivors have told us that justice isn't solely about the final sentence. It's also about the process. It's about feeling heard. It's about feeling believed and respected. It's about ensuring the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control of victim feels doesn't necessarily end when that perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned, or no longer in direct contact with them. It certainly didn't. For Hayley, the fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make, and whether they ever feel safe again.
And although this debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions and controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley's attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault through that judicial process, she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator. Even while he was in remand on prison before he was found guilty. So I'd like the minister in his reply to consider three specific issues. And will the government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control, and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt?
Will the government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and long lasting repercussions of it for victims? And will the government give consideration in the Victims Code and their Violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled, even when their perpetrator is in prison, and that adequate provision be made to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people. The strength of feeling behind this petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong, and as we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family, and a story.
And we should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. So I hope that today's debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book because it hasn't always been. But we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.
17:09
17:09
17:09
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Under your chairmanship. And can I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate and also pay tribute to Paris Sears, who I know is in the gallery, and also everybody who supported this petition, whether they live in Crewe and Nantwich or they do not. Controlling and coercive behaviour is one of the most difficult forms of abuse to identify, investigate and prosecute. It often leaves no visible injuries. Yet its impact on victims can be utterly devastating. It systematically strips away an individual's confidence, independence and freedom until they feel trapped in a situation that can appear invisible to those around them.
I regularly see the devastating effects of coercive control in the cases that come through my office. Victims speak of lives overshadowed by intimidation, harassment, financial abuse, and, in some cases, physical violence. What strikes me about these cases is that the abuse itself is often only part of the story. Many of the cases we deal with concern the aftermath. We help constituents who need emergency housing because they fled an abusive relationship. We help people struggling with financial independence because their finances were controlled by an abusive partner. We help those dealing with debt, mental health challenges and family breakdown.
After years of manipulation and psychological abuse, the effects do not end when the relationship ends. And that is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns raised through this petition. Victims of coercive control often spend months and sometimes years living under the domination of another person. When a defendant initially pleads not guilty, requiring a victim to prepare for trial and relive deeply traumatic experiences, only to change their plea at the last moment, it is understandable that many victims feel the justice system has become another tool by which their abuser continues to exert control over their lives.
Which begs the question, which I think lies at the heart of this debate is the criminal justice system fully recognising the unique nature of coercive control? By its very definition, coercive control is about power. It is about domination. It is about creating fear, uncertainty and dependence. We therefore need to listen carefully when victims tell us that prolonged court proceedings, uncertainty over pleas and delays in securing justice can feel like an extension of the abuse that they have already experienced . In my previous career. Before entering this place, I worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and I'm acutely aware of the work that they have done thematically on violence against women and girls, but also specifically around coercive and controlling behaviour, and that they have repeatedly highlighted the need for agencies across the justice system to understand the dynamics of coercive control and violence against women and girls.
That understanding must inform not just policing, but prosecution decisions, victim support and sentencing policy. I welcome the progress that has been made in recent years. Awareness of coercive control has increased significantly. The inclusion of certain offenders within Mappa arrangements and the government's commitment to update guidance are positive developments, but the experiences that can constituents continue to bring to our surgeries show that there is still work to do. Whatever view members take on the specific proposal in this petition, I hope we can all agree on one principle victims of coercive control deserve a justice system that understands the particular harm that they have suffered, and places their experiences at the heart of decision making.
I therefore welcome today's debate and look forward to hearing the minister's response.
I regularly see the devastating effects of coercive control in the cases that come through my office. Victims speak of lives overshadowed by intimidation, harassment, financial abuse, and, in some cases, physical violence. What strikes me about these cases is that the abuse itself is often only part of the story. Many of the cases we deal with concern the aftermath. We help constituents who need emergency housing because they fled an abusive relationship. We help people struggling with financial independence because their finances were controlled by an abusive partner. We help those dealing with debt, mental health challenges and family breakdown.
After years of manipulation and psychological abuse, the effects do not end when the relationship ends. And that is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns raised through this petition. Victims of coercive control often spend months and sometimes years living under the domination of another person. When a defendant initially pleads not guilty, requiring a victim to prepare for trial and relive deeply traumatic experiences, only to change their plea at the last moment, it is understandable that many victims feel the justice system has become another tool by which their abuser continues to exert control over their lives.
Which begs the question, which I think lies at the heart of this debate is the criminal justice system fully recognising the unique nature of coercive control? By its very definition, coercive control is about power. It is about domination. It is about creating fear, uncertainty and dependence. We therefore need to listen carefully when victims tell us that prolonged court proceedings, uncertainty over pleas and delays in securing justice can feel like an extension of the abuse that they have already experienced . In my previous career. Before entering this place, I worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and I'm acutely aware of the work that they have done thematically on violence against women and girls, but also specifically around coercive and controlling behaviour, and that they have repeatedly highlighted the need for agencies across the justice system to understand the dynamics of coercive control and violence against women and girls.
That understanding must inform not just policing, but prosecution decisions, victim support and sentencing policy. I welcome the progress that has been made in recent years. Awareness of coercive control has increased significantly. The inclusion of certain offenders within Mappa arrangements and the government's commitment to update guidance are positive developments, but the experiences that can constituents continue to bring to our surgeries show that there is still work to do. Whatever view members take on the specific proposal in this petition, I hope we can all agree on one principle victims of coercive control deserve a justice system that understands the particular harm that they have suffered, and places their experiences at the heart of decision making.
I therefore welcome today's debate and look forward to hearing the minister's response.
17:13
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Mandell. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I want to thank everyone who signed the petition today and those who have had the courage to speak out about their experiences. I'd also like to thank the member of North Ayrshire and Arran for her really clear and eloquent introduction to this debate, but I'd also like to thank parishes, who has brought this petition and has been brave in standing up to this crime. But I'd also like to thank all of those victims and their families who have put their trust in me and my team and come into my office to seek support for domestic abuse and coercive control.
Mr. Mundell, I want to use my time today to talk about two young women who are no longer here. As a member of Portsmouth North, I have met and supported the families of Chloe Holland and Skye Nichols. I have listened to their grief and their determination to ensure that what happens to their loved ones leads to change. Their experience brings me to the central question of this debate. Is it right that someone who maintains a not guilty plea and changes it at the last minute, can still receive a reduction in the sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour?
I believe that is not right and it needs to change. I understand why the law gives rewards an early guilty plea. It can spare victims the ordeal of a trial and it can allow cases to conclude sooner. But there is a profound difference between accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity and waiting until the eve of the trial before admitting guilt. Because we must ask ourselves, who pays the price for that delay? It is the victims and their families. They wait. They worry. They prepare themselves to hear painful evidence and face the prospect of a trial.
They live with uncertainty and about whether they will get even get answers, and they are still being controlled. Then sometimes at the last moment, the defendant changes the plea. The trial may no longer be necessary, but the months of distress have not been erased. The victims and in Chloe and Skye's case, their friends and family cannot simply switch off their fear, their exhaustion or their grief. And in a case involving coercive control, we must consider something particularly important the impact of one person continuing to determine the terms on which others experience the criminal justice process.
Coercive control, as we've heard today, is about power, intimidation and the erosion of another person's independence. We must be careful not to assume that every late plea is intended to exert control, but we must recognise that the consequence of delay can lead victims and bereaved families and friends feeling that control has once again been taken out of their hands. A last minute guilty plea may save the court time, but is not give the victim or their family back the time, the peace or the certainty they have lost. Current sentencing guidance only reduces the maximum credit available as a plea comes later in proceedings, but I question whether that is enough.
In the case of controlling or coercive behaviour. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether legislation should prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in these cases, particularly where a defendant has maintained a non-guilty plea throughout or before the trial. For all of the reasons that my colleagues have outlined so eloquently today, chair, I want to explain why this matters by speaking about Chloe Holland and Skye Nichols. Chloe Chloe was just 23 when she died in 2023. She left behind a young son and a family who must live with her absence every single day.
Her former partner pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, but was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. I have met Chloe's family and they are living with a loss that no sentence can put right yet . They have also had to find strength to speak out, to ask difficult questions and to fight for Chloe's experiences to be recognised. Chloe's case reminds us that coercive control is not one argument or one incident. It is sustained campaign that undermines confidence, isolates a person and strips away their sense of safety and self-identity. I do not suggest that every death by suicide has a single cause, but where concerns about the relationship between sustained abuse and a death, those concerns must be examined carefully and full circumstances properly understood by all involved.
Chloe's family deserve to know that the harm she experienced is not being reduced to a set of isolated incidents, or lost behind the mechanics of a criminal process. I have also met chair and supported the family and friends of Skye Nichols. Skye was also 23 when she died in June 2023. Her former partner Peter, guilty to two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour and was sentenced to two years and three months in November 2025. But his sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal. Recent reports describe him having verbal abuse, threats of violence and deeply distressing messages, including telling Sky to take her own life behind.
Those details or all of these details, are young women who should still be here with their family and friends, but whose lives have changed forever. Chloe and Skye's cases are very different, and I do not suggest that each case alone settles the question of late guilty pleas. But I have met both families and heard their concerns, and I have seen their determination to ensure that others do not suffer. In the same way, we cannot return Chloe and Skye to their loved ones, but we can refuse to let their concerns go unanswered. The Labour government has rightly committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and I welcome the ambition, the work that has already begun.
We have a real opportunity to build an existing protections and address the shortcomings that remain, including those left very much unresolved after 14 years of a conservative government. This means recognising coercive control early, ensuring professionals understand its cumulative, cumulative, cumulative harm from police to social services, to the Judicial College to sentencing Council, to education and healthcare professionals, to businesses and the workplace, and learning properly from all cases. But also in the cases I've talked about, from learning about domestic abuse that has preceded a death, it also means examining whether our sentencing framework reflects the reality of what victims and their family really experience.
So, chair, I have three questions for the minister. Firstly, will the government review whether late guilty pleas in controlling or coercive behaviour should attract any sentence reduction ? Where a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea until very shortly before the trial? Secondly, how will the government ensure that the distress caused by prolonged proceedings is properly considered, particularly for bereaved families and those victims that are still alive as they are still being controlled? And thirdly, will the minister work with families and specialist organisations to ensure that lessons from a domestic abuse related deaths lead to practical changes in the way abuse is recognised and addressed in our society?
Chair, there is a principle at stake here. The justice system must be fair. It must recognise that victims and their families are people and not participants in a process to be completed as efficiently as possible. An early guilty plea. Yes, it can spare additional suffering. A late guilty plea cannot undo the suffering that has already been endured. We must not confuse saving court time with delivering justice. Chloe's loved ones deserve to be heard. Skye's loved ones deserve to be heard, and every family and victim living with the consequence of coercive control deserve a system that understands the harm, recognises their experience and treats their concerns with the seriousness they warrant.
I urge the government to look carefully at reforming centres reductions for those late guilty pleas, because when someone has already experienced the devastating consequence of coercive control, the criminal justice must not leave those left behind if they have once again been denied a voice. Certainty or control. .
Mr. Mundell, I want to use my time today to talk about two young women who are no longer here. As a member of Portsmouth North, I have met and supported the families of Chloe Holland and Skye Nichols. I have listened to their grief and their determination to ensure that what happens to their loved ones leads to change. Their experience brings me to the central question of this debate. Is it right that someone who maintains a not guilty plea and changes it at the last minute, can still receive a reduction in the sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour?
I believe that is not right and it needs to change. I understand why the law gives rewards an early guilty plea. It can spare victims the ordeal of a trial and it can allow cases to conclude sooner. But there is a profound difference between accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity and waiting until the eve of the trial before admitting guilt. Because we must ask ourselves, who pays the price for that delay? It is the victims and their families. They wait. They worry. They prepare themselves to hear painful evidence and face the prospect of a trial.
They live with uncertainty and about whether they will get even get answers, and they are still being controlled. Then sometimes at the last moment, the defendant changes the plea. The trial may no longer be necessary, but the months of distress have not been erased. The victims and in Chloe and Skye's case, their friends and family cannot simply switch off their fear, their exhaustion or their grief. And in a case involving coercive control, we must consider something particularly important the impact of one person continuing to determine the terms on which others experience the criminal justice process.
Coercive control, as we've heard today, is about power, intimidation and the erosion of another person's independence. We must be careful not to assume that every late plea is intended to exert control, but we must recognise that the consequence of delay can lead victims and bereaved families and friends feeling that control has once again been taken out of their hands. A last minute guilty plea may save the court time, but is not give the victim or their family back the time, the peace or the certainty they have lost. Current sentencing guidance only reduces the maximum credit available as a plea comes later in proceedings, but I question whether that is enough.
In the case of controlling or coercive behaviour. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether legislation should prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in these cases, particularly where a defendant has maintained a non-guilty plea throughout or before the trial. For all of the reasons that my colleagues have outlined so eloquently today, chair, I want to explain why this matters by speaking about Chloe Holland and Skye Nichols. Chloe Chloe was just 23 when she died in 2023. She left behind a young son and a family who must live with her absence every single day.
Her former partner pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, but was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. I have met Chloe's family and they are living with a loss that no sentence can put right yet . They have also had to find strength to speak out, to ask difficult questions and to fight for Chloe's experiences to be recognised. Chloe's case reminds us that coercive control is not one argument or one incident. It is sustained campaign that undermines confidence, isolates a person and strips away their sense of safety and self-identity. I do not suggest that every death by suicide has a single cause, but where concerns about the relationship between sustained abuse and a death, those concerns must be examined carefully and full circumstances properly understood by all involved.
Chloe's family deserve to know that the harm she experienced is not being reduced to a set of isolated incidents, or lost behind the mechanics of a criminal process. I have also met chair and supported the family and friends of Skye Nichols. Skye was also 23 when she died in June 2023. Her former partner Peter, guilty to two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour and was sentenced to two years and three months in November 2025. But his sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal. Recent reports describe him having verbal abuse, threats of violence and deeply distressing messages, including telling Sky to take her own life behind.
Those details or all of these details, are young women who should still be here with their family and friends, but whose lives have changed forever. Chloe and Skye's cases are very different, and I do not suggest that each case alone settles the question of late guilty pleas. But I have met both families and heard their concerns, and I have seen their determination to ensure that others do not suffer. In the same way, we cannot return Chloe and Skye to their loved ones, but we can refuse to let their concerns go unanswered. The Labour government has rightly committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and I welcome the ambition, the work that has already begun.
We have a real opportunity to build an existing protections and address the shortcomings that remain, including those left very much unresolved after 14 years of a conservative government. This means recognising coercive control early, ensuring professionals understand its cumulative, cumulative, cumulative harm from police to social services, to the Judicial College to sentencing Council, to education and healthcare professionals, to businesses and the workplace, and learning properly from all cases. But also in the cases I've talked about, from learning about domestic abuse that has preceded a death, it also means examining whether our sentencing framework reflects the reality of what victims and their family really experience.
So, chair, I have three questions for the minister. Firstly, will the government review whether late guilty pleas in controlling or coercive behaviour should attract any sentence reduction ? Where a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea until very shortly before the trial? Secondly, how will the government ensure that the distress caused by prolonged proceedings is properly considered, particularly for bereaved families and those victims that are still alive as they are still being controlled? And thirdly, will the minister work with families and specialist organisations to ensure that lessons from a domestic abuse related deaths lead to practical changes in the way abuse is recognised and addressed in our society?
Chair, there is a principle at stake here. The justice system must be fair. It must recognise that victims and their families are people and not participants in a process to be completed as efficiently as possible. An early guilty plea. Yes, it can spare additional suffering. A late guilty plea cannot undo the suffering that has already been endured. We must not confuse saving court time with delivering justice. Chloe's loved ones deserve to be heard. Skye's loved ones deserve to be heard, and every family and victim living with the consequence of coercive control deserve a system that understands the harm, recognises their experience and treats their concerns with the seriousness they warrant.
I urge the government to look carefully at reforming centres reductions for those late guilty pleas, because when someone has already experienced the devastating consequence of coercive control, the criminal justice must not leave those left behind if they have once again been denied a voice. Certainty or control. .
17:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Richard Quigley. It was a momentous pleasure. It is to serve under your chairmanship. My thanks, of course, to the honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing forward this vitally important petition for debate today, and like everyone else, I would like to sincerely thank Paris for her extraordinary bravery in turning her harrowing experience into an opportunity for positive change, helping to ensure that no other victim goes through her experience. Like many others, I hope to see the best in people. I want to believe that our prison system can deliver meaningful rehabilitation and help break cycles of offending.
But rehabilitation can never come at the expense of victim safety. And on this issue, I fear we are giving offenders who have already shown themselves to be manipulative and callous towards those who they profess to love. Additional opportunities to continue facilitating abuse and exerting control . Even when arrests have been made and court proceedings are underway, how can it be right that a perpetrator is able to weaponize our justice system, drag victims back through repeated hearings, waste precious court time and inflict further trauma, only to be rewarded with a reduced sentence. This does not strengthen confidence in the justice system.
It undermines it. It makes it a mockery of justice, and validates the concerns of many survivors who already feel that the system works better for perpetrators than those they have harmed. On the Isle of Wight, we are fortunate enough to have an exceptional women's refuge via Paragon. Despite operating with limited resources and facilities, they provide invaluable support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have told me directly about the devastating impact these decisions can have on victims, many of whom feel let down by a system that is supposed to protect them, one survivor said.
It takes an enormous amount of personal courage. Extensive evidence gathering and significant public resource just to get a coercive control case into court to fight through all of that, only to see the perpetrator receive a discounted sentence, completely minimizes those efforts, and feels like an insult to the survivors who fought so hard to be heard. Coercive control is rarely an isolated incident. It is an insidious, cumulative pattern of abuse that dismantles someone's life over years. In my view, the psychological and emotional harm stays with the survivor for life. Giving a sentence reduction treats it like a minor transactional offence, traded away for court efficiency rather than acknowledging the lifelong damage left behind.
And that fear is only heightened on the Isle of Wight, where our geographical containment brings serious safety risks. Should custodial sentences mean perpetrators are back out and into the immediate community far too soon, leaving victims constantly terrified of bumping into them. It also drastically compresses the time available to put essential post-release safety plans, housing arrangements, non-molestation orders or injunctions into place. I want to acknowledge that the important steps this government has already taken to put victims at the heart of our justice system, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country, the removal of the presumption of parental involvement and the introduction of the Pathfinder Court on the island are significant reforms that will make a real difference to many families.
But as always, it's the solemn responsibility of our Labour government to be ambitious and precise about what more we can do if we are serious about placing victims at the centre of decision making, then we must listen when they tell us that the current approach to late guilty pleas is not working. Too many victims see perpetrators, delay proceedings, prolong their trauma and then benefit from a reduced sentence at the very last moment. We owe it to victims, survivors and those at risk to make this change.
But rehabilitation can never come at the expense of victim safety. And on this issue, I fear we are giving offenders who have already shown themselves to be manipulative and callous towards those who they profess to love. Additional opportunities to continue facilitating abuse and exerting control . Even when arrests have been made and court proceedings are underway, how can it be right that a perpetrator is able to weaponize our justice system, drag victims back through repeated hearings, waste precious court time and inflict further trauma, only to be rewarded with a reduced sentence. This does not strengthen confidence in the justice system.
It undermines it. It makes it a mockery of justice, and validates the concerns of many survivors who already feel that the system works better for perpetrators than those they have harmed. On the Isle of Wight, we are fortunate enough to have an exceptional women's refuge via Paragon. Despite operating with limited resources and facilities, they provide invaluable support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have told me directly about the devastating impact these decisions can have on victims, many of whom feel let down by a system that is supposed to protect them, one survivor said.
It takes an enormous amount of personal courage. Extensive evidence gathering and significant public resource just to get a coercive control case into court to fight through all of that, only to see the perpetrator receive a discounted sentence, completely minimizes those efforts, and feels like an insult to the survivors who fought so hard to be heard. Coercive control is rarely an isolated incident. It is an insidious, cumulative pattern of abuse that dismantles someone's life over years. In my view, the psychological and emotional harm stays with the survivor for life. Giving a sentence reduction treats it like a minor transactional offence, traded away for court efficiency rather than acknowledging the lifelong damage left behind.
And that fear is only heightened on the Isle of Wight, where our geographical containment brings serious safety risks. Should custodial sentences mean perpetrators are back out and into the immediate community far too soon, leaving victims constantly terrified of bumping into them. It also drastically compresses the time available to put essential post-release safety plans, housing arrangements, non-molestation orders or injunctions into place. I want to acknowledge that the important steps this government has already taken to put victims at the heart of our justice system, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country, the removal of the presumption of parental involvement and the introduction of the Pathfinder Court on the island are significant reforms that will make a real difference to many families.
But as always, it's the solemn responsibility of our Labour government to be ambitious and precise about what more we can do if we are serious about placing victims at the centre of decision making, then we must listen when they tell us that the current approach to late guilty pleas is not working. Too many victims see perpetrators, delay proceedings, prolong their trauma and then benefit from a reduced sentence at the very last moment. We owe it to victims, survivors and those at risk to make this change.
17:25
17:25
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Mandela. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I would like to thank the honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I'd like to congratulate, especially parishes, but all those that have signed the petition, because it's very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. I think it takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try and affect change, and I'm profoundly impressed by those that use the trauma that they've experienced to try and make the world a better place for those that come after them, so they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have.
So I'm very grateful to Paris for all that she's done. And to the honourable member for Eastleigh, for her support for Paris, because Paris's story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign this petition and also share their own experiences. And the topic of today's debate is absolutely vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime, and as has been said by many members across the House, today, is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards, and victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger.
Because of the very nature of the coercion and control, cutting these people off from their lives, from accessing health services, from even being able to leave their homes. And in these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed, and the abuse and trauma continues. And it is everybody's responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve. But too often, the justice system has failed to do just that. In cases where the abuse is identified, when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts, victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, delays to trial, a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse, continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives.
And I think it is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and can't bear the thought of going through a trial. And the situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of these flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing, their abusers benefit from a system, seeing their sentence reduced whilst simultaneously having to go through the retraumatization of themselves. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning, can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.
Now, sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long standing practice, the importance of which within our criminal justice system cannot be understated, as they do help avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they don't want to or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting this incentive to harm their victims again. And in its response to the petition, the government stated that it is committed to updating the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026.
So I would ask the Minister today to confirm that the government remains committed to this timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review and as part of that review, something which has come to mind during this debate. Will the minister commit to considering a mechanism that could look at a recent and not a sentencing, a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see if a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? Maybe that could include a reduction at that point, but no reduction on the morning of a trial and make it very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to take it 30 days in advance.
Happily give way. On that point.
So I'm very grateful to Paris for all that she's done. And to the honourable member for Eastleigh, for her support for Paris, because Paris's story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign this petition and also share their own experiences. And the topic of today's debate is absolutely vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime, and as has been said by many members across the House, today, is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards, and victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger.
Because of the very nature of the coercion and control, cutting these people off from their lives, from accessing health services, from even being able to leave their homes. And in these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed, and the abuse and trauma continues. And it is everybody's responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve. But too often, the justice system has failed to do just that. In cases where the abuse is identified, when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts, victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, delays to trial, a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse, continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives.
And I think it is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and can't bear the thought of going through a trial. And the situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of these flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing, their abusers benefit from a system, seeing their sentence reduced whilst simultaneously having to go through the retraumatization of themselves. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning, can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.
Now, sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long standing practice, the importance of which within our criminal justice system cannot be understated, as they do help avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they don't want to or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting this incentive to harm their victims again. And in its response to the petition, the government stated that it is committed to updating the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026.
So I would ask the Minister today to confirm that the government remains committed to this timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review and as part of that review, something which has come to mind during this debate. Will the minister commit to considering a mechanism that could look at a recent and not a sentencing, a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see if a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? Maybe that could include a reduction at that point, but no reduction on the morning of a trial and make it very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to take it 30 days in advance.
Happily give way. On that point.
17:29
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I'm extremely grateful to my friend for giving way, and I would like to thank all those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition, in addition to the sentencing guidelines review that she advocated, which I very much support, would she in respect of Paris law, which I support as well. Would my hon. Friend agree that in addition, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes so that these individuals are targeted and can be, you know, the coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at root cause as much as possible.
17:30
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and he's absolutely right to reflect that. As part of the government's commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need to take a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. And the Liberal Democrats also believe that as part of the update, the government should review how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour so that legal proceedings are not used maliciously by
17:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
How sentence reductions apply , specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that legal proceedings are not used maliciously by perpetrators to continue their abuse. Beyond this, the government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. We in the Liberal Democrats tabled multiple to the Courts and Tribunals Bill aimed at improving the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues within the courts in general. Our amendment would therefore, one of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and for all court staff to receive trauma informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court.
On multiple occasions, the government has argued that this sort of mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the government's plans for the rape and serious sexual offences courts, so I struggle to understand how the government can commit to having trauma informed members of the judiciary for courts, but not across the entire court estate. At the heart of this issue, too, are the delays. The Crown Court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of this failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we've seen in recent months.
Real change can be achieved through targeted listing better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming the prisoner escort contracts. We also believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, too often failing to recognise domestic abuse despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. This includes providing sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls, and domestic abuse, as well as expanding the provision of high quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases with the aim of preventing further abuse.
We also want to establish specialist vawg taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with Frontline Women's Services. And as the honourable member for Saint Neots and Cambridge mentioned in his very excellent contribution, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures because for so often, especially those that don't have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is actually available to them when it comes to special measures.
If these were a standard principle across all courtrooms, that a victim could then say, no, actually, I don't want the special measures. I want to be able to face my the accused in court, then that's very different to getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for you. Mr. Mundell, if we can take one thing from this debate, it's that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. So we must listen to those who have spoken up in support of this petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed. So other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.
Thank you.
On multiple occasions, the government has argued that this sort of mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the government's plans for the rape and serious sexual offences courts, so I struggle to understand how the government can commit to having trauma informed members of the judiciary for courts, but not across the entire court estate. At the heart of this issue, too, are the delays. The Crown Court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of this failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we've seen in recent months.
Real change can be achieved through targeted listing better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming the prisoner escort contracts. We also believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, too often failing to recognise domestic abuse despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. This includes providing sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls, and domestic abuse, as well as expanding the provision of high quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases with the aim of preventing further abuse.
We also want to establish specialist vawg taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with Frontline Women's Services. And as the honourable member for Saint Neots and Cambridge mentioned in his very excellent contribution, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures because for so often, especially those that don't have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is actually available to them when it comes to special measures.
If these were a standard principle across all courtrooms, that a victim could then say, no, actually, I don't want the special measures. I want to be able to face my the accused in court, then that's very different to getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for you. Mr. Mundell, if we can take one thing from this debate, it's that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. So we must listen to those who have spoken up in support of this petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed. So other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.
Thank you.
17:34
17:34
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Mandela. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I start by thanking the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. And can I join? I think everybody else who's spoken so far in paying particular tribute to parishes, who's with us this evening, who started this petition and which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures in my time as the shadow justice minister, I've had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, but particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning that they do.
It forces people to relive their experiences, to talk about their experiences in a way that can be deeply traumatic. So I'm deeply grateful to everybody that does that. And Paris is close included in that and telling us her story, whereby her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute. She described in her words how she felt silenced again. And she said that it meant he controlled the narrative again. And it took more than 530 days for Paris's case to reach trial. That's 530 days of sitting and waiting, reliving, expecting, worrying, justifying the very last minute that he takes back control by playing and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence.
As others have said, I do think it is worth highlighting how the system works, and that's that a defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long standing, and the reasoning is often given as one of cost and logistics. But the other reason which is important, particularly to me, is it does potentially spare victims and witnesses from having to give evidence and be cross-examined. And I have met with victims who found that process in itself very distressing. The detail of how it works exactly is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and courts are required to follow their guidelines.
Under the guidelines, the maximum reduction is a third and I want to start. Unusually for me, in congratulating the government in at least ignoring the plea from Leveson review to increase that discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice. But after this initial third, it's a quarter falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth of a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally reduce even further and can in fact even be zero. And the court has to explain whether it's implied reduction and by how much.
So it's fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea does cause additional distress and and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. And as I read it, Paris law. What the petition asked for is that someone who's charged with controlling or coercive coercive behaviour, who's pleaded not guilty and then changes their plea, would receive no reduction in any circumstances. I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons I wanted to become an MP was because I felt our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for offenders of all sorts of offences, and so morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever.
But the government's response to the petition makes this important point that even when an offender pleads very late, that can still spare a victim from giving potentially traumatic evidence. And if a victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that that should be worth something. But as Paris campaigns pointed out, there is this real risk in these particular types of cases that it creates an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of pleading guilty, ultimately to drag that out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has pointed out and others have said, that can also be for the attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence for both reasons.
It does cause us to pause when considering the discounts, and I can say I gave this a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it really is a question of how do you weigh up two potential public goods and and something that is done in the interests of victims? Ultimately, how do we decide the distress and uncomfortableness and worse, for people who have to wait and then see a discount with the last minute plea versus another group of victims who perhaps will benefit from the fact that they haven't had to endure a trial.
And I don't think it's easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. But I certainly think it's given us all a lot to think about, and not just in relation to that specific cause that the petitioner has brought to our attention, but that general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls. As other members have mentioned, we know every week women are killed, murdered by men, and we still have an epidemic of of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. But it is helpful to consider the position and how it's changed over time.
So the last government made coercive and controlling behaviour criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act in 2015. In 2021, it passed the Domestic Abuse Act, which wrote to coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, a new guidance was brought forward to protect people who don't live with their abuser from threats and intimidation, and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. We took the powers that this government now used so that offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under the multi-agency public protection arrangement.
So these are the arrangements that are used when someone's not in prison to monitor their risk to other people. So I welcome that they've used those, but there's clearly more to do. And there are several issues that I think is important for us to consider, even if we don't all agree. This particular proposal is quite ready to be supported universally. Firstly, I'd like to understand what the government is seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas to other mechanisms. I've frequently heard that early advice. Conversely, actually allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice where someone face to face can make it very clear to them their chances of getting away with their with their offence pretty slim, can encourage those early guilty pleas.
The member, the Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings and actually I visited Liverpool Crown Court where actually they. They instituted themselves further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are all things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements around early guilty pleas. But I think one thing I've drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board is actually, I'm sure I would be right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris's case got the full sentence, that that Paris was like many, many victims, would still not be satisfied that it's anywhere near long enough for the sorts of impact these crimes on women have across the board.
Which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to this government's reduction in jail time for such a sweeping range of offenders, and has been brought up already today. The vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will just now be serving a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. That ultimate sentence, they'll only be serving a third of that sentence. And it was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that that didn't also apply in terms of reductions from two thirds to a fifth, or a fifth to a third to a whole range of rapists, paedophiles, terrible abusers of women and girls.
And I would like the minister to clarify whether the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded, alongside the other exclusions that we manage to secure from the government in relation to rape and other offences. One of the reasons why the review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see in relation to our sentencing policy, whether they think sensors are sufficiently just. My former Justice Select committee colleague, the member for Liverpool Garston, talked about concurrent sentences. They're just the norm in our judicial system.
And yet I don't think I've ever met a victim who thinks that that makes sense. In the vast majority of circumstances, you can have people who are convicted for hundreds of offences. And because of even with the ramping up of the sentence you get from that money, it's still nothing like they should really get if they weren't served concurrently. There are very many ways in which we should engage, which is why we're committed to recognising that we didn't do enough in government to ensure those sufficient prison capacity to make sure we can actually engage with these issues.
We want to undo all of that damaging, shortening of sentencing that we've seen under this government and go further. And then perhaps the issues of discounts, whilst it won't completely remove them, if at least the ultimate sentences were ones even with a discount, victims felt were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience, they are not at the moment. There might be better acceptance of these issues, and I'll just finish by using Paris's own words from her website. As I said, even if we're not quite there on this particular specific issue. Paris says on her website that Paris's law was never about one petition, one debate or one event.
It's about creating lasting change. And there are so very many ways in which we can do that across the board. When it comes to abuse of women in all its forms.
It forces people to relive their experiences, to talk about their experiences in a way that can be deeply traumatic. So I'm deeply grateful to everybody that does that. And Paris is close included in that and telling us her story, whereby her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute. She described in her words how she felt silenced again. And she said that it meant he controlled the narrative again. And it took more than 530 days for Paris's case to reach trial. That's 530 days of sitting and waiting, reliving, expecting, worrying, justifying the very last minute that he takes back control by playing and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence.
As others have said, I do think it is worth highlighting how the system works, and that's that a defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long standing, and the reasoning is often given as one of cost and logistics. But the other reason which is important, particularly to me, is it does potentially spare victims and witnesses from having to give evidence and be cross-examined. And I have met with victims who found that process in itself very distressing. The detail of how it works exactly is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and courts are required to follow their guidelines.
Under the guidelines, the maximum reduction is a third and I want to start. Unusually for me, in congratulating the government in at least ignoring the plea from Leveson review to increase that discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice. But after this initial third, it's a quarter falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth of a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally reduce even further and can in fact even be zero. And the court has to explain whether it's implied reduction and by how much.
So it's fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea does cause additional distress and and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. And as I read it, Paris law. What the petition asked for is that someone who's charged with controlling or coercive coercive behaviour, who's pleaded not guilty and then changes their plea, would receive no reduction in any circumstances. I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons I wanted to become an MP was because I felt our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for offenders of all sorts of offences, and so morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever.
But the government's response to the petition makes this important point that even when an offender pleads very late, that can still spare a victim from giving potentially traumatic evidence. And if a victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that that should be worth something. But as Paris campaigns pointed out, there is this real risk in these particular types of cases that it creates an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of pleading guilty, ultimately to drag that out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has pointed out and others have said, that can also be for the attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence for both reasons.
It does cause us to pause when considering the discounts, and I can say I gave this a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it really is a question of how do you weigh up two potential public goods and and something that is done in the interests of victims? Ultimately, how do we decide the distress and uncomfortableness and worse, for people who have to wait and then see a discount with the last minute plea versus another group of victims who perhaps will benefit from the fact that they haven't had to endure a trial.
And I don't think it's easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. But I certainly think it's given us all a lot to think about, and not just in relation to that specific cause that the petitioner has brought to our attention, but that general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls. As other members have mentioned, we know every week women are killed, murdered by men, and we still have an epidemic of of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. But it is helpful to consider the position and how it's changed over time.
So the last government made coercive and controlling behaviour criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act in 2015. In 2021, it passed the Domestic Abuse Act, which wrote to coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, a new guidance was brought forward to protect people who don't live with their abuser from threats and intimidation, and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. We took the powers that this government now used so that offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under the multi-agency public protection arrangement.
So these are the arrangements that are used when someone's not in prison to monitor their risk to other people. So I welcome that they've used those, but there's clearly more to do. And there are several issues that I think is important for us to consider, even if we don't all agree. This particular proposal is quite ready to be supported universally. Firstly, I'd like to understand what the government is seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas to other mechanisms. I've frequently heard that early advice. Conversely, actually allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice where someone face to face can make it very clear to them their chances of getting away with their with their offence pretty slim, can encourage those early guilty pleas.
The member, the Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings and actually I visited Liverpool Crown Court where actually they. They instituted themselves further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are all things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements around early guilty pleas. But I think one thing I've drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board is actually, I'm sure I would be right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris's case got the full sentence, that that Paris was like many, many victims, would still not be satisfied that it's anywhere near long enough for the sorts of impact these crimes on women have across the board.
Which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to this government's reduction in jail time for such a sweeping range of offenders, and has been brought up already today. The vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will just now be serving a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. That ultimate sentence, they'll only be serving a third of that sentence. And it was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that that didn't also apply in terms of reductions from two thirds to a fifth, or a fifth to a third to a whole range of rapists, paedophiles, terrible abusers of women and girls.
And I would like the minister to clarify whether the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded, alongside the other exclusions that we manage to secure from the government in relation to rape and other offences. One of the reasons why the review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see in relation to our sentencing policy, whether they think sensors are sufficiently just. My former Justice Select committee colleague, the member for Liverpool Garston, talked about concurrent sentences. They're just the norm in our judicial system.
And yet I don't think I've ever met a victim who thinks that that makes sense. In the vast majority of circumstances, you can have people who are convicted for hundreds of offences. And because of even with the ramping up of the sentence you get from that money, it's still nothing like they should really get if they weren't served concurrently. There are very many ways in which we should engage, which is why we're committed to recognising that we didn't do enough in government to ensure those sufficient prison capacity to make sure we can actually engage with these issues.
We want to undo all of that damaging, shortening of sentencing that we've seen under this government and go further. And then perhaps the issues of discounts, whilst it won't completely remove them, if at least the ultimate sentences were ones even with a discount, victims felt were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience, they are not at the moment. There might be better acceptance of these issues, and I'll just finish by using Paris's own words from her website. As I said, even if we're not quite there on this particular specific issue. Paris says on her website that Paris's law was never about one petition, one debate or one event.
It's about creating lasting change. And there are so very many ways in which we can do that across the board. When it comes to abuse of women in all its forms.
17:43
17:43
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. Mr.. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing this important debate and echo what colleagues have said from across the House to thank parishes, who is in the chamber today for bringing this issue to our attention and for raising this issue more publicly, as well as as the honourable member, the official opposition spokesperson said. I also have the great privilege of meeting with lots of victims as part of my job. It's a difficult part of my job, but it's one that I enjoy and because it's humbling to see people give up having suffered a lot, give up even more to try and change the world for others.
And I know Paris is another such person, and I hope that today's debate will help air her, her views and her issue. And we can take this issue further in the weeks ahead. As has already been said, controlling coercive behaviour and this word was used a lot in the debate, is an insidious form of domestic abuse, and it can take many forms, including isolation from friends and family, depriving victims of their basic needs, enforcing rules to humiliate, degrade or even dehumanize and control all aspects of day to day life. Too many people in our country, mainly women, experienced this sort of abuse, and as members will be aware, this government has committed to halving violence against women girls in the next decade.
Our Vawg strategy sets out what we're doing to reform the police response, strengthen the criminal justice system, and empower victims with specialist support. And I want to just, if I may, deal with some of the points that have been raised in this very constructive, I think, debate, dealing with the official opposition and spokesperson. As I said, I agree with him about victims coming forward and putting their head above the parapet. It's incredibly humbling, as I've already said, and I also agree with him. We agreed on an awful lot in this debate about the need for early advice and constructive early advice for defendants to encourage early pleas where appropriate.
And indeed, I think he put it well. It's a really difficult balancing act. There is no easy answer when it comes to this central issue, which we are debating today, which is about trying to encourage defendants who are guilty to plead guilty, but also doing so in a way which respects victims and puts victims at the heart of the system. That is a really difficult balancing act that the justice system has to grapple with. And we in government and we as parliamentarians have to grapple with. And as I'll come on to talk about, even more difficult with this particular offence because of the nature of the offence, which so many members and colleagues have raised in this debate, in terms of the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, she's right about trying to create mechanisms within the criminal proceedings by which a defendant might plead earlier and re-engage with their prospects.
Of course, you'll be aware that already there is two opportunities and formal opportunities. And indeed. You know, at any point during the process, a defendant can, through correspondence, intimate that they are changing their plea. But yes, of course, we need to consider how we can encourage that as part of the process. More generally, in terms of the statutory guidance, it is being led by the Home Office, but I can confirm in preparation for this debate checked, and that will be published early next year. That's in terms of the statutory guidance in in regards to this particular offence and in the issue of the court staff and training, I understand the point she makes.
I think that issue has been debated. I'm very wary that this debate has touched upon lots of other pieces of legislation that we have debated extensively, and it is an issue. It's an issue of proportionality, essentially, and what we are trying to do in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which now goes to the other place, is quicken up the court process, but also make sure it's done fairly. And that's, again, a bit like the central issue that we are debating, a balancing act between efficiency, productivity, but also ensuring victims are at the heart of it as well.
And efficiency and productivity is not for its own sake, it's for the victim's sake, which I know the honourable member appreciates as well. So but she made important points. And the member for Eastleigh, of course, is doing what she should do and clearly does do as a good constituency MP in raising the case of her constituents, and she does so powerfully and I thank her for that. I'm not going. Yes, of course.
And I know Paris is another such person, and I hope that today's debate will help air her, her views and her issue. And we can take this issue further in the weeks ahead. As has already been said, controlling coercive behaviour and this word was used a lot in the debate, is an insidious form of domestic abuse, and it can take many forms, including isolation from friends and family, depriving victims of their basic needs, enforcing rules to humiliate, degrade or even dehumanize and control all aspects of day to day life. Too many people in our country, mainly women, experienced this sort of abuse, and as members will be aware, this government has committed to halving violence against women girls in the next decade.
Our Vawg strategy sets out what we're doing to reform the police response, strengthen the criminal justice system, and empower victims with specialist support. And I want to just, if I may, deal with some of the points that have been raised in this very constructive, I think, debate, dealing with the official opposition and spokesperson. As I said, I agree with him about victims coming forward and putting their head above the parapet. It's incredibly humbling, as I've already said, and I also agree with him. We agreed on an awful lot in this debate about the need for early advice and constructive early advice for defendants to encourage early pleas where appropriate.
And indeed, I think he put it well. It's a really difficult balancing act. There is no easy answer when it comes to this central issue, which we are debating today, which is about trying to encourage defendants who are guilty to plead guilty, but also doing so in a way which respects victims and puts victims at the heart of the system. That is a really difficult balancing act that the justice system has to grapple with. And we in government and we as parliamentarians have to grapple with. And as I'll come on to talk about, even more difficult with this particular offence because of the nature of the offence, which so many members and colleagues have raised in this debate, in terms of the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, she's right about trying to create mechanisms within the criminal proceedings by which a defendant might plead earlier and re-engage with their prospects.
Of course, you'll be aware that already there is two opportunities and formal opportunities. And indeed. You know, at any point during the process, a defendant can, through correspondence, intimate that they are changing their plea. But yes, of course, we need to consider how we can encourage that as part of the process. More generally, in terms of the statutory guidance, it is being led by the Home Office, but I can confirm in preparation for this debate checked, and that will be published early next year. That's in terms of the statutory guidance in in regards to this particular offence and in the issue of the court staff and training, I understand the point she makes.
I think that issue has been debated. I'm very wary that this debate has touched upon lots of other pieces of legislation that we have debated extensively, and it is an issue. It's an issue of proportionality, essentially, and what we are trying to do in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which now goes to the other place, is quicken up the court process, but also make sure it's done fairly. And that's, again, a bit like the central issue that we are debating, a balancing act between efficiency, productivity, but also ensuring victims are at the heart of it as well.
And efficiency and productivity is not for its own sake, it's for the victim's sake, which I know the honourable member appreciates as well. So but she made important points. And the member for Eastleigh, of course, is doing what she should do and clearly does do as a good constituency MP in raising the case of her constituents, and she does so powerfully and I thank her for that. I'm not going. Yes, of course.
17:47
17:47
17:48
17:48
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
We've debated that legislation that passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords and indeed Parliament. Earlier this year we had an urgent. I was in Parliament in the House of Commons last week. The Lord Chancellor was there in September. Will no doubt debate that. Again, that's not the issue that we're debating today, actually, chair, and I don't intend to respond to those issues. No, I won't give way. In terms of the member for the honourable friend, the member for the forest of Dean and I've already touched upon this. I think he raised, as others did as well, the point that controlling and coercive coercive behaviour is clearly has to be considered.
The issue of early guilty pleas and discounts has to be considered very carefully in the context of this offence. It is a unique offence, although of course there are lots of other offences where issues of control power. The honourable member for Crewe mentioned this as well. Very, very powerfully. I thought too, and I can commit that as a government. We will look at these measures in the context of this particular offence. But going back to the central balancing act that I've already touched upon, we're not persuaded that at the moment that the evidence suggests that victims would be best served by.
A scrapping of discounts just for this particular offence. Indeed, there's no other criminal offence in which that is the case and at the moment, and I say at the moment, because this is an ongoing conversation, we're not persuaded that that is something that we can do. He also asked whether I'd meet with Paris, and of course I would, if she would like to meet with me or indeed the victims minister as well. Of course, we'll do that at the earliest opportunity. Just going back to the early guilty plea, of course there's the shadow official spokesperson said Sir Brian Leveson, when he looked at this, did the modelling and actually encouraged us to offer further discounts and the evidence and the modelling he did would say that that would encourage more people to plead guilty.
Now, we didn't accept that recommendation, but that would suggest to me that these these discounts, however unsatisfactory or even unsavoury they are, do have an effect in the criminal justice system, making it more expeditious, which ultimately serves victims as well. The honourable member. My hon. Friend the member for Liverpool. Garston as well raised the case of her constituent, Hayley, which was very powerful and moving, and asked about non-fatal strangulation and sentencing. I meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council. I will raise this with my next meeting with her formally. She spoke about the victims code as well, and I will ensure that the victims minister gets a transcript of her speech, or indeed, I know she will speak with her, no doubt as well and has already met with her, I know, but I'll make sure that she.
It's very much on her agenda. And I agree, actually with the confusion anyway, or perhaps the lack of knowledge about concurrent and consecutive sentencing. And I think we all have a job to ensure that criminal justice system can explain that to victims as well. During the process of the criminal justice system, there is an explanatory role for judges, the CPS prosecutors as well to ensure that everyone, when they leave the courtroom, does actually know what they're dealing with because they don't. And so I think there is more we can do in terms of, for want of a better phrase, an education setting.
The honourable member for Notts and Mid Cambridgeshire raised a number of points. I'll try and deal with some of them. The interrelation between the family courts, that was a theme that has been raised consistently by other members as well, and one that we're very alive to later this year, I hope later this year we'll be publishing the Family Justice strategy. And I can assure him that dealing with some of these issues is going to be right at the heart of how we deal. Look at the whole family justice system at the moment. He and other members are right that too often men and it is mainly men, are able to use the family courts to further compound misery and harm.
On on on women. It's not good enough. I've experienced it myself. When I was a barrister in the family courts, I saw it with my own eyes and we're going to try and change it. He mentioned special measures. I'm reluctant simply because it's not my brief, but I'm reluctant to go into it too much. I am aware that we do want to retain some court discretion. I'm not suggesting his proposal wouldn't do that, but I'm reluctant to comment too much further because it isn't my area to be blunt, and I will speak to the relevant minister to make sure that we that she hears what has been said by the honourable member, but indeed also the the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
And similarly, for the point about the data regarding 2024, I will go away and make sure that he gets a written answer on that point. My hon. Friend the member for Isle of Wight. Again, he raised really powerful stories as to what has happened in his constituency and indeed has mentioned some of the things the government has done. I would also add restriction zones, which I think can be really powerful in ensuring that if offenders are released from prison as and when they are released from prison, there can be better protections for victims of domestic abuse.
And these are quite innovative in terms of flipping, essentially flipping the the burden onto the offender rather than on the victim so the victim can go on about their life, not having to worry whether they bump into the offender, which is clearly perhaps more of an acute issue in his constituency rather than others. My hon. Friend the member for Portsmouth North has raised the case of, I think, Chloe and Sky a very moving case, and her her questions to me and the government were essentially, are we ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are at the heart of the reforms to the criminal justice system we're making?
Last week, the Court and Tribunal bill was before the House of Commons, and the gist of that legislation is to try and make sure we get the backlog down until we get the backlog down. Then all of these issues are exaggerated for victims. And at the heart, that is what this government is trying to do, and I know that she'll be reassured that the victims minister is playing a really important role in making sure victims are right at the heart of the criminal justice system and all the reforms we are making. My hon. Friend the member for Crewe.
I've already mentioned, but again, he has his own experience in this. But the particular harms of this offence we have to consider very carefully in terms of the early guilty plea, and I will go away and do so. Mr.. If I may, I. I want to set out some of the things that we are doing to support victims, because at the heart of this issue and debate is, of course, a technical argument, maybe about early guilty pleas and any discounts that might flow from that, but is actually about how we treat victims and in particular, victims of domestic abuse.
And in fact, indeed particular victims of this insidious form of domestic abuse. And I understand that perhaps some victims and some of those who signed the petition will be disappointed with my central response to the ask. But we are doing, in my mind anyway, taking huge steps to support victims and make sure they're properly supported and protected throughout the justice system. We're providing funding for a range of national and local services offering support to victims. Earlier this year, we committed £550 million for victim and witness support services over the next three years. That is the biggest investment in support for victims that we've ever seen in this country.
It's something that I'm particularly proud of that will go into offering specialist services around emotional, practical and therapeutic support, including counselling and advice around going to court. Too many times I meet victims who simply have no support when they go to court. It's actually shocking and we are investing to make sure that we have that support in court and around court for victims much more consistently and less of a lottery. I also recognise the importance of ensuring victims and their families have access to the information and support they need. It's vital helping them navigate the criminal justice system.
It's why the victims Code is so important. It sets out what victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England. Wales earlier this year, we consulted on a new code to make those rights clearer and ensured they are delivered more consistently. We also strengthening accountability for those rights so that failures can be identified and addressed, rather than leaving victims without the support they should receive. And of course, we must do everything we can to protect victims from further harm. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the police have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of violence against women and girls.
In February 25th, the Home Office announced £13 million in funding to launch a new National Centre for Vawg and Public Protection. It is designed to improve how police respond to violence against women and girls, including controlling coercive behaviour, strengthening officers understanding of these crimes and helping to ensure victims receive consistent protection. And from February last year, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer are automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were mentioned in the debate. This requires cooperative working between the police, probation and prison services to make sure the risk posed by the most serious offenders are properly managed, and appropriate safeguards are put in place.
This change recognises the significant harm this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling coercive behaviour on a par with other forms of domestic abuse. These arrangements are about preventing further abuse, protecting victims and ultimately saving lives. I want, if I may, Mr. Mundell, to finish by thanking the honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing this important issue to the House and for all members for their contributions to this debate. I thought the debate was constructive and trying to grapple with, as I say, what is a difficult issue where there is no easy answer?
I know the government's position on guilty plea reductions will not be what some are hoping for, but I want to hopefully reassure victims that their experience matter, and this debate has put them right in, right in prominence when it comes to the government's consideration of these issues going forward. And nobody, ultimately, Mr. Mundell, should have to endure controlling or coercive behaviour and those who deserve, not those who do, deserve not only justice but the right protection support throughout the justice system and beyond.
The issue of early guilty pleas and discounts has to be considered very carefully in the context of this offence. It is a unique offence, although of course there are lots of other offences where issues of control power. The honourable member for Crewe mentioned this as well. Very, very powerfully. I thought too, and I can commit that as a government. We will look at these measures in the context of this particular offence. But going back to the central balancing act that I've already touched upon, we're not persuaded that at the moment that the evidence suggests that victims would be best served by.
A scrapping of discounts just for this particular offence. Indeed, there's no other criminal offence in which that is the case and at the moment, and I say at the moment, because this is an ongoing conversation, we're not persuaded that that is something that we can do. He also asked whether I'd meet with Paris, and of course I would, if she would like to meet with me or indeed the victims minister as well. Of course, we'll do that at the earliest opportunity. Just going back to the early guilty plea, of course there's the shadow official spokesperson said Sir Brian Leveson, when he looked at this, did the modelling and actually encouraged us to offer further discounts and the evidence and the modelling he did would say that that would encourage more people to plead guilty.
Now, we didn't accept that recommendation, but that would suggest to me that these these discounts, however unsatisfactory or even unsavoury they are, do have an effect in the criminal justice system, making it more expeditious, which ultimately serves victims as well. The honourable member. My hon. Friend the member for Liverpool. Garston as well raised the case of her constituent, Hayley, which was very powerful and moving, and asked about non-fatal strangulation and sentencing. I meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council. I will raise this with my next meeting with her formally. She spoke about the victims code as well, and I will ensure that the victims minister gets a transcript of her speech, or indeed, I know she will speak with her, no doubt as well and has already met with her, I know, but I'll make sure that she.
It's very much on her agenda. And I agree, actually with the confusion anyway, or perhaps the lack of knowledge about concurrent and consecutive sentencing. And I think we all have a job to ensure that criminal justice system can explain that to victims as well. During the process of the criminal justice system, there is an explanatory role for judges, the CPS prosecutors as well to ensure that everyone, when they leave the courtroom, does actually know what they're dealing with because they don't. And so I think there is more we can do in terms of, for want of a better phrase, an education setting.
The honourable member for Notts and Mid Cambridgeshire raised a number of points. I'll try and deal with some of them. The interrelation between the family courts, that was a theme that has been raised consistently by other members as well, and one that we're very alive to later this year, I hope later this year we'll be publishing the Family Justice strategy. And I can assure him that dealing with some of these issues is going to be right at the heart of how we deal. Look at the whole family justice system at the moment. He and other members are right that too often men and it is mainly men, are able to use the family courts to further compound misery and harm.
On on on women. It's not good enough. I've experienced it myself. When I was a barrister in the family courts, I saw it with my own eyes and we're going to try and change it. He mentioned special measures. I'm reluctant simply because it's not my brief, but I'm reluctant to go into it too much. I am aware that we do want to retain some court discretion. I'm not suggesting his proposal wouldn't do that, but I'm reluctant to comment too much further because it isn't my area to be blunt, and I will speak to the relevant minister to make sure that we that she hears what has been said by the honourable member, but indeed also the the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
And similarly, for the point about the data regarding 2024, I will go away and make sure that he gets a written answer on that point. My hon. Friend the member for Isle of Wight. Again, he raised really powerful stories as to what has happened in his constituency and indeed has mentioned some of the things the government has done. I would also add restriction zones, which I think can be really powerful in ensuring that if offenders are released from prison as and when they are released from prison, there can be better protections for victims of domestic abuse.
And these are quite innovative in terms of flipping, essentially flipping the the burden onto the offender rather than on the victim so the victim can go on about their life, not having to worry whether they bump into the offender, which is clearly perhaps more of an acute issue in his constituency rather than others. My hon. Friend the member for Portsmouth North has raised the case of, I think, Chloe and Sky a very moving case, and her her questions to me and the government were essentially, are we ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are at the heart of the reforms to the criminal justice system we're making?
Last week, the Court and Tribunal bill was before the House of Commons, and the gist of that legislation is to try and make sure we get the backlog down until we get the backlog down. Then all of these issues are exaggerated for victims. And at the heart, that is what this government is trying to do, and I know that she'll be reassured that the victims minister is playing a really important role in making sure victims are right at the heart of the criminal justice system and all the reforms we are making. My hon. Friend the member for Crewe.
I've already mentioned, but again, he has his own experience in this. But the particular harms of this offence we have to consider very carefully in terms of the early guilty plea, and I will go away and do so. Mr.. If I may, I. I want to set out some of the things that we are doing to support victims, because at the heart of this issue and debate is, of course, a technical argument, maybe about early guilty pleas and any discounts that might flow from that, but is actually about how we treat victims and in particular, victims of domestic abuse.
And in fact, indeed particular victims of this insidious form of domestic abuse. And I understand that perhaps some victims and some of those who signed the petition will be disappointed with my central response to the ask. But we are doing, in my mind anyway, taking huge steps to support victims and make sure they're properly supported and protected throughout the justice system. We're providing funding for a range of national and local services offering support to victims. Earlier this year, we committed £550 million for victim and witness support services over the next three years. That is the biggest investment in support for victims that we've ever seen in this country.
It's something that I'm particularly proud of that will go into offering specialist services around emotional, practical and therapeutic support, including counselling and advice around going to court. Too many times I meet victims who simply have no support when they go to court. It's actually shocking and we are investing to make sure that we have that support in court and around court for victims much more consistently and less of a lottery. I also recognise the importance of ensuring victims and their families have access to the information and support they need. It's vital helping them navigate the criminal justice system.
It's why the victims Code is so important. It sets out what victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England. Wales earlier this year, we consulted on a new code to make those rights clearer and ensured they are delivered more consistently. We also strengthening accountability for those rights so that failures can be identified and addressed, rather than leaving victims without the support they should receive. And of course, we must do everything we can to protect victims from further harm. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the police have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of violence against women and girls.
In February 25th, the Home Office announced £13 million in funding to launch a new National Centre for Vawg and Public Protection. It is designed to improve how police respond to violence against women and girls, including controlling coercive behaviour, strengthening officers understanding of these crimes and helping to ensure victims receive consistent protection. And from February last year, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer are automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were mentioned in the debate. This requires cooperative working between the police, probation and prison services to make sure the risk posed by the most serious offenders are properly managed, and appropriate safeguards are put in place.
This change recognises the significant harm this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling coercive behaviour on a par with other forms of domestic abuse. These arrangements are about preventing further abuse, protecting victims and ultimately saving lives. I want, if I may, Mr. Mundell, to finish by thanking the honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing this important issue to the House and for all members for their contributions to this debate. I thought the debate was constructive and trying to grapple with, as I say, what is a difficult issue where there is no easy answer?
I know the government's position on guilty plea reductions will not be what some are hoping for, but I want to hopefully reassure victims that their experience matter, and this debate has put them right in, right in prominence when it comes to the government's consideration of these issues going forward. And nobody, ultimately, Mr. Mundell, should have to endure controlling or coercive behaviour and those who deserve, not those who do, deserve not only justice but the right protection support throughout the justice system and beyond.
17:57
17:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Mundell. I'd like to thank everyone who took part in today's debate and their input into such an important issue, and I thank the Minister for his response. Sadly, it's impossible to end all violence against women and girls, although we all wish that we could. Instead, we have to do all we can as politicians to raise awareness and never stop tackling this issue, whether that be through national and local campaigns or different policy changes and strategies. In preparing for this debate, as I mentioned, I met with petition creator Paddy Shears, who is here in the gallery today, and I would like to once again thank Paris for starting this petition, sharing her story and making this debate possible.
I would also like to thank the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. Camomile Casey from the Criminal Bar Association and my colleague the Honourable member for West Dunbartonshire, for meeting with me in preparation for this debate. And finally, as ever, I would like to thank the staff from the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organizing and facilitating these debates. It is much appreciated.
I would also like to thank the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. Camomile Casey from the Criminal Bar Association and my colleague the Honourable member for West Dunbartonshire, for meeting with me in preparation for this debate. And finally, as ever, I would like to thank the staff from the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organizing and facilitating these debates. It is much appreciated.