Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Today, it is an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and introducing it with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to—no pressure.

In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the Act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general. So this Second Reading has felt, at times, a little like a reunion. It was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his place before—I think he will return—and to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston.

Of course, I have to say it one more time: we all miss Lady Newlove so much. Those of us who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year’s Bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy. It is therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this new Bill.

I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first Section 19 statement on the cover of the Bill. This is, of course, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to state their view of a Bill’s compatibility with human rights. Noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion. I hope she took pride in that, not least because, as a criminal barrister and, indeed, a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it is perhaps in the realm of victims’ rights in particular that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom.

Briefly, on defendants’ rights, I was heartened to see my noble friend’s body language in the face of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the proposals on jury trial. Panto season is upon us and the SW1 rumour mill is working with full force, so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be dropped into the Bill at Lords Committee. I was, and am still, heartened to see the body language and, no doubt, we will have it from my noble friend’s mouth in her summing up.

Of course, defendants’ rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention. The drafters of that convention referred to Article 6 as the “English article” because of things such as the presumption of innocence in particular—but this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime.

I remember that, when I was a young Home Office lawyer in the early 1990s, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants, sometimes for days on end, at the Old Bailey. They were cross-examined about their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering, until the commission, as it then was, in Strasbourg, suggested that it might be degrading and inhuman treatment and a new torture for the victim, who was usually a woman—it need not be, but it usually was. It took Article 3 of the convention and a Labour Government’s response to make sure that that should never happen. That is just one example of the many ways in which positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights have animated and accelerated the development of victims’ rights in this country like never before. I put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the heat and noise around human rights debates in this country at the moment.

In a similar vein, I welcome Clauses 3 to 5, on restricting the parental responsibility of sex offenders who have abused children. There were similar attempts last year, but these measures go further. The House, and in particular my noble friend, will be very comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area, as is my noble friend in the context of criminal trial. So, that is very much to be welcomed. I agree that the Explanatory Notes are incorrect but, mercifully, Clause 3 is very clear that it is a crime against any child, not just a crime against one’s own child, that meets the test and triggers the new mandatory requirement to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility.

I also welcome the provisions on the victim’s right to make disclosures in the face of the abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive information. These provisions seem to go further than before, which is important. Perhaps in summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison between Section 17 of the 2024 Act and the new provision on non-disclosure. It seems to me that the presumption is now much more in favour of disclosure, and not just to a very limited collection of individuals such as lawyers. The new provision is more open and in favour of public interest disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, which is more in line with amendments that I tabled and supported, along with others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the comparison between the old and the new provisions. I see this as an improvement and more presumptively in favour of disclosure.

I particularly welcome more teeth for the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims’ code. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to plead for a victims’ code with teeth. Maybe we could seek even more teeth—who knows? At one point I even tabled an amendment that would have created a new consolidated victims’ code. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the Public Bill Office, but it was rebuffed by the last Government. What I am particularly heartened by is the duty in this Bill on the Victims’ Commissioner to report on compliance with the victims’ code. A code with no teeth would be in danger of cruelly raising victims’ expectations that were then not met.

I wonder if my noble friend could explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest could on occasion involve intervening in high-profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts. That would be a good use of the Victims’ Commissioner’s time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims’ rights were in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and the Government that the Victims’ Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be able to intervene in that case? That would be incredibly helpful as part of giving teeth to both the commissioner and the code.

I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know there is some debate about whether they go far enough, but I support them.

I noted my noble friend’s comments on private prosecutions. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill are about costs in certain cases, but I noted—I wrote this down quite carefully—that in her introduction she talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution. That is of course an important right. I think of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and how important it was not just for her and her family but for the whole country that she persevered not just with campaigning but with a private prosecution. That demonstrates graphically the importance of the right of an individual who has been wronged and neglected by the authorities, in the context of policing and prosecution, to bring a case.

However, the other side of the equation is some corporate private prosecutions, about which I am concerned. The Post Office is the most obvious example. That was not an individual who had been wronged; it was a corporation prosecuting for private profit. I have been slightly sceptical about whether it is a right that should be afforded at all to private corporations as opposed to individuals. I just throw that into the air for consideration, but it is not in any way to distract or divert from my support for the Bill. I hope we can give it a safe and speedy passage while allowing enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

61: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of presumption of computer reliability(1) Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is reinstated.(2) Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is repealed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause removes the statutory rebuttable presumption that a computer system is working correctly for the purposes of criminal evidence produced by it. Instead, prosecutors would have to offer a reasonable demonstration of the reliability of any relevant hardware and software on which it proposes to rely, thus giving the defence an opportunity to scrutinise and challenge the same.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, this group contains two amendments that seek to address dangerous practices relating to criminal evidence. While the Bill does much to protect victims of crime, our justice system must also protect people from becoming victims of miscarriages of justice. Both of the problems we identify have already led to serious wrongful convictions and risk many more in the future.

Amendment 61 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom and Lord Beamish, who fought so hard in the other place for the sub-postmasters, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been such a distinguished campaigner for the rule of law to apply as much to big tech as anyone else. I share Amendment 62 with my old and dear noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon. If honour by association was as easy as guilt by association, I would be honoured indeed.

Amendment 61 is a simple amendment that would reinstate Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 on a recommendation of the Law Commission, but long before contemporary understanding of both the capabilities and fallibilities of digital technology.

Under the old Section 69, a party seeking to rely on computer evidence had to show that there was no improper use of the computer, that it was operating properly at all material times and that any faults did not affect output. It allowed for court rules to scrutinise computer evidence. Since the repeal of that vital protection, a common-law presumption of computer reliability and accuracy has applied, in effect reversing the criminal burden of proof in some cases and leading to serious harm, most recently in the Post Office Horizon scandal. Several Justice Ministers have acknowledged this since 2018. The Ministry of Justice released a call for evidence in January 2025. I hope my noble friend the Minister will tell us what has come as a result, because that is too long, I suggest.

The presumption is inaccurate, unsafe and far from future-proof. Technology is not infallible, as we saw so graphically in the end with the Fujitsu Horizon scandal. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell us what attempts that corporation has made to recompense the UK taxpayer and the victims of the abuse and scandal. Flaws can be hidden and very difficult for a lone defendant, or even a group of defendants, to detect. They cannot take on the corporation, let alone look in the black box. Developments in artificial intelligence, including the capabilities for deepfakes, make the risks of presuming computer evidence reliability even more dangerous. I hope that the Government will either accept our amendment or offer an alternative in this Bill. The clock is ticking.

As for Amendment 62, I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether they have ever indulged in crime procedurals as a guilty pleasure, whether reading them or watching them on their favourite streamer after a long night in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Middle England is addicted to those dramas, whether on TV or in books, and the creativity behind them is big business. But what if those who participated in the creation of that art, or even just enjoyed it, found themselves prosecuted on the basis that that interest was somehow probative of criminal intention or propensity?

If noble Lords find that a ridiculous proposition, they should spare a thought for the young Black men and boys who have increasingly been prosecuted with reliance on their enjoyment of rap and drill music. It is disgraceful and has been allowed to go on for some years now. Even more outrageous, there are groups and units of mostly middle-aged white police officers who hold themselves out as expert witnesses to translate this music, these lyrics and the patois for juries. Learned friends at the Bar, including my learned friend Keir Monteith KC, who is currently in the Chamber, have had to take this on in court and have dealt with miscarriages of justice in the Court of Appeal because of this kind of prejudicial and racially prejudiced practice.

The figures are not good. The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep records of music evidence being used in this way in court, but studies at the University of Manchester in particular show that there have been many cases: 68 cases involving 252 defendants between 2020 and 2023. That is probably an underestimate, because these are first instance trials and are not always reported. Two-thirds of the defendants in the Manchester study were Black, 12% were mixed race, 82% were under 25 years old, and 15% were aged 17 or younger. Over half the cases were of course joint enterprise prosecutions, because there is a particularly toxic cocktail when you combine the use of this prejudicial material with casting the net so wide as in joint enterprise.

In the case of the Manchester 10, Black teenagers were collectively sentenced to 131 years in prison for conspiracy to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm. During the trial, a nine-second video clip of someone identified as one of the defendants, with drill music playing in the background, was used as evidence of his gang membership. In closing, the prosecution Silk told the jury that some of the defendants had become involved in gang culture

“because they had an interest in drill … with its themes of violence, drugs and criminality”.

“The Night Manager”, anyone?

The Court of Appeal found that the young man had been misidentified. There was not even rapping in the video. This is how bad this practice is. He was of good character: head boy and captain of the rugby team, with an unconditional offer to study law—forgive me for being particularly attached to the study of law as a noble pursuit, but I hope noble Lords take my point. His conviction was quashed, but only after serving three years in prison.

We talk about equality before the law. That requires that no one is above the law’s reach, nor anyone below its protection. The shameful events currently rocking our politics only highlight the dangers of entitlement, hypocrisy, and the obvious destruction of trust in our vital institutions when there is “one law for some” and no fair hearing for others.

This is a modest but vital reform. It would create a presumption that any creative expression on the part of a defendant—not just rap and drill music—should be inadmissible unless four tests are met. First, the expression must have a literal, rather than figurative or fictional, meaning. Secondly, it must refer to the specific facts of the case. Thirdly, it must be relevant to an issue of dispute. Finally, that issue cannot be decided by other evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I have already made it clear that I understand the disquiet, the concerns about it and the very real possibility for something that is in fact crude racial stereotyping to look as though it is evidence. That is why we need to await the outcome of the CPS consultation.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what was a very important debate that did credit to the whole Committee. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who is a distinguished criminal lawyer and a distinguished former member of the CPS, but, with all due respect, no one should mark their own homework. It is not for the Crown Prosecution Service to mark its own homework, nor any other lawyers even.

In relation to Amendment 62, to go in reverse order, I urge my noble friend to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others have said about what is happening in practice—the University of Manchester study and so on—because just reading out the official statement from the CPS is hope-sapping—I know that my noble friend would not want to sap my hope in difficult times. In relation to Amendments 62 and 61, she suggested that she is listening and said it with some personal input. She is not AI. She is not a projection from the Government. She will forgive me for saying that she is one of our best advocates on these Benches and the Government are very lucky to have her. However, as I know our noble friend Lord Timpson has said, publicly and privately, many times, we are not all here for ever; we are not on this earth for ever; we are not in this Chamber for ever; we are not in positions of power and influence for ever. We must make the most of our opportunities to make change, as was promised, and make it for good. Race equality surely must be one of the foundations of any Labour Government, specifically one that has promised so much.

In relation to both amendments, I heard no proper pushback from any side of the Committee. On Amendment 61, I have to defer to the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The time is now; the vehicle is this Bill. Finally, I say gently to my noble friend that when she walks into rooms in the Ministry of Justice with officials or even Commons Ministers, I hope she realises that she is the cleverest person in the room or at least the one with the most direct experience of practising criminal law in the courts. If anyone can find a way through, I trust that that is my noble friend.

Amendment 62 could theoretically be dealt with by rules of court—but it must be dealt with—but with Amendment 61 we need an urgent legislative amendment in this Bill. My noble friend foreshadowed the possibility of a way through, partly on her concerns about sole and determinative evidence and partly responding to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I urge her to deliver for the Committee and for the people of this country, for the past victims of miscarriages and for all those who might come. I say that as respectfully and positively as I can to my noble friend. I hope she knows how much respect I have for her, but we are looking for something on Report in respect of both Amendments 61 and 62. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.