Restriction of Jury Trials
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Justice recently stated, in the context of rape prosecution delays, that 60% of victims pull out of their cases because
“the trauma of waiting is too hard”—
a claim that was repeated in government briefings. The overwhelming response from experienced criminal lawyers is that this figure is misleading and that, as one leading King’s Counsel commented, the Justice Secretary’s remarks were “cynical or staggeringly gullible”. Given that the Crown Prosecution Service’s own figure for those who drop out of rape complaints due to delay is 8%, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Justice to correct Hansard and remove his inaccurate statement from the record?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to face the noble and learned Lord again, after such a short time, on pretty much exactly the same topic. The statistic given by my right honourable and learned friend the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State refers to, if you like, the journey taken by a victim from the moment of the decision being made to report an offence to the police to the ultimate disposal of the case in the Crown Court. The statistic that over 60%, or roughly around 60%, drop out at that stage is entirely correct. During that process, pre-charge adult rape victim attrition is 58% and post-charge adult rape attrition is 10%. So the statistic is correct, and it is a terrible indictment upon the system that this is happening. Every single one of those figures is a person who did not see justice for what they say happened to them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is right to point to the CPS figures and to what was reported in the Sunday Times. The important point is the post-charge attrition, not the journey from reported rape all the way through to prosecution, which is what the Minister relied on. The CPS figures show that only 9% of adult rape cases were lost through victim attrition after charge, which is when trial delays come into play. That was down from 11.4% last year. The remaining cases abandoned were dropped before charge. I repeat the noble and learned Lord’s question: should the Lord Chancellor not apologise for the misleading use of statistics? Can the Minister further explain why the Government believe that the right to jury trial for either-way offences should depend only on the likely length of a prison sentence, so excluding juries for almost all offences of dishonesty, when even a minor conviction for dishonesty could, for many defendants, destroy their careers, livelihoods, reputations, families and even lives?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I repeat what I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie: it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, on exactly the same topic that we dealt with a short time ago.
I do not understand why it is felt that, from the victim’s perspective, it makes any difference at all whether it is post-charge or pre-charge. A victim dropping out is a victim dropping out and not getting the case that they thought they wanted to see during the court process. The fact is that there are all sorts of reasons why victims decide they do not want to participate in the process any more. There seems to be a suggestion that, in the pre-charge period, those victims are living underneath some kind of rock and not hearing about the problems in the criminal justice system, including the amount of time that victims have to wait to have their cases heard. The fact is that, in any event, even 9% dropping out post-charge is far too high. The statistics show that the average wait in the Crown Court for victims of rape and serious sexual offences is 391 days, which is an awfully long time—over a year—for them to wait.
I turn to the second of the noble Lord’s questions on the length of sentence. The reason for that is that cases that ultimately result in shorter sentences tend to be shorter and less complicated cases to hear, so they are much quicker. It has never been the case, as noble Lords know, that all cases in the criminal justice system are heard by juries; 90% of cases are heard in the magistrates’ court. This Government are proposing simply to move that line a little to ensure that the most serious cases, which are going to get the longest sentences in the Crown Court, are dealt with more quickly.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister not worry that, in waiting and hoping that their case might be brought to trial, the suffering of so many rape victims has been weaponised in an attack on the jury system, one of the fundamental aspects of our democracy and of a free society? Their pain is being used to attack something that matters to all of us. Is that not overly cynical and doing a real disservice to those women, particularly, who are waiting for justice in relation to rape accusations?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness is not referring to the Government I am part of when she says that the experiences of rape victims are being weaponised. This Government did not come into power with the objective of trying to remove jury trials from anybody. The point is that the system is not working for anyone. Some of those most severely affected are those who have made complaints of rape and serious sexual offences, where the length of time that they have to wait can have terrible effects on them. I am not suggesting that it does not have a terrible effect on everybody, but the system recognises that it can be particularly difficult for people in those categories of cases. It is not a question of weaponisation. The one thing I have tried to be very careful not to do is to make party political points about this. This is something of an emergency. It has taken a long time to get to where we are and it is going to take time to alter it. We have to have a radical plan, and this is the plan that was recommended by Sir Brian Leveson. It would be reckless of the Government to commission an independent review and then not act on its recommendations.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the Minister in facing the huge backlog that exists in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to her for laying out the thinking behind the Lord Chancellor’s position more clearly than the Lord Chancellor himself has been able to do. Can she update us on work between police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service when it comes to making sure that rape and serious sexual offences are brought to court more quickly? Is it the case that some police forces have been resistant to the idea that the speed with which these cases are processed should be published so that we can hold accountable those police forces that are most reluctant to ensure speedy justice?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There are delays between report of an offence and charge. The reasons for those can be very complicated. I used to work for the Crown Prosecution Service and I know how difficult it can be. An awful lot of investigation has to go on. Quite often, such investigations are looking at events that took place an awfully long time ago. It is probably fair to say that everybody thinks that we could and should do better. The Home Office deals with matters in relation to the police, but I will ensure that I write to the noble Lord and answer his question, which is a perfectly proper one.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Will the Minister condemn the remarks of one of her colleagues in the other place, who smeared defenders of the right to trial by jury as men in suits defending a Magna Carta myth? In fact, the right to trial by jury dates to before Magna Carta, to Henry II, who, I point out, for the benefit of the Justice Secretary, came after Henry I and not before.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Oh dear. I feel that I did not even respond to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about me explaining it better than the Deputy Prime Minister. I am certainly not going to agree with that, and I am not going to be giving the Deputy Prime Minister any history lessons either.
This Government are completely committed to jury trial. There is absolutely no question of our doing away with jury trials. All we are doing is moving some cases down so that they will be dealt with in the magistrates’ court in order to free up space. We are not the only Government to have done this. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 reclassified three groups of offences—common assault, taking vehicles without consent and criminal damage—that had previously been triable either way as summary only. Does anybody want to take a history lesson on which Government were in power?
Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-V(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (8 Dec 2025)
Lord Pannick (CB)
I add my voice to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The fundamental principle is set out in new Section 11ZB(2): if the defendant cannot have a fair trial, the hearing cannot proceed. The gravity of the allegations and the public interest demand that there be no hearing, notwithstanding the damage that this causes to the unfortunate alleged victim. I entirely agree that new Section 11ZB(3) confuses the position; it introduces uncertain concepts and will inevitably lead to unhelpful litigation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 289, I thank my noble friend Lady Royall, who is not in her place today because she is ill, and Mr Stephen Bernard, both of whom met me recently. We discussed both the impact of the limitation period on victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their concern over the test of substantial prejudice within this clause. I was moved by what Mr Bernard told me and I thank him for his courage in telling me about what happened to him.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for moving Amendment 289. I hope both my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord will be reassured that I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Blencathra, for welcoming the general spirit of the clause and for their constructive comments. I make it clear that we absolutely do not want to add additional or unnecessary barriers to stop victims of child sexual abuse from proceeding with their civil claims. So I have asked my officials to look closely at the issues this amendment raises for further consideration, and I aim to provide a further update to your Lordships on Report.
Turning to the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to Clause 82 standing part of the Bill, I think he is well known for being very expert in this area and I pay tribute to that. But Clause 82 implements important recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The noble Lord raised concerns during Second Reading and again during this debate that the reform is unnecessary and would lead to greater uncertainty and litigation, but, with respect, I disagree. The inquiry looked at this in great detail. It found that the limitation period for civil claims itself acted as a deterrent to victims and survivors—just the very fact that it existed. The inquiry also found that it acted as a deterrent irrespective of the existence of the discretion in Section 33, and the inquiry therefore found that Section 33 did not provide sufficient protection for victims and survivors.
The inquiry found that the regime acted as a barrier to claimants at three stages: first, solicitors’ willingness to take on claims, because it can make it really hard for them to find a lawyer to represent them; secondly, the settlement and valuation of claims, because it can lead to victims accepting lower settlements because of uncertainty about the limitation issue; and, thirdly, the hearings themselves in relation to the limitation period, the effect of which on the claimants was described as “intrusive and traumatic”.
I think the noble Lord will find that it was not this Government who said they were not in favour of these recommendations; it was actually the previous Government. This Government accepted the recommendation in February of this year and are satisfied that Clause 82 is necessary and proportionate. The courts are perfectly capable, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, of deciding when a claim is inappropriate or unfair and should not succeed. This Government and my department put victims at the heart of everything we do. This is why we believe that this reform is necessary and important for victims and survivors. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to withdraw his amendment and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting Clause 82.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness is quite right that the response to IICSA came from the previous Government. It was written by the Ministry of Justice and signed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. While not in any way undermining his contribution to whatever was produced, I suspect that it was the work of government lawyers, approved by him. It was a careful study of the law by reference to, for example, the operation of Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. IICSA was not a Law Commission or law reform body, and it covered a huge area of inquisition. It had to cover so many areas that many people doubted whether it had any utility. I am not suggesting that, but it was not primarily concerned with civil claims as such. What I would like to ask the noble Baroness is this: Section 33 has been in operation since 1980. I can tell her, and I am sure she will accept from me, that it is used a great deal by many claimants represented by firms of solicitors. Very often, limitation is not even considered, because as she quite rightly says, very often somebody will delay a considerable time before bringing a claim, and quite rightly so. But why, I ask, is she satisfied, given the wideness of the discretion, that Section 33 does not work as it is?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it is no answer to say that another Government considered it carefully: different Governments have different priorities. I am not sure that that is going to come as a great surprise to the noble Lord. As for Section 33, this Government are satisfied that it does not provide sufficient protection.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief in my response. As I say, this was a probing amendment, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I am content with the Government’s assurances, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it would not be right to begin the Government’s response to this group of amendments without first thanking unequivocally the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The whole Chamber will join me in saying that we have a great deal to thank her for. She has worked tirelessly on the independent pornography review and has long campaigned to raise awareness of the ways pornography shapes sexual behaviour. This Government share her determination to ensure that the online world is a safer place for everyone, and we are immensely grateful to her for her insights.
The motivation for these amendments is important and I make it absolutely clear that I take them seriously. I have not disagreed with a single word that has been said in the impassioned and sometimes angry contributions in this Chamber—I share that anger and outrage. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, is aware, following our meeting last week, of the reasons why the Government will resist her amendments at this stage. However, I look forward to continuing our discussions in greater detail over the coming weeks, including in meetings between my department, the Home Office and DSIT. I hope we will all work closely together to achieve our shared objectives.
I also take this opportunity to announce that the Government will accept, in part, one of the noble Baroness’s recommendations from her pornography review—namely, recommendation 24. The Government will review the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give us a chance to look at the law holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. Importantly, the review I am announcing today will look into the effectiveness of the existing law in relation to criminalising, among other things, harmful depictions of incest and any forms of pornography that encourage child sexual abuse.
I know the noble Baroness is anxious that any review should not be used as a delaying tactic to avoid making any decisions. I hope she will take it from me that it is my wish to make sure that this takes place quickly. In addition, as I mentioned to her when we met, the Government are not completely opposed to considering swifter action where this is critically important, and I know we will discuss this further at our next meeting.
Given what I have just said, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I address Amendments 290 to 292 briefly, in the light of the fact we are proposing a review. I am very grateful for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Kidron, Lady Sugg and Lady Owen, my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Berger, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Cameron of Lochiel—I hope I have mentioned everybody.
I appreciate the motivation behind these amendments, and I reassure my noble friend Lady Kennedy that the Government and I are very much in listening mode. Of course images of actual child incest or actual child sexual abuse are extremely harmful. The same is also true for intimate photos or videos shared without consent, and I note the concerns about how effectively this law is being enforced and regulated. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, that I am committed to working with her on the issues raised by these amendments and I very much look forward to meeting again to discuss them in greater detail to see where we can go with them.
Amendment 298 would criminalise the possession of nudification tools by users. Once again, I accept the intention behind this amendment and recognise the harm caused; it is horrifying. My noble friend Lady Berger spoke movingly about its impact on young women, and other noble Lords spoke strongly about this as well.
Our concern is that this amendment would not target those who provide these unpleasant tools to users in the UK. Additionally, as drafted, it would criminalise the possession of legitimate tools which are designed to create intimate images, such as those used in a medical context. I reiterate that we have significant sympathy for the amendment’s underlying objective, so we are actively considering what action is needed to ensure that any intervention in this area is effective. I assure the noble Baroness that we will reflect carefully on what she and other noble Lords—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron, Lady Boycott and Lady Owen, my noble friend Lady Berger, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, among others—have said in this debate. I also assure her that we aim to provide an update on this matter ahead of Report.
Finally, Amendment 314 seeks to bring regulatory parity between offline and online pornography. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for her continued advocacy on this topic over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—for whom huge respect is due, in this House and elsewhere—the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, among others, all spoke powerfully about this.
I stress once again that I do not disagree with the motivation that underlies this amendment. No one could disagree with the general principle as a matter of common sense, but extensive further work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, is needed to consider and define with sufficient certainty what currently legal online pornography should not be permitted. It is also important that we make a thorough exploration of the existing legislation and regulation to ensure any new offence is enforceable, protects users to the highest standard and works as intended.
Under the Video Recordings Act, the distribution of pornography on physical media formats is regulated by the BBFC, as we have heard. Obviously, the BBFC will not classify any content which breaches criminal law. Amendment 314 as drafted would create a criminal offence which would require a judgment to be made about whether the BBFC would classify content which has not been subject to the classification process. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed concerns about the drafting of this amendment while supporting its underlying motivation. As I hope your Lordships will agree, creating this style of criminal offence requires a clearer and more certain definition of this pornographic content, as any individual would need to be able clearly to understand what they need to do to regulate their conduct, so as not to inadvertently commit a criminal offence.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, will appreciate the reasons I have set out for the Government not supporting these amendments today. That said, I hope the announcement of the review into the criminal law and the Government’s commitment to work with the noble Baroness over the coming weeks will leave her sufficiently reassured not to press her amendments at this stage.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I want to ask the Minister about the timing. Her tone is exceptionally welcome— I will leave the substance of her response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin—but I am watching facial recognition, edtech and AI being rolled out by the Government with impunity. Even earlier today, at Questions, the tool was put at a higher order than the safety. What is the timeframe for the reviews and in which we can expect these very urgent questions to be addressed? There is a Bill in front of us, but when will the next Bill come?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness imagine just how unpopular I would be if I committed to an absolute timeframe? What I can say is that I hope she will take it from me that I regard this as important. The meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, have started. This matters but we need to get it right.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Will this review—yet another review—take place before Report? The Bill is before us, so once Report has passed, it will be too late to have the review. This is not something that we can leave until it is too late. Can we at least have an assurance that Report will be timed in a way that enables the Minister to come back and say, “This review has happened, and this is what we’re going to do”?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I entirely understand the sentiments. I cannot commit to that today, but I will take the point away.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I will give the Minister a little bit of context, because she has not been in this House very long, for which she is probably very grateful. Many of us speaking today were very involved in the genesis and ultimate passage of the Online Safety Act. That took six years to happen. When we passed that Act, we thought we were being crystal clear, in both Houses of Parliament, on what we intended to happen and what we intended the regulator to do. One of reasons why her ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, got a pretty hard time from this Committee on 27 November was that we felt there was a certain unwillingness to recognise the degree of frustration many of us feel about how the Online Safety Act is being enacted.
In particular, on 27 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, told us that the Molly Rose Foundation has, in effect, given up on hoping that Ofcom will actually do its job, because Ofcom has told the foundation that its attitude and strategy in enacting the Online Safety Act, when dealing with the large platforms, is what it calls “tactical ambiguity”. If I were a lawyer for one of the large platforms, I would think that having a regulator that was applying tactical ambiguity was absolutely wonderful; it would be exactly what I would hope for. What we are looking for is action from His Majesty’s Government, and when it happens, we are not looking for any kind of ambiguity.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have already said that I have heard, and indeed share, the anger and frustration in Committee. I may not have been in your Lordships’ House for that long, but I have not been living underneath a stone. Given my previous existence, I am acutely aware of these debates. What is obvious to us all is that, however well-intentioned past attempts have been, these things are still happening. If we want them to stop, we have to do something about them. I do not believe I can go further than I have at the moment; all I can say is that the will is there.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
During Robert Runcie’s time in the Church of England, he was exasperated that when matters became very difficult, the General Synod was called to set up a committee. He saw the setting up of committees as a postponing of a decision that ought to be taken. These inquiries keep going on and on. Given the Government’s machinery and lawyers, I do not understand why this could not be looked at before Report.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have already answered that, I am afraid. With the greatest of respect to the noble and right reverend Lord, I cannot give that commitment today, but he has heard what I have said.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, this has been humbling for me, and it is very hard to know how to respond. There are big shoes to fill after so many amazing speeches. That is what we call teamwork and showing this Chamber at its very best. I assure noble Lords that I still have plenty of petrol left in the tank on this issue. I am very grateful for the acknowledgement that it has been a gruelling piece of work, but what would damage me more is if we did not get this right. I am not prepared to look back and think that we could have done more, and I believe that many others in this Committee would agree with that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward this amendment today. As I have said when responding to the other amendments, I stress that I entirely understand the motivation underlying it. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse have every right to see justice for the horrendous crimes they endured. I know perfectly well through my experience in other parts of public service, if you like, of how long it can take for victims to be able to come forward. To that extent, there is nothing between the noble Baroness and me, and indeed others who have spoken: the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. That said, I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness when I say that the Government cannot accept her amendment, and I hope she will appreciate the reason for it when in a moment I explain why.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Just because this is so important, and no doubt for our understanding, can I ask two questions? First, on there being no time limit, is that because there is some exception in the Magistrates’ Courts Act to the normal six-month time limit on summary conviction? Section 9(3)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act allows summary conviction, so this removal of the time bar must be somewhere either in the Sexual Offences Act or in the Magistrates’ Courts Act. My second question relates to Article 7. Of course, the prohibition on retroactive criminalisation does not apply when the crime in question would be thought of as criminal according to the laws of civilised nations. Of course, that was upheld as a principle when marital rape was finally criminalised in all these jurisdictions by the courts rather than by statute.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I will deal with my noble friend’s second point first. There are decisions of the domestic courts here that support the fact that you cannot bring prosecutions for what was the unlawful sexual intercourse offence under Section 6, nor can you even bring a prosecution for sexual assault based on the same facts, because that would transgress the prohibition in Article 7. As regards the time limit, Section 9 of the 2003 Act has no time limitations in it, which is the usual principle of criminal offences in this country, but for this tiny cohort of behaviour—it really is very small—you could not prosecute under Section 9 because of Article 7. Section 6 no longer exists, and you cannot get round it by using Section 9, but it really is a very small number of cases.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I suggest to the noble Baroness that, in addition, these offences are so serious that they would not be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court; they would be indictable offences, would they not?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite correct: this has nothing to do with magistrates’ court time limits. There was a statutory time limit contained within Section 6 of the 1956 Act that said that all prosecutions for offences under Section 6 must be brought within 12 months in any court. It is nothing to do with the time limits in the Magistrates’ Courts Act.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so sorry to labour the point, but I think it is so important that we understand, and if it cannot be dealt with now, perhaps the Minister could write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the Committee. I am looking at Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act, on “Sexual activity with a child”, which I understand to be the section that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend in her amendment. Section 9(3)(a) allows summary conviction for that offence, and the maximum penalty is
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months”,
or the statutory maximum fine.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am of course more than happy to write to my noble friend, and it must be my fault I am not explaining this properly. There is no time limit for prosecutions brought under Section 9 generally, unless it refers to particular behaviour—so that would be an offence committed against a girl aged between 13 and 15—that took place before the repeal of the 1956 Act and the bringing into force of the 2003 Act. You could not prosecute that under Section 9 because the time limit has expired for bringing it under Section 6, in the same way that you cannot prosecute for sexual assault for the same behaviour because you cannot bring a prosecution under Section 6. I had better write, because I can see from the puzzled look on my noble friend’s face that I have not explained it very well.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Perhaps the noble Baroness could also include in that letter reference to what is either a decision of the Appellate Committee or the Supreme Court—I think it is the former—which addresses this and explains precisely why those who are alleged to have committed offences before the relevant dates are protected by the 1956 Act and continue to be so.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. I am probably the only non-lawyer in this debate, and as it is my amendment I feel something of a duffer.
I am very grateful for the advice. I came to this amendment after reading the recommendations of IICSA, and what concerned me particularly was picking up that people who had come forward years afterwards were told that things were timed out—that might have been a decision by the CPS to say that it felt that it would not be effective going to trial. However, I very much appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because I have experience of the issue of which court deals with issues through my interests in stalking and other domestic abuse cases, where often that is the place that things happen. All the description that has been given for “no time limits” has not been for the magistrates’ court, excepting the detail that the noble Baroness provided, which is way beyond my knowledge.
There is the difficulty that Professor Jay reported. In two cases where I was heavily involved with the victims, decisions were made initially by the CPS and the victims were told that they had timed out. That may not have been the case, but that is what they were told. In another case, when there were three pupils from the same school all giving evidence, none of them knowing each other, the first victim was told by the judge, “Yours is over 20 years ago; you can’t possibly remember what happened and therefore it’s timed out”. That is what is happening in the practice of the courts. Professor Jay’s report spoke to the experience of the victims. We have gone into extraordinary technical detail that many victims would be completely oblivious to. I would be very grateful for a letter. If there is an easy solution, it may just be that it needs to be clarified with the police and the CPS. There are a lot of unhappy victims out there. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Levitt
“Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: England and Wales and Northern Ireland(1) After section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 insert—“67A Possession or publication of pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if—(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.(2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).(3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 64.(5) In this section“image” has the same meaning as in section 63.(6) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.67B Defences to offences under section 67A(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67A(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67A(1);(c) that the person— (i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time;(d) that the person directly participated in the act portrayed and the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person.(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67A(2), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4).(4) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67A(1);(c) that the person directly participated in the act portrayed, the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and the person only published the image to other persons who directly participated.(5) In this section“non-consensual harm” has the same meaning as in section 66.67C Penalties for offences under section 67A(1) A person who commits an offence under section 67A(1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both);(c) on conviction on indictment in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(2) A person who commits an offence under section 67A(2) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both);(c) on conviction on indictment in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).67D Possession of extreme pornographic images: alternative verdict in magistrates’ courtIf on the trial of a person charged with an offence under section 63 a magistrates’ court finds the person not guilty of the offence charged, the magistrates’ court may find the person guilty of an offence under section 67A(1).”.(2) In section 68 of that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services) for “section 63” substitute “sections 63 and 67A”.(3) In Schedule 14 to that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services)—(a) in paragraphs 3(1), 4(2) and 5(1) after “63” insert “or 67A”;(b) in paragraph 5(2)—(i) after “possession” insert “or publication”;(ii) for “an offence under section 63” substitute “the offence in question”. (4) In Schedule 34A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (child sex offences for purposes of section 327A), after paragraph 13 insert—“13ZA An offence under section 67A of that Act (possession or publication of pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation) in relation to an image showing a person under 18.”(5) In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 29—(a) for “section 63” substitute “any of the following provisions”;(b) for the words in brackets substitute—“(a) section 63 (possession of extreme pornographic images);(b) section 67A (possession or publication of pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland to possess or publish a pornographic image that portrays strangulation (often referred to as “choking porn”) or suffocation.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, again it would not be right to speak to this group of amendments without first thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. In her independent pornography review, the noble Baroness recommended that non-fatal strangulation pornography—commonly known as choking porn—should be illegal to possess, distribute and publish. The noble Baroness has identified, and many have already mentioned in your Lordships’ Committee as part of the debate on another group of amendments, that the prevalence of strangulation pornography is leading to this behaviour becoming more commonplace in real life. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Evidence suggests that it is influencing what people, particularly young people, think is expected of them during sex. It is also right to point out that they are not necessarily aware of the serious harm it can cause.
In June this year, we committed to giving full effect to the noble Baroness’s recommendation. Today I am pleased to do just that. We have tabled Amendments 294, 295, 488, 494, 512, 515, 526, 548 and 555, which will criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images that portray strangulation or suffocation—otherwise known as choking porn. These changes will extend UK-wide. The terms “strangulation” and “suffocation” are widely understood and carry their ordinary meaning. Strangulation requires the application of pressure to the neck and suffocation requires a person to be deprived of air, affecting their ability to breathe. For this offence, the strangulation or suffocation portrayed must be explicit and realistic, but it does not have to be real. For example, it can be acted or posed, or the image may be AI-generated—provided that the people in the image look real to a reasonable person.
The maximum penalty for the possession offence is imprisonment for two years. This mirrors penalties under Section 3 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The penalty reflects that while the content is harmful, much of it will not depict an unlawful act actually taking place, depending on the circumstances. For publication of such images, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for five years, commensurate with penalties for publication under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This reflects the underlying aims of this amendment to restrict the availability of this type of pornography.
In addition, we are amending the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that the offences are listed as priority offences. This will oblige platforms to take the necessary steps to stop this harmful material appearing online. This change is a vital step towards our mission to halve violence against women and girls, and as I move these amendments today it is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, is credited for this change. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I rightly praise the Government and the Prime Minister for making this change. It shows real leadership. I speak for so many in saying thank you for taking that recommendation on board.
This amendment to ban depictions of strangulation in pornography has raised awareness more widely of how out of control online pornography has become and how it is affecting real life behaviour. I am not easily shocked these days, but I was very shocked by the example given by my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, of how those carrying out post-mortems are now having to be trained to look for signs of strangulation. That says it all.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the Minister for tabling this group of amendments, and I am happy to offer the support of these Benches. The criminalisation of strangulation in pornography is part of a wider initiative that has been championed across the House and discussed today, particularly on this side by my noble friend Lady Bertin, but by many others as well.
The prevalence of strangulation in pornography and the harm it causes are very clear. Distributing such material is already illegal offline; the fact that its online equivalent is not is a gap in the law, and these amendments correct that. They close that gap and prohibit the distribution of a practice that is both dangerous and extreme. I know that there are reports from some GPs of an exponential rise in incidents of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation among younger generations, which they largely attribute to pornography; the least we can do is to provide restrictions on dangerous content that should not be normalised. As has been said, distributing non-fatal strangulation images is unlawful offline; it makes little sense that that is not replicated in our online legislation. This group aims to correct that, and I willingly offer the support of these Benches.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their support for these amendments, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin, Lady Gohir and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I also note the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, about enforcement and regulation. As I said in the debate on the second group, I am very keen to continue working with the noble Baroness on other matters related to online pornography— there is much more to be done.
I hope that, in the meantime, your Lordships will join me in supporting the important steps the Government are taking in relation to strangulation pornography. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
“Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: Scotland(1) After section 51C of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 insert— “51D Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if—(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 51A,(b) the image depicts, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.(2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).(3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 51B.(5) In this section“image” is to be construed in accordance with section 51A.51E Defences to offences under section 51D(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 51D(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 51D(1);(c) that the person—(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time;(d) that the person directly participated in the act depicted and the act did not actually involve strangulation or suffocation of any person.(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 51D(2), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4).(4) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 51D(1);(c) that the person directly participated in the act depicted, the act did not actually involve strangulation or suffocation of any person, and the person only published the image to other persons who directly participated.51F Penalties for offences under section 51D(1) A person who commits an offence under section 51D(1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(2) A person who commits an offence under section 51D(2) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).51G Possession of extreme pornographic images: alternative verdictIf on the trial of a person charged with an offence under section 51A a court finds the person not guilty of the offence charged, the court may find the person guilty of an offence under section 51D(1).”.(2) In the Extreme Pornography (Electronic Commerce Directive) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (S.S.I. 2011/137)—(a) in regulation 2(1), in the definition of “relevant offence”—(i) after “51A” insert “(extreme pornography) or 51D (pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation)”;(ii) after “Act” omit “(extreme pornography)”;(b) in regulation 3(1) and (3) for “a relevant offence” substitute “an offence under section 51A of the 1982 Act”;(c) in regulation 6(2)—(i) after “possession” insert “or publication”;(ii) for “a relevant offence” substitute “the relevant offence in question”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence in Scotland to possess or publish a pornographic image that depicts strangulation (often referred to as “choking porn”) or suffocation.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge for bringing these important matters to your Lordships’ Committee and for speaking so passionately and clearly about the subject matter of her amendments. There is very little that I can add. My noble friend has an impressive track record in this area, her Private Member’s Bill being a striking example of that, and these amendments are very much in the same vein. As she made clear, we must all remember what is truly important here, and that is the victims of these events. They must be at the centre of all our debates, and today they have been.
I am very pleased that my noble friend has retabled Amendments 333 and 334, which were brought forward in the other place by my honourable friend Joe Robertson MP. The omission of recklessness as part of the offence of spiking is, as many noble Lords have said, a severe oversight by this Government; we believe that it should be rectified. My noble friend Lady Owen has our full support for this amendment and our broad support for the rest of her amendments.
Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment 295C, which is a probing amendment. By way of background, Schedule 9 inserts new Sections 66AA and 66AB into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. New Section 66AB contains exceptions to the new offences of taking or recording intimate photographs or films, and its subsection (3) contains an exemption for healthcare professionals who are taking intimate photos of a person who is under 16 and lacks the capacity to consent. My probing amendment would remove the provision that the person has to be under 16 for the exemption to apply. It seeks to probe the Government about a situation where, for example, a doctor has a 30 year-old patient with severe learning disabilities or an 80 year-old patient with dementia. Neither has the capacity to consent, but the doctor has to take a photo of the patient in an intimate state to show the patient’s condition to their consultant, for example. That doctor would not be included in the exemption and therefore would be liable to prosecution.
This is simply to try to understand the Government’s reasoning because, if the exemption is to apply—and it should—there should be no distinction based on age. The doctor is performing the same professional duty to a person who is 15 and cannot consent and a person who is 18 and cannot consent. I will be grateful if the noble Baroness can clarify that particular point.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I join with all other Members of your Lordships’ Committee in expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for bringing forward this large group of amendments, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for bringing forward Amendment 295C. I am also pleased to commend government Amendments 300 to 307 in my name, which make two changes to the existing intimate image abuse provisions in Clause 84 and Schedule 9.
This is an eclectic, disparate and rather large group of amendments. I will endeavour to address them in as concise a manner as I can, but it is going to take a bit of time, so I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I start by stressing that the Government are committed to tackling the complete violation that is non-consensual intimate image abuse. However, before I turn to the noble Baroness’s amendments, I want to make a few general comments that apply to many of the amendments in this group, and to some of the others that are being considered by your Lordships’ Committee today.
I start with a comment with which I am sure we can all agree: it is essential that the law is clear and easy to interpret. In that context, I make the following observation, not so much as a Minister, but drawing on my past experience as a senior prosecutor and judge. It is very tempting to add new offences to the statute book. Some of these are intended to spell out the conduct of which society disapproves, even when it is already caught by more general offences—or, some would say, to make something that is already criminal, more criminal.
It is tempting to say that, if such an additional offence makes no substantive change, then why not—the Government should simply accept it. However, such changes are not always without consequence. In my experience, it can sometimes make it harder to prosecute, and thus secure convictions, when there are a number of different offences on the statute book, all of which cover the same behaviour but often with slightly different elements or maximum penalties. I know that that is absolutely not the intended effect of many of these amendments, but I would gently suggest to your Lordships that it is worth bearing in mind that legislating for large numbers of new offences may not be without adverse consequences.
That said, I have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. She and I share the determination to deal with some pretty repellent behaviour that has the ability to ruin victims’ lives; the question is how best to achieve it. As I said before, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government and I are very much in listening mode. I was very pleased to meet the noble Baroness recently, and I thank her for that. I wanted to understand better the intentions underlying some of her amendments, and I look forward to working with her closely over the coming months.
I am thankful for the contributions of my noble friends Lord Hacking, Lady Curran and Lady Chakrabarti. I am afraid that I am going to have to disappoint my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti on the implementation date for the deepfake legislation, as she will probably not be surprised to hear. It will depend on a number of factors, and I cannot give her a date today. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin, Lady Maclean, Lady Sugg and Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who was kind enough to leave the question of the ombudsman with me. I am also thankful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Banner and Lord Cameron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
I turn now to this group of amendments. Amendment 295BA seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images to be removed within 48 hours. The Government recognise the calls to go further than the existing protections afforded by the Online Safety Act. We share the concern that some non-consensual intimate images remain online even after requests for removal have been made by the Revenge Porn Helpline. Worse still, some remain online following a successful conviction for non-consensual intimate image offences. We absolutely acknowledge this problem. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are considering how best to tackle this issue, and I hope to be able to provide more detail on the work in this area on Report.
I turn to Amendment 295BB. As I have just said, the Government recognise the harm caused by the continued circulation of intimate images and thus share the intention underlying this amendment. There are existing mechanisms that allow the courts to deprive offenders of images once they have been convicted of intimate image abuse offences. We are already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seizing intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was used in the offence itself. An example would be an external hard drive: even if it was not used to perpetrate the offence, it can be seized if it has the images on it. This will significantly limit the defendant’s ability to retain or access intimate image abuse material.
That said, we recognise that these existing powers were not originally designed with intimate images in mind, and that, as a result, they currently do not extend to devices that contain images but were not directly used to commit the offence. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are taking steps to strengthen the framework.
I turn to Amendments 295BC and 295BD, which were also spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I must say that the noble Viscount slightly lost me with some of the more technical details of what he was describing.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am always delighted to meet with the noble Viscount.
Through these amendments, the noble Baroness wishes to create a statutory register of non-consensual intimate images and hashes. Once again, I commend the intention behind the amendments, but I believe that they will lead to duplication of work that I can confirm is already taking place. Organisations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline play a vital role in detecting and removing non-consensual intimate image abuse. That organisation has in place a database of existing hashes of non-consensual images that are shared with participating companies to detect and remove the images from circulation online.
Furthermore, in March this year, Ofcom published its first codes of practice for the Online Safety Act regulatory regime, which set out a range of measures that platforms should implement to tackle non-consensual intimate image abuse. Ofcom is currently reviewing consultation responses on new measures for the codes, which include measures for platforms to use scanning technology to detect intimate images by matching them against appropriate databases of digital fingerprints or hashes of such images. I reassure the noble Baroness that finalised measures will be published in due course.
Amendments 295BE to 295BG, 295BJ, 298A, 299A and 300B all share the purpose of expanding all intimate image offences to include real and purported audio recording of those in an intimate state. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, spoke powerfully about the need for this. However, the Government cannot accept these amendments for two reasons. The first is the difficulties in proving such offences, and the second is that we consider that the harm in question is covered in the main by existing offences.
As far as proof is concerned, it is a general truth that being able to identify voices is a great deal more problematic than identifying images. Awkward and possibly embarrassing though this is to be considering in your Lordships’ Committee in the middle of the working day, a few moments’ thought about the kinds of sounds recorded, given the context, will illustrate some of the difficulties. First, it would be difficult for tribunals of fact, whether magistrates, judges or juries, to determine whether the recorded audio is or purports to be that of a particular person. Secondly, the proposed definition of an intimate audio recording as one “which a reasonable person considers sexual in nature” might be hard to determine from the audio alone. In short, there are concerns about how this could be proved to the criminal standard.
In this context, I refer back to the point I made earlier: the law must be clear and enact only offences that are capable of enforcement. The Government have looked at this closely and seriously, and we have tried to identify cases where intimate audio abuse is alleged. It is our view that there does not appear to be a large number of cases where this happens in isolation. Instead, the reason for the audio abuse is usually to blackmail or harass someone. Both are criminal offences already, with blackmail carrying a significant maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. If we are wrong about this, I know that the noble Baroness has said that she will share further evidence with me, and I am sure that this will also apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I am happy to discuss this issue further with both of them.
Amendment 295BH seeks to define “taking” for the purposes of the new intimate image-taking offences. In our recent meeting, following the question the noble Baroness raised at Second Reading, I confirmed to her that the proposed “taking” offences as currently defined would not include screenshots, but I understand the harm that the noble Baroness seeks to prevent, and I have asked officials to look at this issue closely. I hope to provide a further update on Report.
Amendment 295C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to amend the base offence set out in Schedule 9. This applies where an image of a person under 16 in an intimate state is taken or recorded for the purposes of medical care or treatment. The noble Lord’s amendment recognises the need for the medical exemption, but it would remove the age restriction to prevent the criminalisation of those taking or recording intimate images of a person of any age. Section 5 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 already provides for specific medical exemptions in cases where an intimate image is taken of someone over 16. I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is therefore unnecessary to extend the provision in this Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I was spiked at the age of 16 at a dance by a cousin of the hosts where I was staying. He said afterwards, “I don’t know why I did it. I didn’t intend to hurt anyone”. So there are such situations—having listened to what the Minister said, I note that no one could prove that he had been anything other than rather silly. He was in his 20s and was probably drunk. He filled an orange juice jug with gin, and I spent two days in bed.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am extremely sorry to hear about that experience. As ever, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, for whom the entire Committee has great respect.
As I was about to say, the Government are fortified in our belief that the concept of intention would be proved by the fact that there is case law that establishes that, where ecstasy was administered to another to “loosen them up”, that amounted to an intent to injure—intention being separate from the motive. The fact is that defendants say all sorts of things about what they did or did not mean; it will be for the tribunal of fact, looking at what happened, to see whether it can be sure that the intention was as specified in the statute.
We are confident that the types of behaviour that should be criminalised are already captured. Once again, I go back to the important point I set out at the beginning of this group: this new spiking offence aims to simplify the legal framework and to make enforcement straightforward. We do not want to do anything that risks undermining that by overcomplicating the offence.
Amendment 356B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, proposes to expand the scope of prohibited conduct under domestic abuse protection orders. Although I appreciate the motive underpinning this amendment, these orders already allow courts to impose any conditions that they consider both necessary and proportionate to protect victims from domestic abuse. Put simply, setting out a prescriptive list risks narrowing the flexibility and discouraging conditions that are tailored to the conditions of the offender. The police statutory guidance already includes examples, such as prohibiting direct or indirect contact and restricting online harassment, but we are happy to update this guidance to include the additional behaviours mentioned.
This has been a long speech, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. My intention has been to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and all other noble Lords, for whom I have great regard, why the Government cannot support these amendments today. For the reasons I have set out, I invite them not to press their amendments, but I hope they will join me in supporting government Amendments 300 to 307, which I commend to the Committee.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I just check something? On Amendment 299B, she knows that my intention is not to create something that is too broad but to tackle the very real and rapidly proliferating problem of semen images. It would be helpful to get clarification that the Government understand this to be an issue and are willing to work with me so that we can bring back an amendment on Report. Further, on Amendment 295BB, the Minister spoke about physical devices, but I am keen to know how the Government will tackle images shared on the cloud, because this is the real problem. Finally, on Amendment 295BA, the Minister said that more detail would be given. I just want to know whether that will be on Report or between now and Report, so that we can bring back something about the 48-hour takedown on Report. America has already won the battle on this.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As far as the revolting practice of semen images is concerned—and I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would think it was anything other than that—if an offence can be drafted that is sufficiently specific, then of course we will consider it. Our concern is that the drafting of the proposed amended offence is so wide that it would capture a lot of behaviour that should not be criminalised. As for the other two matters raised by the noble Baroness, please may we discuss them?
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
I am sorry, I realise that people want to get to the dinner break, but will the noble Baroness commit to meeting me, the noble Viscount and the Revenge Porn Helpline on Amendments 295BC and 295BD? She spoke about duplication. These amendments are suggested by the Revenge Porn Helpline; therefore, I do not believe that it believes it duplicates its work. It would be very helpful for us to meet and clarify that.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses. I am grateful for the engagement so far with her and Minister Davies-Jones, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am going to take these points away for further considerations, and I look forward to the meetings that we are going to have, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Levitt
“6A In section 66H (time limits for prosecuting summary offences)—(a) in subsection (1), for “under section 66E or 66F” substitute “to which this section applies”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) This section applies to offences under—(a) section 66AA(1);(b) section 66AC(1);(c) section 66B(1);(d) section 66E;(e) section 66F.”;(c) for the heading substitute “Intimate images: time limit for prosecution of summary offences”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the time limit for prosecuting the summary only offences in existing section 66B(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and new sections 66AA(1) and 66AC(1) (added by Schedule 9 to the Bill).
Baroness Levitt
Member’s explanatory statement
My amendments to Schedule 9 paragraph 18 amend section 177DA of the Armed Forces Act to add the provision the Bill currently inserts as section 177DZA. They also provide for images of breastfeeding recorded in circumstances which constitute an offence under section 67A(2B) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to be subject to deprivation orders.
Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(6 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which govern the composition of and eligibility criteria for the board of commissioners of the Judicial Appointments Commission, to which I shall refer as the JAC for brevity.
As your Lordships will be aware, the JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers. It is governed by an independent board of commissioners, appointed by His Majesty the King, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
One of the board of commissioners’ primary objectives is to ensure that the JAC fulfils its statutory responsibilities and obligations. These include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit through fair and open competition and having regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies and make final selection recommendations to the appointing authority.
The current regulations set out the structure of the JAC’s board, specifying that there should be 15 commissioners, including a lay—i.e. non-judicial—chair. Of the other 14, seven must be judicial officeholder members, five must be lay members and two must be professional members—that is, people practising or employed as lawyers.
One of the purposes of these regulations is to expand the number of professional members from two to three, which will then expand the overall number of commissioners. Each of the professional commissioners must come from one of the three categories of legal professional; they must be either a barrister or a solicitor or a fellow of CILEX, which is the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. At the moment, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner, but there is no CILEX commissioner. Apart from the three senior judicial members, the other 12 commissioners are recruited and appointed through open competition.
The regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment in two ways. First, the total number of JAC commissioners will be increased from 15 to 16, which is needed because of the anticipated increase in the volume of work. This will be done by increasing the number of professional commissioners from two to three. The requirement that they be from different professions will remain, so the effect will be that all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board.
The reason this matters is that CILEX membership is generally more diverse than the other legal professions. Some 78% of CILEX fellows are women, and because CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members tend to be from more varied socioeconomic backgrounds. This amendment will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments by providing for a commissioner to lead on outreach in this field.
Secondly, there is, at present, an anomaly in the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner role. These regulations will expand the eligibility criteria by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers. Currently, only Upper Tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the First-tier Tribunal, chamber presidents of the Upper Tribunal and presidents of employment tribunals for England, Wales and Scotland are eligible.
The effect is that it is not open to all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure. In order to remedy this, the amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the Upper Tribunal, certain judges of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, deputy chamber presidents of the First-tier Tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the Upper Tribunal. This ensures equality of opportunity for those holding broadly equivalent roles, and it is a change that has been requested by the Senior President of Tribunals.
The extent of this instrument is UK-wide, and the territorial application of this instrument is UK-wide. The Lady Chief Justice and the JAC chair on behalf of the board, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland have all been consulted and are all supportive of these changes.
As far as public consultation is concerned, although there was a public consultation exercise for the 2013 regulations, it has not been considered necessary to conduct a further such exercise for these amendments given their limited effect. The amendments are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provide greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I hope not to detain the Committee for very long. I declare my interest as a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales—a professional qualification that fills me with considerable pride even now, after many years of practice. In mixed company, where no one is aware of my political or administrative responsibilities over the years, I always indicate my function, when I am asked, as being a lawyer, not a politician, because that is the priority I place on that profession.
In no way do I wish to criticise these arrangements—indeed, I think that they are very sensible—but I want to point out a little of the history here and a bit about what I think may be a misunderstanding in the composition, particularly in relation to the three professional members that we will be discussing. Before the 19th century in this country, the provision of legal services was an amorphous, muddled arrangement that caused considerable difficulties; I will not refer to Shakespeare’s view on lawyers because plenty of people since Shakespeare have had a similarly negative view.
By the time we reached the 19th century, we had ended up with a clear division between barristers and solicitors. Although many countries went down that path and went on to merge those two sides of the legal profession into attorneys or some other single name, we retained that until the Legal Services Act 2007, so who a lawyer is has probably always been, in most people’s minds, a solicitor or a barrister.
We were then joined by legal executives: fellows of CILEX. I must pay tribute to the people who had previously been described as managing clerks, in terms of their functions in offices—they were people doing enormously important jobs—because all of my knowledge of property law was given to me by the managing clerk of the firm to which I was originally articled and in which I became an assistant. I pay massive tribute to their ability and knowledge.
Originally, though, however well-equipped they were, they were not lawyers. The 2007 Act came in and redefined “lawyers”—a word that is spread around. I know that my noble friend has talked about legal practitioners; again, they are slightly different from lawyers, in my opinion. We had lawyers being redefined in 2007 as solicitors, barristers, legal executives—fellows of CILEX—and licensed conveyancers. I have to say that the word has taken on a rather broad description, frankly. A lot of solicitors now have difficulty in dealing with licensed conveyancers whose licences appear to have been granted by bodies that most solicitors have never heard of. Trademark agents, patent agents and law costs draftsmen are lawyers under the Legal Services Act 2007.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that commissioners should be
“persons practising or employed as lawyers”.
This Motion has been defined by the Minister as simply being moved so that fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives are eligible to be the third lawyer. However, if you then describe lawyers more broadly in this document without defining them in the context of, specifically, fellows of CILEX—or you do not include all those defined as lawyers under the Legal Services Act 2007—it is rather confusing because, if you say “lawyers” and maintain that description, there is no reason whatever why a law costs draftsman should not be appointed, thus maintaining the diversity that the Minister rightly suggests should be brought to bear in the commission. I think that that is confusing.
I know that these documents are mostly looked at only by other lawyers, as are the constitutions of the commission. But looked at from a public point of view, or if there is an argument or a discussion, clarification of this really is necessary. The Minister made it clear and I am perfectly happy with that, but it is wrong to generalise the term “lawyers” unless you define it within the terms of eligibility in that long list I have just given of people who are now claimed to be lawyers—much to my surprise, I have to say.
I am not looking at this narrowly; I am old-fashioned and have been around so long that, as I said at the start, I always thought that lawyers were either solicitors or barristers. I did not know about this longer list because of my ignorance in not actually having looked at the 2007 Act, which I have now read. I would be grateful if the Minister would reflect on that and perhaps make it clear—it has to be made clear somewhere—that merely being a lawyer, which is argued to be necessary in having the three representatives, is not broad at all but is actually confined to that one strand of lawyers under the 2007 definition, which is to be a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, declared an interest as a solicitor. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I should declare our interests as barristers in that case. I am not sure that it is an interest; it is more an interesting fact that everybody should know about. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for his interesting historical trip down memory lane about how lawyers used to be categorised. I am old enough to remember when there was talk of giving members of his profession rights of audience in the upper courts. There was the most terrible outcry from our branch of the profession—one that most of us would now think was misguided.
I utterly understand that the noble Lord is not making any criticism of CILEX fellows or suggesting that there is any hierarchy of desirability of lawyers but merely making the point that the drafting is perhaps not clear enough. Has the noble Lord looked at the Explanatory Note? That makes it clear that there will be three commissioners
“who are persons practising or employed as lawyers”,
one of whom must be a barrister in England and Wales, one a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales and one a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. The Explanatory Note, taken together with the regulations, makes it clear that there are only three categories of lawyer. The concern that the noble Lord raised about it not being clear enough has not been raised by any of the consultees. I hope that the Explanatory Note is sufficient to allay his concerns. If not, he can write to me, and we will consider the matter further, but certainly for my purposes I am content that it makes the position entirely clear.
Turning to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the structure of the Judicial Appointments Commission and His Majesty’s Opposition’s proposal for a judicial vetting committee sitting within the Ministry of Justice, were any such body to be created, the very first accusation would be of political interference in the judicial appointments process. It would be difficult to avoid that perception, even if it was not correct, if politicians were ultimately deciding who should be appointed and who should not. I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is older than I am. I am sure that he is younger than me—he looks younger than me and possibly feels it. However, even I am old enough to remember when judges were appointed by the touch on the shoulder. The reason the Judicial Appointments Commission exists is to have as much transparency in the process as it is possible to obtain. For that reason, this Government have no proposals and no plans to introduce a body within the Ministry of Justice such as he suggests.
He raised three other points. First, on expanding eligibility, the answer to that is no. Secondly, on whether there is a further review, the answer is also no. Thirdly, on whether it will create extra delays, the raising of the number of commissioners is designed to speed up the process. We are trying to do this anticipating the increase that is going to come. The noble Lord’s further point echoed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I hope that I have answered that.
I thank both noble Lords for their constructive approach. These powers are an important tool to support diversity in the appointment of our judges and ensure that the JAC can deal with an increased volume of work.
Criminal Court Reform
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on criminal court reform.
As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently standing at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.
Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.
We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to
‘deny or delay right or justice’.
When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown Courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.
Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change.
First, I will create new ‘swift courts’ within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges will provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hard-wire transparency into our new approach.
Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common-law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates’ courts so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.
Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.
Conservative Members talk about the Crown Court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising case load. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.
I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.
We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.
Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, at the heart of this Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The Government intend first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable-only offences or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less and, secondly, doing away with the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial altogether.
On the first, a radical restriction of jury trials, do the Government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make-up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise. Importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only, would not all but the most serious cases of dishonesty be triable by judge alone?
Do the Government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Is that not a fundamental mistake? Let us take the Horizon scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence—three and a quarter years—only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins. Most sentences were between six and 18 months, yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to a breakdown or suicide. Those defendants would have no right to a jury trial.
What about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career, income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting, and who wants the defence of honest mistake or absent-mindedness determined by a jury? What about the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure, who will never work with children again if convicted but who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity?
The proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of the sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants gaming the system. In the Statement, the word “gaming” is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor’s thinking? That is an absurd preconception. Do not many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers, with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer. They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary, one from another, in their prejudices and judgment. Does the Minister not agree? The public trust juries, and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals.
How are judges or magistrates to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started or any evidence been heard? Does the Minister believe that that would be either possible or fair? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? Should not these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that.
Jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years. Lord Devlin described it as
“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
The Statement mentions Magna Carta and it prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta does not do that. King John was not asked to take his pick between Article 39 on jury trials and Article 40 on justice delayed or denied—the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice, and we should do that now.
Will the Government not take further steps to reduce delays? Steps should and could be taken, including having many more court sitting days, repairing the courts, having more efficient listing, and using more and smarter technology. Do the Government really insist that the delays could not be cut over time with greater investment? Possibly in some long, technical fraud trials—where the points taken are genuinely not jury points, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when—the mode of trial might be changed. More generally, do the Government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because they admit defeat on cutting delays?
I have a final but entirely unrelated question on the Statement. The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent on victim support services over three years, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the Minister give us more detail, either now or in writing later?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they made on these reforms. I have a great deal of respect for the insight that both bring and their observations about the Statement.
I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Many people may think that it a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them due to the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many years. Victims are now reaping what the party opposite sowed. We on these Benches have to try to put this right.
Many matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all in my short response now. However, there are answers to almost all of them. For example, he asked how we estimate the likely sentence. That it is done using the sentencing guidelines. It is done all the time at the moment; magistrates do it day in, day out in the magistrates’ courts, when they decide where someone should be tried. It is a task that can be undertaken.
One of the things I want to say from the Dispatch Box is that I have changed my mind. I have been a criminal barrister for many decades. When I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trials was fundamentally wrong. However, I then became a judge in the Crown Court and saw what was actually happening. Every judge in the Crown Court up and down this country will have experienced sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, “I cannot believe that this case I am trying here and now is actually in the Crown Court. It shouldn’t be here”.
We are not sacrificing jury trials—of course we are not. It has never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury; 90% are currently tried in the magistrates’ courts. The question is, where do we draw the line? That is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review, and we will accept his conclusions. It would be frankly irresponsible not to do so; we cannot ignore what he is saying. We are not going far further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, implied; we are doing exactly what Sir Brian suggested: having a Crown Court Bench Division to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.
This is a package to deal with the problems we face with the criminal justice system; it is not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is about investment: record investment is being made in the criminal justice system in sitting days and legal aid payments to the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors, whose fees went down for ages. The second is about structural reform, which is what we are discussing now; that includes the removal of the right to elect, the reform of appeals in the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court Bench Division and some reforms to fraud trials. The third is about efficiency, and that is what Sir Brian is considering in the second part of his report.
Gaming the system is a real problem. I am afraid that there are rumours out there that some people are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police. Some of those people know that the delays are such in the Crown Court that, if they elect trial by jury and decide to sit around and wait, particularly if they are on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but at least two or maybe three. They will probably be tagged, and when they come back to the Crown Court when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then. That means that the time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served. I have seen that, and that is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard—possibly dropping out—meaning that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people’s real lives. If tradition is going to survive, it has to adapt.
Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. It makes sense—of course it does—because you do not have to swear in a jury; such things take time.
Governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day and to deliver for the public and the most vulnerable. This means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.
One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that trials have become more complicated. There is good news: the police are arresting more people, and more of them are coming through the courts. That is what we want to see. But things such as advances in science, such as DNA, advances in techniques, such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, and social media make proving a case, and, indeed, defending a case, much more complicated than it was. That is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place.
For the courts, there is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that would not require the system to deal with some change. The delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation. We are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. That is why we are not intending to impose a sunset clause here. These are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody is quite sure what is happening. These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, would she kindly answer the question: is it intended that these proposals will be retrospective? If not, how on earth are they going to impact upon the present backlog?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
At present, there are no plans to make them retrospective, but that is why it is going to take time. That is why it will take time to work its way through. But if we do not do this, not only would we not be tackling the current backlog, we would be letting it grow. That is why it cannot continue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.
Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to confront a really difficult issue. The status quo is quite unacceptable. I would rather hope that this House and Parliament in general could treat this on a non-party-political basis. There are a lot of reasons why there were delays; some of them were due to Covid, which is a non-party-political issue. But I have long thought that fraud trials, for example, are very often wholly unsuitable for juries. I am glad that the Government acknowledge that.
As to the question of judges and reasons, I have just two questions I would like to ask the Minister. I would have thought that judges, when they do determine these things, might well give reasons. That would be consistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There would be a considerable advantage to potential appellants, because they would know the reasons why they had been convicted; whereas at the moment, with jury verdicts, you have the board verdict of guilty or not guilty. You do not know whether they have taken into consideration relevant consideration or irrelevant considerations.
My other question is this. The Statement reads:
“Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases”.
Standing back, does it occur to the House and, indeed, to the Minister that it is slightly odd that the 90% or so of the trivial offences are tried by those with professional experience, and yet we give the most serious cases to 12 conscientious but random people taken off the street?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his observations. As far as reasons are concerned, yes, absolutely: judges sitting alone will give reasons. Not only is it useful for appellants to know why but it can be useful for witnesses as well.
One often hears victims who have been through the system say that if the case results in an acquittal, that is bad enough, but not knowing why the defendant was acquitted is really hard for them. Transparency is important in the criminal justice system, as it is in all systems. That is one of the reasons why we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record. All proceedings in the magistrates’ court will be tape-recorded, and we are going to use artificial intelligence to provide transcripts so that people can get transcripts of what has happened much more often and can follow and read at their leisure.
As far as the point about serious cases is concerned, I have been very careful not to talk about seriousness but to talk about length of sentence. Every case is serious to those involved in it, particularly to the victims, and it would be wrong to downplay that. It is also important to note that the magistrates’ court consists of not just lay justices—justice by your peers—but professional magistrates, known as district judges these days. It is a combination who deal with these matters.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of the day, are not random and conscientious people taken off the street the best safeguards of our civil liberties against an overmighty and oppressive state? If any one of us here were to be charged with a criminal offence, would we not rather put our trust and confidence in a jury rather than in a state appointee? Are not juries the best way of linking ordinary people to our criminal justice system?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My noble friend might have a point if it were not for the fact that 90% of cases are currently being dealt with in the magistrates’ court. They are not dealt with by juries.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
They are not all dealt with by lay people at all; they are dealt with by district judges as well. They are state appointees. They used to be known as stipendiary magistrates—my noble friend knows this perfectly well; he has practised in those courts. Stipendiary magistrates have a part to play and so do lay people. The important thing is that they have to give reasoned rulings. We have to have a system that is proportionate and fair and deals with everybody’s interests, not just those of a few.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows on very clearly from that of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. I declare an interest, since a number of my friends and colleagues have been acquitted by juries of charges against them relating to actions of political protest. My question focuses on democracy. Does the Minister agree that juries are not just part of our legal system but important defenders of our right to protest, something our democracy is built around? Given the repressive anti-protest legislation passed in recent years under the previous Government, which it appears this Government have no intention of repealing, are these plans not a serious threat to our democracy as well as our legal rights?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will repeat what I have already said. Over 90% of criminal trials are already heard in magistrates’ court, which does deal with some protest cases without a jury. It is likely that many protest-related offences are dealt with there. The important thing is that no one group of defendants is more important than any other. Everyone is equal before the law. We cannot have a carve-out for a particular group of offences or a particular group of people. We have confidence in a professional judiciary, highly trained in things such as diversity. They will do a good job.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the Justice Secretary repeatedly emphasised the lengthy waiting times in bringing cases to court. I am not a lawyer—I am one of the non-lawyers in the Chamber today—but I was disappointed that the Statement did not acknowledge the difficulties that had been brought about by the Covid lockdowns, across two or three years, which should be acknowledged. Notwithstanding that, the Minister pointed out that all the evidence, including from social media, that now has to be collected for any trial these days takes an inordinate amount of time to collate. Nevertheless, when it comes to unnecessarily lengthy waiting times, this is pure hypocrisy, given that the same Justice Secretary supports bringing to court former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland 50 years ago. In addition, the Government have certainly managed to find time recently to bring to court, pretty quickly, people who had maybe put not very nice posts on social media. Neither the public nor, I think, many in the judiciary support the steps that the Government wish to take—certainly from what I have heard. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider this ill-judged proposal and defer bringing it forward.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her observations, which echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said. I did my best to try to keep this non-partisan as far as possible until provoked into it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. It is true that Covid had an effect on the backlog, but that is not the only element; a lot of it is due to the cuts in the criminal justice system. For example, one of the questions that I am sure somebody will ask me at some point is why we simply do not open up all the unused courtrooms. The reason is that a court is much more than just a room. It is staffed by a lot of people, which includes the barristers and the solicitors, and we do not have enough criminal barristers any more because of the cuts to legal aid—about which the party opposite was warned at the time they made them. That is why we are going to increase funding for legal aid and the match funding for pupillages to try to grow back up that venerable body of practitioners. I will not comment on individual cases or categories of cases; this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I welcome almost everything in it. I wanted to raise one point which I am less happy about. Brian Leveson recommended for the Crown Court Bench Division that it should be a judge and two magistrates but the Statement said it would be a judge sitting alone. Brian Leveson in his review was very clear why he thought magistrates should be involved in the Crown Court Bench Division. First, it retains an element of community involvement and the judgment of one’s peers, by the lay magistrates sitting with the judge, and one could argue that three heads are better than one. Secondly, there is greater diversity within the magistrate cohort than there is within the judge cohort, so that would go some way to creating diversity within the three people sitting making those judgments. The third point which Brian Leveson made was on the safety of the judge sitting alone. It is safer if there are three people making that decision, because there is not a single identified decision-maker. Since we are all concerned about the safety of judges, that was a factor in keeping the decision-making for three individuals in the new Crown Court Bench Division. Will my noble friend keep an open mind about adopting the recommendations of Sir Leveson?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank my noble friend very much for the question he raises. It is an important point and I am sure the rest of your Lordships’ House will want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I am now, as well as for his long service as a magistrate. He speaks from great experience.
There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first, as my noble friend will know, is that we do not have enough to staff that at the moment. We have enough justices to run the magistrates’ court and make sure that we do not then end up with a lot of backlogs there. We are running a recruitment programme and hope to recruit 2,000 more, but, at present, we do not have sufficient numbers. The second reason is about speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates’ court always sits with two lay justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. For those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation of Sir Brian—and they are principled reasons.
As for the perfectly proper point about diversity, the judiciary is becoming more diverse. It is not where we want it to be but it is getting there. What it does have is extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on particular sectors of the population. We do not really know what juries think about this because they do not have that kind of training, but we are satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what is proposed.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as a former criminal barrister, albeit nothing like as successful as the noble Baroness was, I put on record my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and for the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. The Minister talked about the Government going ahead with “heavy investment” in courts and legal aid, and I certainly support both those initiatives. The Minister in the Commons said that to bring down court case backlogs:
“We need investment, structural reform and modernisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/25; col. 20.]
However, has the noble Baroness seen the OBR report which states that after last week’s Budget, the MoJ’s capital budget is going to be cut by 3% per annum in real terms? Was she aware of that, and, in spite of that cut, can she confirm that this investment will still go ahead?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare that my daughter is a recorder. Very many people have put to me a lot of points, and there is just one that makes me want to ask my noble friend a question. I should say that all absolutely recognise the primacy of dealing with the backlog and that there is a clear case for complex, time-consuming fraud cases to go to the judge alone, and for low-level offences to go to magistrates alone. Indeed, I remember from my time as a magistrate that it was in that area where a certain amount—not a huge amount, but some—of gaming of the system went on. My noble friend has outlined a lot of measures which will improve courts, which is one of the problems; I would have hoped that that would solve the problem of the backlog, but clearly the Government think not. Because of the representations I have had, could my noble friend say what consultation there has been on these proposals with judges and with the criminal Bar?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend that the consultation has been extensive. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with us or that all of them agree with us, although I observe—I say this as a practising criminal barrister myself—that it is a profession known for its caution; it is not always, shall we say, ready to adopt new ideas in particular ways. I am confident that once this system has had an opportunity to bed in, everyone will see the advantages.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. If the Government are serious about wanting to reduce delays and backlogs in the Crown Courts, they should stop creating so many new criminal offences. In the Crime and Policing Bill alone, there are 65 new criminal offences. At the Free Speech Union, we have analysed Ministry of Justice data from 2017 to 2025, comparing the acquittal rates for those charged with speech crimes in jury trials with those for non-jury trials. The results are quite startling. For all offences, Crown Courts have acquitted 21.6% of defendants in the last eight years, compared with just 11.4% in magistrates’ courts. However, for speech-related offences, the acquittal rate in jury trials rises to 27.6%, compared with 15.9% in the magistrates’ courts. In the last three years, juries have been even more likely to find defendants not guilty of speech crimes—32.1%, compared with 14.1%. To protect free speech, will the Minister urge the Justice Secretary to retain the right to trial by jury for those accused of speech offences?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his work in relation to freedom of speech, which is important to all of us. However, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are not having carve-outs for particular kinds of offences or defendants. It would create a raft of unfairness and make the system so complicated that it would not be possible to run it.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, a question was asked about three months ago, and my suggestion was that, to meet the delays, the Government might encourage recently retired judges to help out. The Church of England could not do its ministry, particularly in rural areas, if retired clergy were not doing the work. It is quite possible to persuade some judges; whether or not they could come back immediately, it would ease the work. I tried a lot of cases alone and found it a very lonesome experience. I came to this country and thought that trial by jury was one of its greatest gifts to fairness and justice. Reduce it with great sensitivity so that it does not look as though it does not work.
Topol in “Fiddler on the Roof” has been shouting in my ears: “Tradition! Tradition!” Do not change tradition too quickly, because we may live to regret it.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is why we are adapting it and have done so after great thought, and it is why it is not a wholesale attack on the jury system. I can see entirely why the noble and right reverend Lord makes the point about asking judges to come out of retirement, but the point that Sir Brian has made is that investing in things such as the number of sitting days, which we already have done—we are sitting a record number of days—is not going to solve the problem alone. Structural reform is needed to make the system fit for the 21st century.
Child Grooming Victims: Compensation Awards
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure compensation awards to victims of child grooming scandals are made in a timely way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, there are three routes by which victims of child grooming may be awarded compensation. First, following a criminal conviction, a court can order compensation to be paid to the victim, but the criminal courts cannot embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage. Secondly, victims can bring an action for damages for personal injury in the civil courts; the Government are abolishing the three-year limitation period so that it no longer operates as a barrier to compensation for such victims. Thirdly and finally, victims can apply to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. These awards are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the majority are decided within 12 months.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and for our earlier meeting, but might I request a further meeting? These young ladies, who may not all have the strength of Madame Pelicot, will still be living in a highly corrupted community in terms of the activities that were perpetrated upon them earlier. Some of them may not be relevant for an award; none the less, the entire community does not seem to be honouring British law with regard to respect for women, young women and children. Would the Minister be willing to have a meeting, to discuss not the award but the wider implications which perhaps we might manage to do something to help?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to speak to the noble Baroness, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Government set up a unit to start assessing the numbers of the victims of the grooming gangs, and in particular their distribution and their personal situation, and then start learning from the problems of the previous schemes, such as the Post Office Horizon and infected blood schemes, so that when the inquiry is complete, the victims do not have to wait years for their compensation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows, it is a top priority for the Government to appoint the chair of the national inquiry as quickly as possible, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for supporting these efforts. Once the chair is in place, the terms of reference for the inquiry will be settled, and we will take it from there.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, we discussed criminal exploitation of children last night. I know from my experience that a young woman was denied any compensation because of the way the trial was conducted. She was in the position where, when the third barrister had been appointed by the defendant, she was told that she had to go through her third cross-examination. She went out that night and did things she should not have: she got drunk, and maybe had other substances—I do not know—and ended up in the police station overnight, and then any compensation was denied her. We are in the position that because these young women are extremely vulnerable, the way we operate our court system retraumatises them in many ways. I hope that the Government, in thinking about the compensation, take these issues into account.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a number of points in that question. Many of those will be for the national inquiry to deal with, so I will simply deal very quickly with the question of convictions and their effect on compensation. It is right to say that it is a condition of applying to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that the applicant does not have unspent criminal convictions. The difficulty with waiving that for one group is that it undermines the universality of the system. We are very anxious not to create a hierarchy of victims where some are seen as more worthy of belief or compensation than others, and we will do everything we can to avoid that.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it has been widely reported that four victims of the grooming scandal have resigned from the liaison panel of the national grooming gangs inquiry, describing a “toxic, fearful environment” and accusing the process of being manipulated away from the central issue of the grooming gangs. Will the Minister commit to publishing a proper timeline, including a fixed timescale for the appointment of a chair, and a clear start date for this important inquiry?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Government were extremely saddened by the resignation of those victims, and they are always welcome to rejoin and re-engage with the process—we very much hope that they will. The process of appointing the chair is well under way. As I have already said, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is assisting with this. It would not be helpful to give a running commentary on what is happening, but it is important to the Government to get on with this.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned three possible avenues for compensation. I think she would accept that the largest award is likely to be if there is a civil claim, rather than the other two avenues. Can she help the House with who the potential defendants in such a claim might be? I am not asking for her legal advice but for some general guidance if this is to be a realistic remedy.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Of course, we are speaking generically about victims of grooming, but they may fall into a number of different categories. There are the grooming gangs, about which a great deal has been heard, but there are also, for example, victims of online grooming. So I cannot really give an answer as to who the potential defendant is going to be that will actually deal with all the victims. That is a case-by-case decision to be made.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
Have the Government consulted the Independent Public Advocate about the new inquiry? As the system threatens yet again to overwhelm the voices of victims and survivors, would not her guidance and support for this group be really valuable in this instance?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I recognise, of course, her ongoing interest in the Independent Public Advocate, which is very welcome. I do not know the answer, so I shall write to her.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the wording of her Question, which for once does not put the word “Pakistani” in front of “child grooming scandals”? Does the Minister agree that the problem is to be laid at the door not of our Pakistani men but, very largely, of our Muslim men and that, therefore, the problem is religious, not ethnic?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am afraid I am absolutely not going to agree with that. It is going to be a matter for the new national inquiry, and I am not going to pre-empt that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsey did not necessarily ask about the terms of reference of the inquiry; she asked about the mechanisms of the payments of the compensation scheme. Have the Government learned from what has happened in the infected blood and Post Office Horizon schemes, and are they now working on the mechanisms of the compensation scheme so that fast payment will flow once the public inquiry has reached its conclusions?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty with that question is that it presupposes the existence of a compensation scheme for these victims. There is no such compensation scheme in existence. Whether or not that is something that is recommended by the national inquiry, we will wait to see. As I have already said, there are a number of different categories of victims in these cases, and not all the same conditions apply to all of them. But I take the point that if there were to be a compensation scheme, it would be important that it paid out quickly.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Given the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, surely a very specific compensation scheme would deal with those issues. I suggest to the Minister that she looks at the scheme that we set up in Northern Ireland to deal with institutional child abuse. The way in which that scheme worked meant that it was very quickly operated and that victims were able to access it. It is something that the national inquiry could very much benefit from looking at.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. Obviously, that is something that will be very useful to look into once the inquiry is set up.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the perpetrators of these crimes are men from all backgrounds, but many of them are not from upstanding backgrounds in the sense that some are involved in criminal activities such as drug dealing. So what action are His Majesty’s Government wanting to take against those convicted, looking at the Proceeds of Crime Act? These people were able to groom some of these young ladies—women—and girls because they had flash cars, et cetera. How do we ensure that those monsters have all the criminal assets from their ill-gotten gains taken away from them after conviction?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is a very good point. Every judge at the end of a criminal trial has the ability to make a confiscation order, and these are being pursued with rigour because it is really important to ensure that criminals do not profit from that kind of illicit activity.
Hillsborough Law
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it would be customary to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, but I am sure he will agree with me when I say that I should open my reply on behalf of His Majesty’s Government by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wills that the victims and the bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as this Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.
I hope that all noble Lords will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for the Hillsborough victims and their families and those of the other disasters—which, for reasons of time, I will not name individually, but many of which have been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. The Bill is more than just that; it determines what kind of society we are and want to be. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of the rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals?
At this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not just for securing this debate but for his tireless work to see justice done for the Hillsborough families. In his powerful and moving opening remarks, the noble Lord referred to wanting to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. I suggest nothing speaks more powerfully to this Government’s commitment to this than the fact that not only did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister make a personal promise that he would bring forward a Hillsborough law but he delivered the opening speech himself at the Second Reading debate in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said some kind words about me and my life in the law, for which I thank him. I can honestly say that my proudest moments as a lawyer, and latterly as a judge, have been when I have been able to make a decision which puts the individual citizen’s rights first. It is my profound wish to continue to do so.
I shall do my best to respond to all points made by noble Lords, but if time does not permit today, I will write to those I was unable to answer here.
Perhaps I may also say a few words of thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for the important role he has played in bringing us to where we are today. He and I tried to meet before today’s debate, but time pressures did not allow it. I have already made arrangements to meet him as soon as possible after this debate. I would be delighted to meet other noble Lords, if they wish to do so, before Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. We need to get this right.
I now turn to matters raised by noble Lords: first, and perhaps most obviously, the duty of candour, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Wills, among others. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton when he said that it is not just about the duty of candour. All the elements of the Bill are intended to work together as a catalyst for change. Reflecting on the experiences of local government, we intend to bring forward an amendment in the other place to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, capturing the local grooming gang inquiries and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack.
I reassure noble Lords that although this duty focuses primarily on the public sector, some private bodies will be captured. Private bodies which deliver public functions, have a relevant health and safety responsibility or are relevant public sector contractors will be subject to the duty. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton raised an important point about the scope of it. Financial consequences really matter too, and it will cover, for example, the Horizon inquiry or events similar to that.
My noble friend Lord Wills brought up the discrepancy between the maximum sentence available for breach of the duty of candour and for substantive offences such as gross negligence manslaughter, and whether that might have the unintended consequence of creating a perverse incentive to cover up rather than to be frank. It is an interesting point, on which I will reflect and about which I would welcome a discussion with my noble friend.
Whistleblowing was raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The new mandatory ethical codes of conduct must set out a process through which employees can raise concerns internally and to ensure that whistleblowing procedures are clear and accessible. Noble Lords will almost certainly think that that does not go far enough. This matter can be discussed during the passage of the Bill. At present, the Government believe that any significant reform to whistleblowing needs to be considered as part of a broader assessment of the framework, but we are happy to discuss this matter.
Legal aid, support at inquests and parity were raised by many noble Lords. Under the Bill, people bereaved as a result of a public tragedy will never again have to face the inquest process unsupported or the grotesque spectacle of having to raise money from friends and family to ensure that their voices are heard. It will be funded by the individual public authorities; in effect, the legal aid will be clawed back from the public authorities when they are an interested person.
My noble friend Lord Wills asked: why for only one member of a family? This is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate use of public funds. However, where there are exceptional circumstances, individuals can apply to the exceptional case funding scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. We intend for this to help foster proportionate participation and spending behaviours among interested public authorities, including in the use of their own legal representation at inquests.
We understand the concern about this allowing inquests to turn into a battle of the lawyers, not only enriching them—that offends many people—but extending the time taken. So we are requiring public authorities to use legal representation only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and we will crack down on any poor conduct by public authorities and their legal teams at inquests. We want to ensure that they are focused solely on supporting the fact-finding nature of investigations.
The Independent Public Advocate was at the forefront of my noble friend Lord Wills’s speech, but was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. As your Lordships’ House is aware, Cindy Butts has now started as the first Independent Public Advocate. She is an excellent appointment and has recently been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The Victims Minister met Ms Butts last week to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the nature and delivery of her role, and to better understand the experiences of victims. We are keeping an eye on this. The Government will update the House if we feel that there is further to go in these respects, and reports written by the Independent Public Advocate about her functions will be laid before Parliament as per the Victims and Prisoners Act.
The national oversight mechanism was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. We agree that, too often after inquiries have concluded, lessons are not learned—whatever anybody says—and mistakes are repeated. This Government have already taken steps to improve the transparency of government responses to inquiry recommendations through a new online database, and we are considering how we can improve scrutiny and accountability to ensure that inquiries lead to lasting change. This work will continue alongside the Bill.
Inquiries reform was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Public inquiries can effectively investigate serious concerns, address past injustices, give voices to victims and help to implement change, but they often last a very long time, meaning that victims, their families and the public are waiting too long for answers. Therefore, the Government have been exploring ways for public inquiries to deliver findings more quickly and in a way that facilitates public trust. It is a substantial piece of work, led by the Cabinet Office, that will aim to improve how we identify wrongs and get to the truth. This important policy work is in its early stages, but we will continue to keep Parliament updated.
I turn briefly to the application of the duty of candour to the security services, raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who has great experience in this area. We are grateful to him for saying that he thinks it is a workable model. We believe that we have got the balance right, but we will be interested in what is said during the passage of the Bill by others.
It may be the Government who are bringing forward the Hillsborough law, but the credit is not ours. That belongs to the campaigners who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of justice. We have worked closely with those campaigners to develop legislation, and we will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage. I look forward to meeting all victims, survivors and their families. I repeat: we are in listening mode and we are determined to get this right.
Trials: Timeliness
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the length of time between charging suspects and trials taking place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, as of June 2025, the average time from charge to the main hearing in the Crown Court, whether that is a guilty plea or a contested trial, for all Crown Court cases is 241 days. That is 14 fewer days than in the corresponding quarter last year, a drop of 5%, so there is some improvement, but overall the Crown Court backlog that the Government inherited continues to rise, which means that victims are waiting too long for justice. The Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms. We are carefully considering his report and will respond in due course.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but defence companies, the MoD and businesses they work with were attacked by Palestine Action almost 400 times before it was proscribed. This is an industry of huge strategic importance; it keeps our country safe and is helping to defend Ukraine. These attacks intimidate workers and put jobs at risk. Police have been injured. These cases were already straining the justice system. Trials are taking years to reach court. That creates a perception that serious offences go unpunished, and that could encourage more attacks. What can the Government do to speed things up in these cases?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving alleged criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation and violence. This Government unreservedly condemn any crimes of this kind. That said, as the noble Lord will understand, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases that are awaiting trial. In relation to when trials take place, in the same way that no Government can tell the Crown Prosecution Service which cases to prosecute, this Government do not tell courts which cases to prioritise when listing trials. These are decisions for independent judges to make, free from political pressure.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will remember from her time as a Crown Court judge that the time between a case first coming before a Crown Court and being listed for trial has got longer and longer. Now, perhaps in her old court, trials are being listed for 2028 and 2029. This is unacceptable for victims, for witnesses and even for the defendant. It requires some will and leadership to crack this. What are the Government intending to do about it? The 1,250 extra days promised to the system by the Lord Chancellor just the other day could be taken up by her old court alone in one year. Please let us have some action.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I could not agree more with the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord’s question. It is simply unacceptable, and behind every one of those statistics are human beings waiting for justice. Our immediate reactions are that we intend to fund a record high of 111,250 sitting days in the Crown Court, to free up an additional 2,000 days in the Crown Court by extending the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months, and to make some capital investment. But it is obvious to everybody that simply making efficiencies and putting financial help into the system will not deal with the problem. The backlog is now twice what it was before Covid, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at fundamental reforms of how the system works. We are considering those and will respond in due course.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we all accept that there is no magic bullet to reduce trial delays to acceptable levels, but does the noble Baroness agree that the most important factor is indeed the number of Crown Court sitting days? Unless prosecutions have to be abandoned—which does happen because of delays—all these cases need to be tried eventually, so there is no saving of resources by delaying trials. What steps do the Government have in mind specifically to increase the number of court sitting days much further and so to reduce these shameful court backlogs?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point, and once again I agree with his fundamental premise. The difficulty is that any court in the Crown Court is a complex system. It is not just a room or just a judge; it is also things such as numbers of court staff, advocates and prison cells available in that court system. Currently we are funding 111,250 sitting days, as I said, and the Lady Chief Justice has said the maximum available is 113,000. But that is just rooms and judges, not all the rest of the infrastructure. That is why we are looking at Sir Brian Leveson’s reforms and will respond in due course.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I accept the pretty appalling inheritance with which the Government have been dealing over the past year or so. Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, some—perhaps a small number—of these cases are related to terrorism offences. Considering the small number of those offences, and the way in which lengthy delays in terrorism-related cases could affect public confidence in the court system, is there some way that such cases could be expedited?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that, and I can understand why that seems like an obvious solution. But the separation of powers between the Government and the courts is one of the fundamental protections of any citizen. Therefore, putting pressure on judges to alter a judicial decision would be wrong and is something that this Government will not do. What I can say is that all judges—I know this because I was one—do not just take cases in the order in which they come into the system; they prioritise certain categories. For example, those with vulnerable victims and witnesses, particularly children, will always jump the queue. Where the Lady Chief Justice and her judges put these particular cases is a matter for them, and I am sure that she will look at them with the attention they deserve.
Lord Walney (CB)
I of course accept what the Minister says, but there can be a dialogue with the Government. We saw that last year in Southport, where the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister worked with the prosecution system to ensure that a message was getting through that crimes would have quick consequences to deter further action. Is there not a case for doing this with politically motivated crimes, such as Palestine Action and other politically motivated areas, where the lack of deterrence is increasing the prospect of the ringleaders being able to recruit more people into the net?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I can understand why it could be seen that the responses to the riots had been prioritised, but there are many reasons why those prosecutions took place very quickly. The first is that many of the cases were straightforward and could be dealt with in a magistrates’ court; the second is that, in relation to many of them, the evidence was very strong and people pleaded guilty; and the third is that the decisions involved were made by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the independent judiciary. The Government made sure that they had the resources if they needed them, but no pressure was put on them to decide how to do it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
Recent data from the Criminal Bar Association shows substantial regional variations in trial delays. What specific steps are being taken to reduce these geographic disparities in trial delays?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an interesting point. For example, the delays are much worse in central London than they are in Wales. There can be all kinds of reasons for that. I have already said that a trial, as the noble Lord knows, is a complicated factor. There are difficulties because you cannot just, for example, ship cases out to somewhere else; we cannot send a whole lot of London’s cases out to Cardiff because of the effect on victims, witnesses and defendants and the movement around of people within the prison estate. But it is important to look to see where lessons can be learned from other parts of the country and to see whether they are doing things that could be imported to other parts of the country so that we can do better there.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, the Minister has said a couple of times that the response to the Leveson recommendations will be delivered in due course. Can she possibly tell us what “in due course” looks like, because it has been quite a long time already?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is another good question, as one would expect. The right reverend Prelate would not expect me to give a precise date, and I cannot. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, to whom we are extremely grateful, are robust and far reaching. They will have a potentially radical effect on our justice system as we know it, and it is right that the Government take time to consider them and make sure that there are no unexpected effects on other parts of the system—for example, on the prison estate. If more people are sent to prison, can the prison estate cope with it? For that reason, impact assessments are being undertaken, and we will respond as soon as we are sure that what we are recommending will actually work.
Financial Provision on Divorce
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by joining all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate. The noble Baroness has, as other noble Lords have said, been unceasing in championing reform in this area, and I was very grateful to her for meeting me before the debate so that I could be sure I understood the issues she was going to raise. I also thank the Law Commission for the scoping report which has formed the basis for today’s debate, and indeed for its wider contribution to law reform.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords said, she and others have long campaigned for a change in the current law, because they are of the view that there is not enough certainty about it. The reasons are that it leaves too much to judicial discretion, and, because most of the principles are contained in case law, it is very difficult for couples to understand without consulting a lawyer. It was in this context that the previous Government asked the Law Commission to review financial remedies law, examining whether the current framework in England and Wales delivers fair and consistent results.
The report identifies not merely technical issues but matters that affect real families, often at times of great vulnerability and distress. Its conclusions go to the heart of the family justice system: namely, is the system fair, and can we and our fellow citizens have confidence in it? The Law Commission’s verdict is clear: the existing law lacks cohesion and fails to give parties the certainty they need. That is of course a troubling conclusion for any Government to absorb. I was particularly struck by its finding that the law can sometimes not only fail to resolve disputes but may even actively encourage continued conflict. That is a sobering conclusion and it underscores why this debate is timely.
As many noble Lords have made clear, because this was a scoping report, rather than setting out its conclusions, the Law Commission offered four possible models for reform. Each of these offers a different balance between judicial discretion and legal certainty. These have been described in the speeches of others, principally that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and I shall not rehearse them further.
This brings me to the Government’s plans. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections for those in cohabiting relationships. Today, over 3.5 million couples live together, more than double the number 30 years ago. One of the reasons why the Government are so concerned about this is that, when such relationships come to an end, women and children are often left without financial security. Many of them do not even realise that they are left financially insecure until it is too late. They do not realise it because there is a widespread myth that the law recognises common-law marriages. In fact, it does no such thing, and the children of such relationships are frequently left unprotected.
Earlier this year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby confirmed that we will be consulting on cohabitation reform. I repeat that commitment today, but I want to go further, because I have listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns about uncertainty and conflict in the current system of remedies on divorce. The Government share those concerns and are determined to look more at these issues and address them. I therefore confirm that our consultation will not only consider cohabitation reform but will also explore the challenges identified by the Law Commission in relation to the current law on financial provision on divorce.
I realise that this may disappoint many noble Lords. I particularly bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave such a charming and persuasive invitation to me to say exactly today what we are going to do, but I am afraid I am going to have to resist it. Some noble Lords may wonder why we have not simply asked the Law Commission to continue its impressive work, plumped for the one of the options, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested, and told the commission to get on with it. However, as has been made clear in this Chamber tonight by the speeches of noble Lords, many of whom have great expertise in this area, there is disagreement even among them as to which option we should be going for.
So the answer is that, when we consult on cohabitation reform, we have a real opportunity to examine the question of break-up and financial remedies in tandem; we are not going to do it piecemeal. Consulting on financial provision alongside cohabitation will bring consistency and fairness across marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, recognising that reforms in one area may have implications for the other.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt, but does the Minister not appreciate that marriage is a status but non-marriage is not a status, and that the time has come for the two to be looked at separately: divorce on the one hand and how you look after those in other relationships on the other? The Law Commission has done a lot of work and the ground has been laid. We can go down parallel paths, but they should not be linked and heard at the same time. I see everyone else in this Chamber nodding.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because our assessment is that looking at these matters piecemeal will run the risk of creating new disputes and injustices. In the end, it is about making sure principally that children are protected when the relationships from which they are born end up dissolving.
I assure the noble and learned Baroness—
Baroness Deech (CB)
Perhaps I might point out to the Minister that the consultation on cohabitation was carried out very thoroughly by the Law Commission. It did it some years ago and, as far as children go, you cannot protect them if the splitting couple—which is very often the case with cohabitants—have no money, and we are not enforcing child maintenance in this country. So do not do the work all over again—it has been done.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am afraid that I will disappoint the noble Baroness. This is a manifesto commitment, and it will happen. We will issue our consultation by spring next year.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. The one thing that the House has agreed on this evening is prenups. It would be very simple to introduce prenups, and it would not cause any difficulty for anything else. It would not stop the Government looking at cohabitation with divorce. Prenups is a special situation, and I have become convinced that they would be entirely sensible.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is very difficult to resist the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, but I am afraid that I will have to do so.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who is greatly admired and respected, not just because of her expertise and experience. The points she raised were supported across the House by almost all noble Lords. It is frustrating that the previous Government did not give a full response to the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendations on nuptial agreements. As we are working towards our consultation, we are carefully considering this issue. It will be taken into account, to ensure that we have a consistent framework, which will be designed mainly to put children at the centre of what happens when relationships break down.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. To what extent does a prenuptial agreement influence the protection of children? We cannot legislate in a prenup any rights in relation to them. It is open to the court—every single avenue is open to the judge. Someone simply cannot contract out.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. One of the issues that the Government need to consider when deciding what to do about nuptial agreements is whether—and, if so, how—such agreements provide certainty and fairness for both parties while protecting the interests of any children. That is why they will all be considered as part of one piece.
I turn briefly to the points made by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, raised a number of questions, including how conduct will be treated in financial remedy proceedings. I have listened carefully to the matters raised about that. The Law Commission examined it closely, and as we prepare for consultation, we will carefully consider what it has said. Challenging violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government and will be central to our consideration about the issue. On the matters he raised about religious courts, I will have to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, raised the issue of children. Very often, as I have already said, those are the children of cohabiting partners. We are concerned to ensure that children are prioritised at all points.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised many issues; the noble Lord, Lord Meston, agreed with some but not all of them. Again, I make the point that, even with the experience in this House, not everyone is agreed on the right way forward. The noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst, could not agree on the right way forward either, which is why we will consult.
The points raised in the debate go to the heart of fairness and certainty for thousands of families at a time of great personal difficulty. I therefore thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions; I have listened to them very carefully and they have given us a great deal of food for thought as we move towards the consultation.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 September be approved.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.