Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the speeches in this debate have been comprehensive and committed, so I have little to add to them. All noble Lords who have spoken have done so passionately and persuasively about ending this scandal. I use the word “scandal”—it has been rightly called a disgrace, a stain on our system, and many other things. The passion for justice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, shone through every sentence of his speech and has to oblige the Government to end this appalling injustice. We have been guilty, in a country dedicated, nominally at least, to ideals of justice, of the grossest of injustices in this case. It must end, and it must end now.

We have a chance to end it now, completely and for ever. We thought we had abolished IPPs in the LASPO Act when we stopped any new IPP sentences being passed. My noble friend Lord McNally, then Minister of State, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, Secretary of State at the time, believed that the power to reverse the burden of proof in that Act would be exercised, so that we would never have this long tail of IPP prisoners who have now served way beyond their tariffs.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, explained how unjust it was that IPP prisoners were treated unlike any other offenders. For those prisoners, we have abandoned any principle that the punishment should fit the crime, in favour of a system of preventive detention with a heavy burden placed throughout on prisoners to prove their fitness for release after their proper punishment—often very short punishment—has been completed. The principle of punishment fitting the crime has been ignored, as has been illuminated by nearly all the speeches today. That illumination has extended to the complete ineffectiveness of the action plan in the case of many IPP prisoners, however well-intentioned it was at the time. Those prisoners could end up, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, imprisoned for the rest of their lives if they fail to qualify for release under the action plan.

The sensible way to end this now is to accept one or more of the amendments before the Committee in order to ensure the early release of all remaining IPP prisoners and to end their risk of recall within a reasonable time span. I do not mind which amendment is adopted. I note that after his detailed and learned analysis, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was broadly content to endorse any of the solutions proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Moylan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and myself. I too am content with any of those solutions. The important thing is to persuade the Government now to accept one of them and finally to put an end to this injustice.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what is a profoundly serious and necessary debate, and to those who have tabled the amendments before us: the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Blunkett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble friend Lord Moylan. These amendments reflect a shared recognition across parties and across the Committee that the legacy of the IPP regime remains one of the most challenging unresolved issues within our criminal justice system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, observed, a “stain” on our justice system.

Under our system of criminal justice, we do not detain and imprison people because we perceive that they are probably or even certainly going to commit a crime at some indeterminate and uncertain point in the future. But that is essentially the basis upon which we detain IPP prisoners in custody after they have served the prison term of their original offence. It is, of course, worrying that many IPP prisoners may present a serious risk to the public if released. However, under the logic that flows through much of this very Bill, the Government must be prepared to advocate for society to accommodate such a risk by community supervision rather than endless detention.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, observed, the Justice Committee’s 2022 report described the IPP system as “irredeemably flawed”, and he seeks to give effect to its recommendation. Whether or not Members support that specific mechanism, it is beyond dispute that thousands of IPP prisoners remain trapped in a system never intended to endure, with outcomes that the state itself acknowledges are simply wrong.

My noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment raises another vital point: the ability for prisoners on extended licence to seek annual review after the qualifying period. Whatever one’s view of automatic termination on mandatory timelines, there is clear force in the principle that people must not be left without a meaningful hope or a clear route to progress.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke to his Amendments 116 and 117 on recall and automatic release. Again, many noble Lords will be uneasy that individuals can be recalled indefinitely for minor, technical breaches, long after tariff expiry. This, again, points to the need for clarity, confidence and, indeed, proportionality in the present system. It cannot be simply risk aversion that dictates outcomes.

The amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, supported by others, propose a future release mechanism whereby the Parole Board can set a specified release date, subject to compliance with directions. This recognises the reality described by countless practitioners that progression can become possible only if there is a clear destination and a structure to reach it. Amendment 130 then introduces a safeguard enabling the Secretary of State, if necessary, to seek variation to protect the public.

No one in this debate has suggested that risk can be ignored. Equally, nobody advocates arbitrary release of dangerous offenders. But every proposal brought to the Committee today has an element of public protection embedded in it. Where Members may differ is only on the most responsible and principled route to resolve a system that all agree has patently failed. The point is to choose not the easiest path but the right one. The public are entitled to a system that protects them, but then IPP prisoners and their families are entitled to justice and to fairness. The rule of law should produce finality—indeed, it must produce finality.

I thank noble Lords again for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. I look forward to continued constructive engagement as the Bill proceeds—and to the necessary outcome that justice demands, not just for IPP prisoners but for our collective conscience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments 111 to 113. When asked by the Deputy Chairman, I said that I did not wish to do so, but that was because I did not realise that we had jumped an amendment.

These three amendments concern recall for a fixed term. The first point is the question of whether recall should be for a maximum of 56 days rather than a fixed period of 56 days. As presently structured, recall to prison is to an automatic release date 56 days after the recall occurs. The purpose of my three amendments is both to make the 56-day period a maximum period, not a fixed period, and to make automatic release subject to the exclusion in those cases where it applies—and in that it has much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The process for determining the period will need to be fixed by regulations, but the intention is clear, and I am happy to discuss how substituting a flexible period for a fixed period might be implemented.

The fact is that recalls happen for a number of reasons, some of which may be relatively trivial breaches of conditions. I am concerned—as was my honourable friend Jess Brown-Fuller, the MP for Chichester, who moved similar amendments in the other place—about the effect of a blanket fixed period of recall irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the breach that brought about the recall, and believe it may be inappropriate.

It may be that 56 days or eight weeks, which is quite a long time, is far too long for a prisoner who faces recall for missing a probation appointment, for example. It would almost inevitably interfere with work where an offender had found work. It could interfere with housing and educational or rehabilitative programmes in the community. Community programmes are, I understand, typically held open for four weeks, so eight weeks would mean that they were closed. An eight-week recall might have a damaging effect on mental health treatments which a recently released prisoner was undertaking. Addiction programmes might be undesirably affected. A shorter recall might avoid that.

Furthermore, an unnecessarily long recall for a minor infringement of conditions would do nothing to reduce the prison capacity shortage as it continues, while a shorter recall would mitigate it. Other recalls may be much more serious. In such cases, 56 days may be too short a period. The 56-day automatic release provision in our Amendment 113 would take effect subject to the provision excluding automatic releases in serious cases, so that those who had committed more serious offences would not be automatically released at the 56-day point. That might be particularly appropriate if an offender who had been guilty of domestic abuse or stalking had been recalled for intimidating, harassing or stalking their victims. While they would presently be required to be released under the proposals as I understand them, our amendment would rectify this.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would make the cause of an offender’s recall a necessary consideration when determining whether the offender should be released at the end of the automatic release period. This is a prudent approach. We do not want people with a record of breaking probation conditions given the chance to do so again after just 56 days. We therefore support the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment.

Criminal Court Reform

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement from the other place. I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for his Statement on jury trial, although I wonder whether he understood many of its implications before delivering it to the press and then to Parliament. The Government’s troubling habit of engaging in legislation by leakage, of which their recent Budget is another precedent, should, however, not distract us from the content of this Statement.

In 2017, while leading the review of racial bias in the criminal justice system, the now Secretary of State for Justice declared that juries were the only stage of the criminal justice system without racial bias. In 2020, he declared:

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement”.


Now, the Secretary of State for Justice declares that, in order to preserve jury trials, he must abolish most jury trials. This has echoes of the logic of the lunatic asylum. Herod declares that to preserve the family unit, he must strike down the firstborn. Or, more recently, there was Gordon Brown’s decision to preserve Britain’s wealth by selling off half of our gold reserves at near the bottom of the market. That decision left the country poorer; this decision will leave the justice system weaker.

This is the Government dismantling the institutions they claim to defend, then insisting that destruction is somehow salvation. A judge sitting alone in a Crown Court trial will have to provide not just a verdict but reasons for the verdict. Does the Minister agree? Such reasoning is bound to be the subject of scrutiny and then potential appeal. If so, are the Government planning to abolish such a right of appeal on the merits of the decision? In that event, parties with no right of appeal may have recourse to judicial review. Or do the Government also plan to abolish the right to judicial review in such circumstances?

Just how deep do the Government plan to cut into the body of the justice system, and do they actually believe that our system of criminal justice can survive such radical surgery? The Secretary of State for Justice tells us that this radical surgery is required to deal with the enormous backlog of cases in the Crown Court, estimated at almost 80,000 cases. So will the Minister tell us whether this proposed legislation is going to be retrospective? That would be an unprecedented and unconscionable attack on an accused’s rights. If in an each-way case, for example, an accused has already decided upon trial by jury and is now preparing for and awaiting that jury trial, are the Government going to retrospectively remove that fundamental right? If so, can the Minister cite a precedent for such retrospective changes to our system of criminal law?

However, if these changes are not to be retrospective, then the tens of thousands of cases that the Secretary of State for Justice refers to as justification for this exceptional measure remain untouched. The backlog will not be cut. Victims and accused will be no closer to justice. In stripping away a centuries-old right, the Government will sacrifice principle but fail to fix the problem. To significantly dismantle the right to trial by jury and gain virtually no benefit is not just an exercise in incompetence but an act of constitutional vandalism. We are being reminded of a problem, but we are not being presented with a solution.

[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.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category—that is, prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events—may generally be too wide in any case, because it is going to be very difficult to define a “public event”.

Moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability but with enforcement, spoken to in the last group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, foresaw difficulties in determining practicability, which he thought might be fatal to these conditions. I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question for the Committee in considering whether these conditions ought to be permitted is to see how far they would in practice be imposed if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability.

I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points relating to community orders, if I can put it that way, and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is pretty easy to find out where the pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and intelligence-gathering techniques might be needed to address.

However, when I talk about justification, it is right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement. They are in part, therefore, punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, which is a far more serious punishment, and one that with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender having the opportunity to undertake any rehabilitative activity at all.

The other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring, as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer. Although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, monitoring by tagging is no different from monitoring by curfew or by a residence requirement, which we have had for a very great deal of time, but the new technology enables a more flexible and wider approach to conditions. However, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.

Amendment 106 in my name would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes, but those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restriction zone conditions.

The purpose of this amendment in each of its sub-clauses is to enable both the courts when imposing conditions and probation professionals to weigh in the balance, on the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition, against on the other the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It is a classic balancing exercise of a type that is undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity, and that is really what we are talking about here. The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of it is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So, the condition could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions, which will permit the desirable activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions, and of course I see that. But these conditions are not perfect, they will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. However, for the most part, in practice, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there, and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach.

Questions of affordability were raised, and of course more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions, but those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the Parole Board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I am not quite sure how that will work—it seems an onerous obligation on the Parole Board—but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones. In a general sense, that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges on how they are to be imposed, and by training of probation officers in how they are to be implemented.

On electronic monitoring, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke, if it is proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree with her points.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. In doing so, I am sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of the Committee about these provisions in the Bill.

It has already been made clear that we on these Benches do not in principle oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody, and we support that aim. But Clauses 14 and 15 do little more than say that courts now have these powers. The Government have provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced. A ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise and, indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence.

The Government want this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community-based orders. Yet to support them in this effort, they are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub, club, concert and public event bans, without explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan. Are we seriously proposing that every pub, bar, off-licence and concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? The result would be unacceptable. If such pub bans become unenforceable and are reduced to a tick-box exercise in sentencing documents while nothing on the ground actually changes, the sanction will become meaningless. That would not be an improvement in justice.

The burden that such a regime would place on the hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. Pubs and nightlife venues are already under severe financial and structural pressure, as we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association. As a consequence of the national insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed on these venues by the Government, some 209 pubs—an average of eight a week—have closed permanently and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, never mind unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court-imposed bans on individuals under threat of legal liability.

The Government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie on public events or drinking establishments, but, in that case, they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a Probation Service that, as everyone would accept, is already under severe strain. Simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough. We require specifics if we are to trust that the Government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community. If the Government cannot explain clearly how these bans will be notified, enforced or policed, how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these Benches must ask: on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders, if we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work and without the most basic detail on banning access to pubs or events?

The amendments offer a simple test. They would require the Government, before we hand out sweeping powers to courts, to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified: pubs, events, promoters, the police? What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishments? How will these bans be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring: the state, the Probation Service or venues? If the Government cannot provide that clarity, these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions. They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real-world effect, and that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and public safety.

The choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers; it is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community-based orders; they demand that, if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by a robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith. We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her Amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to another important question that is central to the debate on these orders. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to his Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, such as to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.

On the part of the amendment that requires an annual report on the orders’ use and effectiveness, we on these Benches support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that the provisions in the Bill are working or will work. We therefore fully support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important probing amendments.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, on Wednesday last week, the right honourable David Lammy, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, appeared at Prime Minister’s Questions to not answer questions about inadvertent prisoner release. The Speaker in the other place sought his recall. On Tuesday this week, the Secretary of State for Justice gave himself up and returned to the Parliamentary Estate, where—despite what was, no doubt, his officials’ careful preparation—he told Members in the other place that the previous Government had inadvertently released prisoners at the rate of 17 per month. This would have involved the release of 2,856 prisoners. The true figure, as recorded in the Ministry of Justice’s own official record, is 860, or about three each month—three too many, but a fraction of the number that the Secretary of State for Justice gave to his colleagues in the Commons. Can the Minister reassure this House that the most stringent measures will now be taken to prevent the inadvertent release of any further erroneous statistics by the Secretary of State for Justice, given the alarm that these are liable to engender in the general public?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the release in error of Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth and all other such accidental releases, which have been far too numerous, are symptomatic of a system woefully prone to error. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has seriously criticised the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to the House of Commons on 5 November. It may be that the Deputy Prime Minister made the wrong call in withholding more detail because he felt he did not have the full picture, and it may also be that there were errors in the detail of his response, but if he made a wrong call on that decision to give less detail, I accept that it was a difficult call and a call made in good faith. Of itself, it has had no consequences. The more important question is how and in what timescale we improve the system now.

We on these Benches applaud the appointment of Dame Lynne Owens to conduct a full review. Accidental releases and the systems for avoiding them are very important, not just of themselves but for the confidence of the public in our systems. The Statement says that Dame Lynne’s report will come at the end of February, three months from now. I have to say that we think that is a long time. Is there scope for an interim report? Within days of Mr Kebatu’s release, the MoJ took some urgent steps, set out in the Statement, to tighten up the system and introduce, for one measure, a more robust checklist. May we ask for a further action plan, pending Dame Lynne’s final report, from her and her team if possible?

We expect, as I think the Minister does, that much of the improvement required will involve the introduction of more robust digital procedures—initially, no doubt, alongside strengthened paper procedures. Will he give an undertaking that the implementation of those of Dame Lynne’s recommendations that the Government accept will be treated with the greatest urgency? Only in that way and with that urgency can the serious loss of public confidence in our prison security that flows from these accidental releases be recovered.

Independent Sentencing Review

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the measures announced by the Government on 22 May are presented under the guise of necessity, but they risk eroding public confidence in our criminal justice system. This country has always stood for a system of justice that is firm and fair and can be trusted by the public, yet some of the proposals fall short of that standard. If the Government are truly committed to ensuring that violent and repeat offenders are properly punished, it is entirely within their means to create the prison capacity required. Instead, we are asked to accept a series of deeply troubling changes on the grounds that there is no alternative.

What do these reforms entail? It is a reduction in time served, including a proposal for many offenders to spend merely a third of their sentence in custody. Let us consider just one example. A burglar sentenced to 18 months and entering a plea of guilty might serve just 11 weeks in prison. That is scarcely credible as a deterrent, let alone for a justice system. Such outcomes can only erode confidence in our penal system. And what is to replace custodial punishment? We have heard of an expanded use of electronic tagging. While we support the appropriate use of technology, let us be candid: electronic tags are not a substitute for custody.

As mentioned by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in the other place, the Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme showed that 71% of tagged individuals breached their curfew. Is that the kind of protection that we are offering a law-abiding public? Meanwhile, over 17,000 individuals are currently on remand awaiting trial, a number that is forecast to rise still further. In the light of this, will the Government now act on the Lady Chief Justice’s call for additional court sitting days so that these cases can be heard and justice delivered without undue delay?

What of capacity? Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. The Government’s prison capacity strategy mentions the construction of a mere 250 rapid deployment cells. That is hardly adequate. When Texas undertook similar reforms in the 1990s—the very model on which this plan is said to be based—it built more than 75,000 prison places.

The Government’s present approach to justice simply cannot inspire public confidence. We must ensure, and indeed the public expect, that the most prolific and dangerous offenders face the consequences of their actions, so I will press the Minister on several critical points. First, following the announcements made in the other place on 22 May, can he confirm without equivocation that violent sexual offenders and those who have committed crimes against children will be excluded from the early release schemes?

Secondly, given the review’s emphasis on reducing custodial sentences, what assurances can the Government provide that public confidence in the justice system, particularly among victims and their families, will not be undermined by these changes?

Thirdly, does the Minister agreed that electronic tagging cannot substitute for secure custody, particularly in cases involving violent or high-risk offenders?

Fourthly, what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of our prisons in light of the sentencing proposals, and will they commit to a robust and credible prison building programme that reflects the scale of these proposed reforms?

Finally, it is deeply regrettable that the voices of victims and their families appear to have been overlooked in this review. Can the Minister clarify why the Independent Sentencing Review appears to have taken such limited input from victims’ groups? Will the Government commit to a public consultation to ensure their voices are heard before implementing these recommendations?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, we welcome the Independent Sentencing Review. We also applaud the appointment of David Gauke to lead it. He was an inspired and independent choice and, despite some reservations with the report, we regard the tenor of the review as brave, principled and, most importantly, evidence based.

We also agree with the Government in their Statement that the previous Administration are largely responsible for the crisis in our prisons—our running out of prison space, the dilapidation of our prison estate, the ineffective approach to rehabilitation, to community sentences and to the Probation Service, and the continuing pervasive recidivism. These are the factors that got us into this mess, and they are largely the previous Government’s fault. The irony is that the previous Government claimed to be dedicated to law and order, just as the noble and learned Lord does now. Well, that is not their legacy.

Given the present position, on present trends and given the prison building plans—they are extensive, but there will inevitably be delays in their implementation—can the Government realistically hope to avoid the kind of stopgap emergency responses that we have found necessary over the last year?

Moving on, the proposals for three-part prison sentences and an earned progression model are persuasive. It is interesting that they originated in Texas—not a state known for soft liberalism. My understanding is that the Texan Government believed that these crime reduction measures would save the taxpayers’ dollar. Have the Government yet estimated the possible cost savings from these proposals overall?

We agree that we desperately need the increased investment in probation and probably even more investment. We regard the commitment to more tagging and community monitoring as clearly sensible. But I would be grateful if the Minister could say how far it is envisaged that tagged offenders will be confined to their homes, and what plans there are for work, education and training for offenders while they are tagged and under supervision.

Capping recalls to prison should prevent the use of recall to respond to relatively minor breaches of conditions with extended and disproportionate prison terms, but how will the individual length of these short recalls be determined? We on these Benches, along with the majority of experts in the field, have been arguing for years for a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, and I can see the argument for leaving some judicial discretion in place in certain circumstances. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nodding, and I know that he has had experience of short sentencing in his time as a magistrate. But we also agree that victims of domestic abusers and stalkers, and cases of breaches of protection orders, call for particular protection for victims. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance that, in practice, this reform will give the presumption against short sentences that we have long been seeking?

We accept the argument for making community sentences tougher and for intensive supervision courts, but we seek an assurance that the primary purpose of community sentences will continue to be to rehabilitate offenders and enable them to turn their lives around. We have concerns about the pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal, with its rather troubling overtones of chemical castration. Will the Government commit to careful monitoring of the long-term effects of such treatment?

Finally, we share the Government’s commitment to supporting victims, and that shines through this Statement. My noble friend Lady Brinton has been at the forefront of securing more compassionate treatment of victims, and the exclusion zones proposed will be an important new protection. But may we also have a commitment to making the criminal justice system more approachable and less traumatic for victims, particularly in cases of sexual violence? We have had some progress in this area but not nearly enough, hence the loss of so many cases. That would be a helpful complement for the Government’s principled commitment to ensure that women are less often sent to prison, and that women defendants are more compassionately treated by the criminal justice system.

Legal Aid Agency: Cybersecurity Incident

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, while the Government Benches may criticise the role of successive Governments in preventing cyberattacks, we must not lose sight of where the true blame lies. The primary responsibility for this deeply troubling incident rests with the malicious individuals who orchestrated it.

This was not merely a digital intrusion; it was a direct assault on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The data accessed is, in many cases, highly sensitive—it includes medical and other personal records—and the scale and nature of the information compromised over a period, apparently, from 2010, may mark this as one of the more serious data breaches that the Government have suffered in recent years.

Given the gravity of the situation, will the Minister confirm how many individuals have been affected? How are the Government supporting the individuals whose data has been exposed? Is he able to confirm the possible motive and identity of the attackers? Has there, for example, been any form of ransom demand from those who perpetrated this act? We welcome the involvement of the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre. Their expertise will be essential. Clearly, it is imperative that those responsible for this breach are held to account and brought to justice.

Significant concerns remain regarding the Government’s handling of this matter. I therefore seek clarity from the Minister on a number of issues. Why were Parliament and the public not informed immediately when the breach was discovered on 23 April? We now understand that the data access may include information dating back to 2010, as I said before, and that over 2 million records may have been compromised. The delay of almost a month before this was made public may have prevented individuals taking timely steps to protect themselves from potential risks. Was there a failure to properly appreciate the seriousness of this breach?

Further, can the Minister update the House on the status of the operational systems that are vital for processing legal aid and payments to legal professionals? If these systems are not fully restored, how can we expect to return to full functionality? It may seem odd to talk about payment of legal aid to lawyers but, of course, those working in the fields of criminal law and family law, which are severely underfunded in many respects, will find the cash flow from the legal fund vital to their continuing activities. It is therefore important that that issue should also be addressed.

We heard in the other place that the Government believe that the incident has been contained. How did the Government arrive at that conclusion, and could the Minister explain to the House what is meant by “contained”? Will he confirm whether the Ministry of Justice has conducted or intends to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of its wider digital infrastructure? Will similar assessments be made in other departments to safeguard against future vulnerabilities?

I also ask the Minister to ensure that Parliament receives regular and transparent updates as the investigation progresses. It is critical that we and members of the public should be informed clearly and promptly about the consequences of this breach and how it is being addressed. The breach itself represents a significant failure in the protection of our justice system’s digital infrastructure. That is liable to undermine public trust and raises serious concerns about data security and transparency, so I ask the Government to respond with urgency and openness to this issue.

Finally, I will raise a question about the devolved Administrations. For example, Scotland has its own legal aid structure, as, I believe, Northern Ireland does also, but those structures in turn depend on data from the United Kingdom—for example, access to social security data. Have they been impacted by this event? If so, what liaison has there been with the devolved Administrations to try to minimise the difficulties that they may have been caused by this data breach? I am obliged.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this cyberattack and its result have exposed the lamentable insecurity of the Legal Aid Agency data systems. The ramifications are serious. The personal information that goes into legal aid applications and is held by legal aid providers includes much highly confidential material, which can be used by criminals not just to embarrass but to defraud and, in some cases, harass applicants for legal aid. We are told that the attackers in this case accessed residential addresses, contact details, dates of birth, and employment and financial data—indeed, much of the material that identity checkers seek and criminals could profit from. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said, it appears to have affected 2 million items of data and legal aid applications going back as far as 2010. In addition, as became clear in the House of Commons, that information would have included sensitive medical information. Indeed, that must be right, because many applicants for legal aid would include such information with their applications. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to establish a dedicated helpline or other support systems, and if so what support systems, for individuals who may seek advice or protection in the light of this attack?

Of course, our first condemnation is for the callous criminality of the attackers, whose actions exposed so many vulnerable individuals to risk. These cyberattacks appear, according to the Minister in the other place, to have come from organised crime. It would be helpful for the Minister, so far as possible and without jeopardising security, to give an account to the House of what steps the Ministry of Justice takes routinely and has taken in the light of this case to protect the data of those seeking to access legal aid.

This question is similar to one asked by the noble and learned Lord: will the MoJ carry out a full independent inquiry into this attack, and what can be done to restore public confidence in its future cybersecurity arrangements? We understand the need for the Legal Aid Agency’s systems to go offline in the short term, as they have, but can the Government say how long the shutdown of online services is likely to last and how far the legal aid system will be impacted through delays and in reduced ability to deal with its workload?

We should not underestimate the degree to which the MoJ’s IT systems are antiquated, inefficient, insecure and, frankly, unfit for purpose. We on these Benches agree that that results from a neglect of the system over years under the preceding Administration. As the Statement rightly points out, the Law Society has been complaining for years about the outdatedness of our legal aid IT systems. The £20 million promised for updating the agency’s systems will help. However, regrettably, I worry that there is some complacency about the sentence in the Statement that reads:

“At this stage, we believe that the breach is contained to the Legal Aid Agency’s systems; there are no indications that other parts of the justice system have been impacted”.


Can the Minister say whether the Government will now institute a survey of current IT systems across the department to consider their security? Will the department also institute a system of regular cybersecurity audits for the future, to ensure robust defence of its digital systems and to prevent recurrence of this breach?

More widely, this event should act as a wake-up call for government as a whole to investigate how far its IT systems can provide the public with a high standard of data security. We hope that the promised cybersecurity and resilience Bill will bring some improvement, but we will not keep citizens’ data secure without investing the necessary resources. The reality is that we are working with old and inefficient systems that, frankly, grow creakier and creakier, just as the ingenuity and criminality of the potential attackers becomes ever more sophisticated, not least as the value of personal data rises and the potential for its abuse becomes ever greater.

The Statement rightly reminds us that every organisation is at risk from this kind of criminal behaviour and government is not exempt. As a vital part of the social compact, it is a responsibility of government to keep the personal data it holds on individuals secure. If government fails to live up to that responsibility, it rightly forfeits public trust and we concerned are to know, from the Government, how they intend to retain that trust.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, two days ago, magistrates and judges across England and Wales were, in effect, blindsided. At midday, they were informed that sentencing guidelines that they thought had come into force had in fact been suspended. The courts would have been sentencing offenders under guidelines that the Lord Chancellor herself now admits are fundamentally flawed. These are guidelines which, she has stated, would inflict a “two-tier” system of justice, undermining fairness and consistency in our courts.

In addition, buried in the very email sent to judges and magistrates, the Sentencing Council somewhat audaciously declared that

“we remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate”.

While the Lord Chancellor advised in the other place on Tuesday:

“I believe that we must reverse them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 183.]


So the Lord Chancellor says one thing and the Sentencing Council continues to say another.

This situation was entirely preventable, had the Lord Chancellor put party politics aside weeks ago and backed, rather than blocked, the Bill that my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick introduced in the other place. This Bill would have restored accountability and given the Lord Chancellor the power to govern justice policy. We may welcome the belated introduction of the Lord Chancellor’s Sentencing Council Bill, although I express regret that it had to come to this. However, we should be clear that the proposed Bill does not address the core of the problem, which concerns the status and accountability of the Sentencing Council.

There have already been concerns about other aspects of the Sentencing Council guidelines. Public reference has been made to the guidelines on immigration offences, although I understand that they are debated and indeed disputed. Further concerns have been expressed about guidelines on the provision of bail, where there is particular reference to the priority of ethnic minorities and transgender offenders. That also is a potentially discriminating practice that should not be maintained in our criminal justice system.

What is now required is a calm and considered review of the entire situation, rather than just a knee-jerk reaction Bill that addresses a symptom rather than a cause. I therefore invite the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to commit to a comprehensive review of all Sentencing Council and Ministry of Justice guidance on sentencing policy and bail policy, which should properly rest with the Government in the form of the Ministry of Justice and not with a wholly unaccountable Sentencing Council—however high a regard we have for those who sit in that council.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor maintains that this Statement raises issues of principle, that it is about policy being for Parliament and not for judges, and that the Sentencing Council has breached the principle of equality before the law. We hear complaints from the Conservatives in particular—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is no exception to this, and it is unsurprising that I take a different view from him—of judicial overreach and of a two-tier justice system. However, all in this House are committed to equality before the law.

The background to the new proposed guidelines is the wealth of evidence, almost entirely undisputed, that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to be sent to prison than white defendants. Yesterday I mentioned the Lammy review, but there is so much more. This inequality of outcomes must be addressed; it is the very opposite of equality before the law.

Pre-sentence reports are a vital tool that enable judges to take into account the circumstances of an offender as well as the nature of the offence for which he is before the courts. The Lord Chancellor appears to accept that. The only other significant assistance a sentencing judge receives on an offender’s background and circumstances is the speech in mitigation from defence counsel. Although speeches in mitigation are powerful tools, they are made by defence counsel on the instructions of the defendant, so they are neither independently prepared nor impartial. They also cannot generally be independently verified, as pre-sentence reports can.

So we need these reports, and they have long been intended to be the norm not an optional add-on, yet resources for these reports have, in effect, been rationed. The Probation Service was hopelessly mishandled by the last Government, and one result is that there is not enough money to fund the number of pre-sentence reports we need. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, yesterday gave the figures: the number of pre-sentence reports is down by 44% between 2013 and 2023.

The letter from the chairman of the Sentencing Council to the Lord Chancellor on 10 March explained the very thorough process that had led to these new guidelines, in the context of the statutory duty imposed by Parliament for the Sentencing Council to give guidelines to judges on sentencing. Part of the reason behind establishing the Sentencing Council was precisely to encourage consistency in sentencing—that is, equal treatment before the law—yet now we have the Government resorting to hastily drawn and unhelpful emergency legislation that tries to address a complex issue in simplistic terms. The operative section would provide that

“sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender”.

A subsection goes on to say that the “personal characteristics” may include—not must include—

“in particular … race … religion or belief … cultural background”.

The cohorts identified by the Sentencing Council as normally calling for a PSR include being a young adult, female, pregnant, or postnatal. Are those not personal circumstances and are they not relevant?

The solution to this is not emergency legislation. The emergency has now passed because the Sentencing Council has paused introduction of the guidelines. This emergency Bill has not yet had a Second Reading, and I therefore invite the Government to withdraw it now and end this unnecessary row. It is unseemly and widely regarded as such by the public. I suggest that the solution lies in rational and moderate discussion between the Sentencing Council, the Lady Chief Justice and the Government, to which Ministers in this House from the Ministry of Justice would have an important contribution to make.

The first aim would be to reach a solution that ensures that pre-sentence reports are properly funded so that they become the norm once again in all cases where a substantial prison sentence is not inevitable. The second would be that we recognise these reports play an important part in addressing and reducing the inequality of outcomes for ethnic minority defendants—this must be a major priority of the Government. The third would be that we all respect and ultimately achieve genuine equality before the law.