Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and brief introduction to what is, in effect, a relatively simple instrument. It comes against a background, as he explained, of the appalling shortage of prison places that the Government inherited and that has only got worse, inevitably, during this Government. The overcrowding that has been the result of that shortage and the crisis that has given rise to the early release scheme have to be ended as quickly as possible; for example, the use of police cells where there has been simply no space for custody within our prisons is unacceptable, and there has been an unholy scramble for places for prisoners wherever they might be found across the estate. That is the inevitable result of a prison system running at 99% of capacity.

The consequences of the prison shortage have been outlined by the Minister, and the clear goal of the Government has been to reduce prison numbers over time, although they rightly accept that that will take a great deal of time. I know the Minister is concerned to concentrate on shorter sentences and rehabilitation, but I am grateful to him for putting the numbers on this instrument—that it is expected to save 500 prison places a year, which is a significant number.

However, in one sense, this instrument is directed at an easy target, because the deportation of convicted foreign offenders, who are liable to be deported anyway, is generally justified in principle for all the reasons the Minister gave and is widely supported. It may also be said that our national Government have little interest in what happens to deported prisoners after they are deported, so that if they leave our prisons earlier than envisaged at the time of sentence, that does little harm, but the instrument rightly excludes some serious offenders from the ambit of the reduction.

However, I note the regret of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at the lack of review of the need for changes in this early removal scheme. The committee was concerned at the lack of information given to Parliament as to both the number of foreign national offenders likely to be affected by these changes and the treatment that such deported offenders would be likely to receive in their home countries following deportation. The committee reported that

“it would have been helpful for the EM to include background information … on FNO sentences and the treatment of deported prisoners in their home countries”.

It helpfully dug out a considerable quantity of additional information that was within the public domain that it found helpful, and it reported on that.

As a general point, the interest that the United Kingdom Government have in foreign national offenders should not cease altogether when such offenders are deported. At whatever stage, the Government and Parliament have an interest in considering the fate of deportees after they left this country and any continuing risk that they might present if they should return to the United Kingdom—or to United Kingdom citizens abroad, of course. Hence, the overall conclusion of the committee was that, while it recognised the urgency of the need to reduce the pressure on prison capacity, as we all do,

“the information provided with such instruments should … facilitate full scrutiny by Parliament. This means there should be a discussion of the risks as well as the benefits of the measures and adequate background information to understand the full effects; preferably, supported by an analysis of … similar changes”.

It is clearly the committee’s view that Parliament had not had that kind of information to the level of detail that we should have done.

I endorse that conclusion. However, subject to those caveats, I broadly support the measure to enable deportation at an earlier stage of prisoner sentences following sentence.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today. I begin by affirming that we on this side strongly support the principle that foreign nationals who break the law in our country also break the trust that we accord them and that they have no right to remain here. This order is therefore a welcome step which builds upon reforms that the Conservative Government made in January 2024 to advance the point at which foreign nationals could be removed from prison and deported from 12 months to 18 months before the end of their custodial sentence. The instrument before us today expands on this, increasing the maximum removal period for foreign offenders to the later of either 30% of their custodial term or four years before their earliest release date. This is estimated to result in some foreign prisoners serving only 10% of their sentences before being deported, down from the current 25%. That, as I have said, is a welcome step, but it is not enough.

By the Government’s own admission, this reform will free up, at most, just 500 places. The taxpayer currently spends upwards of £500 million annually just on housing and feeding imprisoned individuals who neither need nor deserve to be here. Five hundred fewer places in our prisons accounts for just 5% of that total cost. That is before we consider the forecast growth in the prison population. Does the Minister really believe that these numbers reflect effective policy? Perhaps what is more worrying is that since this measure has been introduced, the Government have changed their tune. On 10 August this year, the Secretary of State announced the Government’s revised position that foreign offenders should be deported immediately after receiving a custodial sentence. Earlier in the year, we tabled an amendment to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which called for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of an offence. While it is always gratifying to see the Government following our lead, their slowness to adopt this belated measure will have real-life impacts for the law-abiding people of this country. It will take time to implement and require more time-consuming legislation. In the meantime, more offenders are charged without the prospect of immediate deportation. The taxpayer will pay for the privilege, so I ask the Minister to lay out a timetable towards immediate deportations of convicted foreign nationals.

Similarly, there is nothing preventing the continuation of the endless cycle of appeals and repeals that cause delay. It seems as if every week a foreign criminal has his deportation order blocked under the doubtful guise of human rights. In the long term, without protections against human rights manipulation, this statutory instrument could end up seeing the same number of offenders removed each year as under current policy, just a little bit earlier. That is not effective policy. Can the Minister outline how this will be avoided?

That is why the Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act in all immigration-related cases. No delays or obstructions in legislation would be used for means for which they were not designed. Swift, effective removal is what we require.

To sum up, we believe that this statutory instrument is a first step, albeit a small one, towards the shared goal of the removal and deportation of foreign offenders.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for the careful consideration that he has given to this and for his expression of concern at the effect that adding these two aggravating factors could have on sentencing.

It has been explained that the instrument adds two statutory aggravating factors to Schedule 21 for judges to consider when imposing a minimum term for murder. The first is when the murder is connected with either the actual or intended end of an intimate relationship, while the second is when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, judges will of course be entitled to consider all factors and take all factors into account when sentencing for murder. Those will include anyway the fact that a relationship is coercive or controlling and the degree to which the murder reflects the coercion or control—in this case, generally by a man over a woman.

I know that we all welcome the further Law Commission review that is promised, but it is a fact that these reviews take a considerable amount of time; that is inevitably the result of the care that the Law Commission gives to such considerations.

In one sense, this instrument does very little. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences. One can see that a statutory aggravating factor does have that effect—and that is the intended effect. However, how far sentences would be increased is not capable of assessment; neither is there any clear evidence of how far such sentences will be increased because of an aggravating factor.

The facts are that the social background against which this instrument is presented is that coercive control is now recognised far more widely than it used to be; and that the effects of factors such as those mentioned in this instrument are more widely recognised and taken more seriously. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences proves unfounded, not in the sense that there should not be a recognition of aggravating factors but in the sense that such aggravating factors are increasingly recognised by judges in any event.

The two factors added by this instrument around coercive relationships were particularly important, as has been said, in influencing the 2023 review of domestic homicide sentencing by Clare Wade KC and in framing her recommendations. In the domestic abuse context, which is the context we are considering, they are particularly significant. They are also significant in the light of the Government’s stated determination, on which they are plainly acting, to halve violence against women and girls, which is a major ambition.

The first change recognises that actual or threatened relationship breakdown can, and often does, play a role in promoting extreme domestic violence. I accept that the extent of deterrence that follows from that is uncertain, but it sends an important signal to the potential perpetrators of domestic violence about the effect of coercive control.

The second change recognises the particular significance of strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation in domestic violence, particularly by men on women. We recognised that during the passage of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when I, along with the Government, signed a cross-party amendment to introduce the new offence of non-fatal strangulation. In the debates on the then Bill, we took account of a great deal of evidence of the high incidence of strangulation in domestic violence cases, as well as of the distressing fact that so many cases where non-fatal strangulation occurs ultimately lead to the perpetrator escalating that violence to, ultimately, fatal violence and murder.

The fact is, therefore, that judges will continue to weigh up all relevant factors in assessing minimum terms of imprisonment to be served by those sentenced to life for murder. There is merit in highlighting these two factors because they can only send an important signal to the actual and potential perpetrators of domestic violence—and, indeed, to the victims of such domestic violence because, of course, victims are often frightened out of reporting domestic violence even when it is an attempt at strangulation. The evidence that that can escalate to murder in due course is important; it is important that potential victims, as well as potential perpetrators, should know of that signal. In my view, that is a powerful reason for supporting this instrument.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are welcome, and I say that notwithstanding the concern that they may add to the prison population, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips.

The instrument introduces two new statutory aggravating features in determining the minimum term for murder: first, where the offender is engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the victim; and, secondly, where the murder has involved sustained and excessive violence, sometimes referred to, in depressing jargon, as “overkill”. By contrast, importantly, it conversely explains a new mitigating factor, putting it on a statutory basis. It recognises that an offender’s culpability may be reduced where the victim has engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the offender.

These additions reflect a long-overdue evolution in the way the criminal courts have recognised domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened our understanding of harm so that it embraced emotional, psychological and economic abuse, but, until now, the sentencing framework for murder has not fully reflected the complex dynamics that can exist in abusive relationships, whether in the context of the abuse suffered by victims before their death or the potential impact of long-term abuse on an offender’s culpability.

We on this side welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these changes promptly—that is, ahead of the Law Commission’s broader review of homicide. These changes send a clear message: domestic murders are not isolated or inexplicable acts but, often, the tragic endpoint of long-standing abuse.

However, I note the concerns raised by the Sentencing Council, particularly around the interaction between new statutory factors and the existing, established judicial discretion to take such behaviour into account. The council has rightly warned that codifying these factors may risk creating ambiguity or inconsistency in sentencing, particularly if guidance in respect of it is not clear. There is also a risk that difficult evidential issues—in determining, for example, whether a relationship was “intimate” or whether coercive control occurred—could inadvertently complicate proceedings or place additional burdens on the families of victims or on prosecutors.

To mitigate this, we urge the Government to ensure that clear and robust sentencing guidelines are published alongside, and at the same time as, these changes; that the Government provide training for judges and practitioners to apply the new factors consistently; and that there is a commitment to monitor the impact of these amendments, particularly on the outcomes of trials and sentence lengths in domestic homicide cases.

To conclude, subject to those caveats, these regulations are positive, necessary and a welcome reform. They better align our sentencing framework with the reality of domestic abuse and send a strong signal that such crimes will be treated with the seriousness they deserve. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I have spoken at length on my amendment in the last group. My amendment here is to suggest, as I believe is completely uncontroversial, that sentencing guidelines about sentencing reports must promote greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. Whether that is a matter for the sentencing guidelines or for sentencers generally, the need for more and better pre-sentence reports is of extreme importance. I believe that everything the Minister has said on this subject since his appointment shows that the Government agree with that position. So I propose to say nothing more about that.

Amendments 3 and 8, to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has spoken, are non-controversial. Whether they are treated as probing amendments at this stage perhaps matters little, but we are trying here to get across the principles. I do not think there is any need for me to say more on this group.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will first deal with the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary; probation officers should be left to get on with their jobs. The Bill does not prevent them addressing matters likely to reduce offending and we should have some confidence that they will share this view when it is necessary and appropriate. Why would they wish not to go down that route? That, after all, is what their job is about: preventing reoffending.

We do not believe that Amendment 8 is necessary, but we are sympathetic to where it goes. Again, this is on the basis that our amendments in group 3, which will bring the guidelines before Parliament, are accepted and acted on, so that Parliament gets to look at what is actually happening in the guidelines themselves.

Again, we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but, although reports are necessary in appropriate cases, they are not necessary in every case. It is the probation officer who is best placed to alert the court in cases where a report is not proposed. A probation officer will be in court and can speak to defendants before sentencing in court.

In my experience, having sat in the court myself as a recorder for many years—and even, many years before that, having appeared in Crown Courts on quite a number of occasions—a probation officer is best placed to alert the court to the benefit of obtaining a report, or saying that they actually do not need one in a given case. However, that can be left to Parliament when it looks at the guidelines, if it gets the chance to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, my two amendments in this group, Amendments 15 and 18, cover two separate topics. The first relates to the public sector equality duty and seeks to provide that:

“Nothing in this section shall require the Council to issue guidance about pre-sentence reports that is not consistent with its duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010”.


As your Lordships will be aware, that section provides for the public sector equality duty, which is a duty to work towards eliminating discrimination based on protected characteristics, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between those with protected characteristics and others who do not have such characteristics.

I raise this issue in Committee because it has been suggested in some quarters that the public sector equality duty might have been compromised or broken by the Sentencing Council’s proposed imposition guideline, which has now been paused. This is a probing amendment to explore what the Government consider to be the position. Our understanding is that paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Equality Act disapplies the equality duty from those exercising a judicial function, or citing on behalf of someone exercising a judicial function, which would apply to the Sentencing Council, so the public sector equality duty is not engaged at all in the sentencing exercise or in the ordering or commissioning of pre-sentence reports—which is, of course, a judicial function, because it is the judge who makes the order.

It would be helpful to ensure that these discussions are not conducted in the shadow of the misunderstanding of where the public sector equality duty applies and where it does not. On the substantive point, which is independent of the jurisdictional point that I have just raised, as to whether the paused imposition guideline would have been in breach of the public sector equality duty if it applied, we would argue that a guideline that had as its plain aim the elimination of inequality in sentencing could itself be found to be discriminatory—and we would not accept that it could.

Amendment 18 is the second amendment in my name in this group. It calls for an independent review of the operation of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, within two years of its passing. In calling for this review, I suggest that it is important to keep the work of the Sentencing Council generally under review, in the light of any applicable legislation. That is particularly so if this Bill becomes law because it is likely to be overtaken, or at least supplemented, in large part by reforms to be introduced both as a result of the Gauke review that is to report extremely soon and, no doubt later, as a result of the Leveson review into the criminal courts and their wider working. There will therefore be a constant need for review to ensure that contradictions do not arise or that any such potential contradictions are eliminated between this legislation and further reforms.

On a broader basis, it is important to monitor the success or failure of the attempt to address inequality of outcomes in the sentencing process. I know that the Minister is aware of and alive to the inequality of outcomes and determined to address it. I know that he regards our objections to this Bill on the basis that it does not do so as perhaps ill founded; nevertheless, it is important to keep under review whether the Bill actually hampers the addressing of inequality of outcomes.

On the second point as to why it is important to monitor progress, the Government are dedicated and committed to ensuring that pre-sentence reports are more widely available and in future more thoroughly prepared, and the resources being applied to the Probation Service are dedicated in part to that end. Therefore, it is important to monitor the effect of any such improvement in the availability and quality of pre-sentencing reports on reducing reoffending and, ultimately, reducing the number of people in custody. That justifies having a review after two years of the operation of this Act.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. On the noble Lord’s first Amendment, Amendment 15, we would not for our part want the Sentencing Council to go down the road of issuing guidance inconsistent with its duties under the Equality Act.

As for Amendment 18 and the review, we do not have a view on this matter. I note that with practically every Bill that comes before this House there is a call for a review at some point, whether it is one year, two years or five years down the road. The Sentencing Council must by now be well aware of public concerns and the concerns of legislators, and it would itself want to know how things are going. It is quite likely to call for a review if so minded. We are neutral on that topic.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to ensure that any guidelines about pre-sentence reports issued by the Sentencing Council are fully compliant with the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the Bill’s key aim is to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law. It does this by removing the effect of the changes the Sentencing Council introduced in its revised imposition guideline, which provides that a pre-sentence report will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, with reference to their personal characteristics, and prevents the council from reissuing guidance to the same effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the Bill impacts the Sentencing Council’s obligations to comply with the public sector equality duty in developing sentencing guidelines. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 18, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require an independent review to be arranged by the Secretary of State into the changes made by Clause 1 of the Bill to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am mindful that a very similar amendment was tabled during the Bill’s consideration in the other place, and I do not want to repeat in full the debate there, but I hope it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s position.

While I recognise it is of course important to carefully ponder the Bill’s effects, I stress that the direct changes it makes are limited in nature. All this is about is ensuring that offenders do not receive preferential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. This gets to the heart of ensuring equality before the law, which is a principle which does not need to be reviewed.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill will prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving domestic abuse, young people or pregnant women.

While I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw this amendment, I hope that I can reassure him that there will be ample opportunity in this House to discuss matters with regard to the Sentencing Council in future, once the Lord Chancellor’s review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council is complete.