Prisoner Releases in Error

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that we have an opportunity to simplify and make more accurate decisions in the justice system. We have to grasp this, and we have to grasp it quickly. AI is one of the most important factors that we need to embrace. My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we do the procurement process correctly and that we do not take so much time that we miss the opportunity. I have been fortunate to work with a number of colleagues within the Ministry of Justice who are AI experts. In fact, in meetings I have, people ask for the AI team on probably a far too regular basis thinking it is going to solve lots of problems. Essentially, when you have multiple bits of paperwork and staff in the offender management unit are literally dealing with boxes and boxes of paperwork, it is unfair to expect them to get it accurate 100% of the time. I would like to walk into an offender management unit and see computer screens rather than boxes of paperwork. One of the things that I have been interested in, coming from a business environment into government, is the opportunities across government for embracing AI—I think we will end up delivering much better public services as a result.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lord, we heard that, in the seven months April to October this year, there have been 91 mistaken releases, which is 13 a month. How many of those 91 had been convicted of sexual or domestic abuse offences and whose victims would have been unaware that they were now loose?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will not be giving a running commentary on the numbers, but we will be publishing the breakdown of all that detail in the normal way in July next year. It is important to recognise that 91 released in error is too many. We need to learn from what Dame Lynne Owen’s review finds out and act upon it, but we also need to get going now. That is what we have done. We have had the first board meeting of the justice performance board. We have set up the urgent warrant query unit, which is going to be helpful because we recognise that is where a number of the issues occur. The digital rapid response unit has gone into Wandsworth and—this is where the AI element comes in—it has already recognised that there are four common points of failure that it thinks AI will significantly help, although it will not help all those issues. We have an awful lot to do, and it is a challenge I am looking forward to embracing.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset how sorry I was to learn of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She will be much missed around the House. She was a powerful champion for victims.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill, but I must say that it does not live up to the expectations one might have of a Sentencing Bill. It is not a plan for safer streets or a stronger justice system; it is, in essence, a plan to release offenders early because our prisons are full. The Government present this as a reform, but much is, in truth, a knee-jerk reaction to the challenge of managing prison capacity, and it is one that risks public safety.

The centrepiece of the Bill is the presumption that any sentence of 12 months or less will be suspended, so, in practice, short custodial sentences will all but disappear. Figures suggest that around 43,000 offenders will avoid prison altogether. Among them will be repeat burglars, serial shoplifters and sex offenders. This is not sentencing reform; it is surrender. How can any Government who claim to be tough on crime defend that?

The Government say this will apply only to “non-violent, non-sexual” offences, but as any practitioner knows, many assaults, domestic abuse cases and sexual offences fall at or below that 12-month threshold. Those offenders will now walk free. To allow this will be a profound failure of the state’s duty to protect its citizens—unless it has the unintended effect, of course, that courts increase nominal sentences to override the presumption. Will we in fact see an increase in the number of immediate sentences of 15 to 18 months? That would be an unintended and perhaps unfortunate consequence, but we know how human behaviour reacts.

The Bill also reduces the time to be served in custody. For most offenders, automatic release will come after just 33% of the sentence—five months of a 15-month term. The rest will be served in the community, supervised, in theory, by the hard-pressed Probation Service. It has been predicted there will in fact be an immediate 6% rise in crime. As Cicero said: to what good? That is not sentencing reform; it is a policy of early release with rising crime the consequence.

We are told that this is about rehabilitation. Are those who make up the 6% to be treated as rehabilitated? Worse, what new money is to be invested in probation, treatment or community infrastructure? There will simply be a prison system operating at 98% capacity, with Ministers desperate to empty it.

The Probation Service will bear the weight of these changes. As we know, it is already overstretched, under- staffed and struggling to manage risk. The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that an additional 580 officers will be required each year, at a cost of £30 million a year—funding that simply does not exist in the current settlement. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, on which I served, has demonstrated, reducing numbers in prison does not mean a saving: the running costs of prisons will remain the same. Will the Minister explain where in the ministry’s budget the money will come from? Will it be from defence legal aid fees or the budget for our crumbling courts? Can we have answers?

Clause 11 goes further still by removing from the courts key aspects of sentencing and transferring them to probation officers. They are not judges, are not judicially trained and already work beyond capacity. They will now bear responsibility for deciding how much rehabilitative activity an offender must complete. That is a big shift of responsibility. Sentencing—the determination of punishment—is, and should remain, a judicial function. It is a matter for judges applying the law in open court.

How can we have a Sentencing Bill that, in effect, removes an important plank of sentencing from the courts and the public eye? How will the public know that punishment is being imposed consistently and in proportion to the offence in question? What safeguards will prevent political or managerial pressure—I emphasise managerial pressure—from influencing those decisions? Policy will be made and put into effect behind closed doors. An important part of a sentence in a given case will not be given in public.

That is not reform; it is the start of the separation of powers being dismantled. It hands quasi-judicial authority to an exhausted service, doing so without additional resources, oversight or accountability. If the Minister believes that probation officers should exercise the functions of judges, he should say so openly to Parliament. To make such a change under the guise of efficiency is constitutionally wrong.

The Bill introduces a host of new community restrictions on offenders, including bans on entering pubs, sporting events or defined geographical areas. On paper that may sound straightforward, but how will it work? Who will be responsible for enforcement? Will it be the licensed trade, the police or venue owners themselves? Who will be told? In a big city pub, who is to know? The Bill gives no clarity, indicates no resourcing and gives no accountability framework; it simply assumes that someone, somehow, will make it happen. Probation officers, who are already overstretched and under- resourced, are expected to monitor compliance, enforce restrictions and manage breaches. The Bill provides no guidance on how that will operate. How will it work?

The Bill was not in the manifesto, which referred only to sentences that

“make sense either to victims or the wider public”.

The proposals in the Bill do neither. They will undermine public confidence in the justice system—confidence that is already eroded by early release schemes, court delays, and prison overcrowding and escapes. Every element of the Bill points in one direction: leniency driven by necessity. We suggest that that is not how to develop important policy. The prisons are indeed overcrowded, and previous Governments have failed to manage that successfully, but the public expect that those who break the law will be dealt with properly and punished, and that those who pose a threat will be detained. However, henceforth, an offender could serve one-third of a sentence, breach licence conditions, be recalled and still be re-released early.

Only yesterday, or the day before, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner sounded the alarm and wrote to the Lord Chancellor. Under Part 2 of the Bill, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner pointed out, offenders recalled to custody will now be automatically re-released after just 56 days, with no review by the Parole Board. This will include convicted abusers after recall for contacting or stalking their victims, yet they will go back into the community with no fresh assessment of danger. This is complacency. It places victims at avoidable risk.

The Bill requires rigorous scrutiny. It blurs the line between rehabilitation and release. It hands judicial powers to the Probation Service and places public protection second to administrative convenience. We are not told how it will be funded. We are told it is modernisation. In truth, it is a risky experiment with public safety.

We on this side will carefully examine every clause in Committee. Our position is clear: sentencing exists to protect the public, to deter crime and to deliver justice to victims, and it is for judges. The Bill fails on all those counts.

Trials: Timeliness

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Accidental Prison Releases

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The checklists that we have made more robust are the same checklists across all prisons, but the number of releases per prison varies dramatically. HMP Gartree averages two releases a year, whereas, as I previously said, in Wandsworth it is 2,000. That is why the digital team last week went into HMP Wandsworth, to look at opportunities for some quick fixes to embrace digital technology.

The AI team went in and, to give a couple of examples, they thought that an AI chatbot would be really helpful, along with a cross-referencing for aliases, because we know some offenders have more than 20 aliases. We have given the team the green light to get on with examples like that.

The noble Lord is exactly right that this is about how we deal with this information, and how we make sure it is accurate when we are dealing with often very complex people in a very complex situation.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Further to that answer, can the Minister confirm how many prisons still rely on manual, rather than digital, release date calculations, why that is so and what plans there are to move to a digital system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The process is a mixture of paperwork and computers and digital. In an offender management unit, there are literally boxes and boxes of paperwork, all over desks and on the floor, that follow offenders around the various prisons that they go to.

My and the team’s solution is very much digitally based, but we need to make sure we link that across the whole justice system, and the Home Office as well, because a number of the errors can be caused not just in the prison but in the courts too. So, longer term, it has got to be right that we look at a digital solution across the whole justice sector.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken today, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for moving this debate so that the House can scrutinise this important matter. The Law Commission has produced a meticulous scoping report on financial remedies. It has put forward four clear options but has not come to a final decision, and that is a pity.

Few areas of law touch more directly on ordinary lives than family law. Marriage is an institution that we on these Benches firmly support. Breakdown is always distressing for those involved. It is the law’s task to bring fairness and finality to support families making this difficult transition. I have a genuine interest in the topic. During my first 20 years or so at the Bar, financial provision and other family matters formed a substantial part of my practice—I am a little out of date, but I know where they are all coming from.

The Law Commission’s report is sobering. It shows that the framework, established in 1973, is no longer enough. The Act was drafted for a different social world and people need certainty. The system may be fair in individual cases, but it is opaque to those who must live under it. It cannot be right if the outcome depends on the postcode or philosophy of the individual judge, or if it is simply too difficult to understand the cases. Uncertainty drives parties towards litigation and expense, and it undermines confidence, as we have heard, in the rule of law itself. These challenges must be met. There must be enough flexibility, but predictability for everybody except the exceptions.

On these Benches, we urge the Government to take seriously the Law Commission’s invitation to select a clear model for reform and to embark on the detailed work necessary. It seems to us plain that we cannot wait for the Law Commission to produce a full report—we must get on with it. The work is done; there are practical decisions to be made, and there are enough people who can pull that together. There must be clearer statutory guidance, improved transparency on outcomes, and clarity, in particular for those who cannot afford lawyers.

The recent judgments have illustrated the strength and strains of the system. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, yet it also exposed the complexity of the current case law. Reform should set out principles accessible in statute.

The material now has been put before the Government by the Law Commission. This important report must not gather dust. The Government must act. I wait to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, what course the Government will take. The report must not be put in the “too difficult” box. The Government must bring forward a Bill. I suggest that this could be done in the next Session or certainly the one after—there is no reason not to. There should be pre-legislative scrutiny and, I hope, a broadly cross-party approach. One thing is certain: we must not let a search for perfection be the enemy of the good.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on her first appearance. I welcome the fact that such an experienced lawyer now holds this position.

I turn now to the substance of the debate; the Minister has explained everything in such lucid detail that I can go straight to the two points that I want to raise, without going into the background. The limit was fixed in 2008 and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, observed, the limit is being raised by only 30% whereas, unfortunately, inflation has been very much higher. We have the privilege of having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here in the Room, and he will no doubt be very pleased to see that the Ministry of Justice is taking such good care of the scarce resources of the country.

When the previous Labour Administration were in power in 2008, they thought that the limits set out then were fair and reasonable and reflected the public position at the time. Is there a reason why we cannot have the same position today and therefore raise the amounts? As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told, there has never been a payment of the maximum amount, and only very few payments of the lesser amount. Is there therefore a real difficulty in being parsimonious—which is no doubt appreciated by His Majesty’s Treasury—in relation to these amounts? Could this be looked at again?

That takes me to my second question. The Ministry of Justice is in the unfortunate position of having a number of instruments and other pieces of legislation where limits are set, and it is very important that these are kept under regular review. There have been occasions when the ministry has failed to do so. Does the ministry now have a proper schedule for reviewing this and making certain that we do not have a very long period of time, such as that which has elapsed since 2008, before this kind of limit is reviewed? It may be that the Minister will want to take some time to investigate this, but I hope that there is a system in place for such limits to be looked at.

Those are my two observations. I again express what a great pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place and dealing with such an important subject.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

Our legal system is based on the principle of fairness. This country prides itself on its judiciary. Trial for serious offences by judge and jury is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The law exists to right wrongs and to create and maintain a system in which honest subjects can live their lives under the even-handed protection of the law. However, those who suffer miscarriages of justice under the same system must be compensated fairly. A legal system without the means of self-correction is devoid of trust and justice.

We on this side of the Committee support the measures brought forward today. Compensation for those wronged by the system must be fair and proportionate. It is not just that those wrongly convicted and imprisoned have not had the maximum compensation increased for nearly 17 years; the onus is on the justice system to correct its mistakes and increase compensation payments as time passes. It was in the same spirit that, as my honourable friend in the other place the Shadow Minister for Justice noted, the former Lord Chancellor removed the compensation guidance that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. The justice system must be seen to correct its own mistakes, which is what this instrument aims to do. This is why we support it.

IPP Sentences

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Sentencing Bill implements the independent sentencing review. IPPs were not in scope of that review because it focused on sentences that are still on the statute books. I do not want to repeat myself, but the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare those people for release. I am really pleased that the noble Lord and others enjoyed the visit to HMP Belmarsh on Thursday; we had a really good opportunity to meet a number of prisoners, including an IPP prisoner.

What is also important, as the noble Lord mentioned, is our Probation Service. It is where the heaving lifting in the justice system is done, which is why I am proud that we are increasing the funding for probation by £700 million—a 45% increase.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the current system is failing both prisoners and the public. It keeps prisoners in indefinite limbo, as we saw on our visit to HMP Belmarsh last week. It offers no clear route to safer release. My question is specific: what is wrong with the proposal for a two-year conditional release process?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for coming along on Thursday. The Parole Board is the best body to decide who is safe to be released, because public protection is our priority. If we went with the Howard League’s suggestion, it would mean people being released without their risk being assessed, which is not something that we are prepared to do.

Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and congratulate her on her appointment. She brings much experience of the criminal justice system, and I am sure she will be invaluable to the ministry. I am grateful, too, for the compelling opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his illuminating exposition. Indeed, we have heard many powerful speeches.

The multicultural society in which we live contains individuals with myriad languages and dialects. More and more individuals need access to interpretation services in our courts. The use of those services grew by nearly 6% between 2023 and 2024. This presents challenges that the Ministry of Justice, as this report makes clear, has failed to address.

The Ministry of Justice’s most recent data shows that, comparing the last nine months of this Government against the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of unfulfilled requests for court interpreters has increased by just under 24%. Worryingly, in the same time, the number of complaints about inadequate standards has increased by 48%. I will come back to that. The Minister’s predecessor’s decision to ignore advice to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee had conducted a thorough review of court interpretation and quality assurance services was flawed.

It is very regrettable that those on the front line have a negative view of court interpretation services. The Magistrates’ Association rightly pointed out that inadequate interpretation can lead to miscarriages of justice—that should be obvious to us all—as defendants cannot properly understand the legal options open to them. I highlight the evidence of Dr Windle that far too many trial interpreters have qualifications equivalent to an A-level. That is simply hopeless. The profession must be staffed by sufficiently skilled, trusted and properly paid interpreters. The observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in this respect are invaluable. The Government must listen, learn and adopt.

Even more alarming is the lacklustre quality-assurance framework. The company responsible for quality assurance conducts assessments by watching from public galleries, but interpreters in closed cases and family court sessions are shielded from accountability. The Ministry of Justice cannot in those circumstances be getting a true picture of quality. This report recommended that the assessment process should include access to whispered communications between defendants and advocates during trials. Such communication, as any practitioner knows, is integral to court proceedings. This important point was not addressed in the Government’s response and we on this side keenly await clarification.

Further, the report rightly pointed out the lack of transparency and the dearth of data available regarding the outcomes of the assessments of court interpreters. We do not know how many concerns regarding interpreters are escalated to judges, nor how many interpreters are removed from the ministry’s register. So the public cannot hold this important public service provider accountable, nor be confident that the rule of law is upheld consistently.

The Government responded by saying that they required longer to act on the recommendation to release this data—if at all. I emphasise that. This weak response must be seen as shirking accountability and hiding behind data privacy. Given the significance of interpretation quality for the delivery of justice, when will the Government commit to acting on this powerful report and what steps are they taking to ensure they are best equipped to do this?

The most direct recourse for users of interpretation services is access to a functional complaints procedure, not least because it is the practice to dismiss interpreters after they have incurred three complaints. It was therefore worrying to read that the process is not considered fit for purpose and that complaints, despite their sharp rise in recent months, appear grossly underreported. The report labelled awareness of the complaints system as “low”. That too is serious. If stakeholders—those involved—are not even aware of its existence, how can interpreters be held accountable? Worse, many of those aware of the complaints system cannot engage with it satisfactorily. It is available only in English or Welsh. I echo the report’s warning that this “must be urgently addressed”. Those most in need of help are least equipped to access it.

The Minister’s predecessor pledged to explore ways to increase awareness and methods of flagging complaints in the language of users. How exactly will the Government be doing this? They must outline the steps and methods being considered for a new complaints procedure that is accessible in different languages. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said, the Government must abandon their complacent approach to these issues.

The problems are exacerbated by the striking disconnect between the Government’s stated view of their delivery quality and reality. The report highlighted this as an overarching theme of divergence between government and those on the front line. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Government are not confronting these problems. They must set out the precise additional steps they have taken and will take to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. Existing channels are insufficient. How will the Government resolve this information asymmetry? Otherwise, they risk wilful blindness to the true extent of the justice system’s challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made important points about data and information asymmetry.

It was a serious oversight on the ministry’s part not to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee’s findings had been reported to it. We are now in a position where the ministry has commenced retendering while unaware of the true quality and delivery of these services.

There are too many areas where the response does not go far enough. The Government must take further action to improve the quality of court interpretation services and reform their complaints system. If not, complaints will continue to soar. They must foster genuine engagement with legal professionals and front-line workers and listen to their concerns if they are to deliver justice for all.

Finally, I invite the Government to address and take seriously what the noble Lord, Lords Carter of Coles, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, a former Lord Chief Justice with great experience, had to say about the future use of voice recognition technology and translation software, at the very least for major languages. In that respect, of course, the ministry should also pay heed to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the thoughtful observations of my noble friend Lord Mott. There is a lot of expertise in this Room and the Government would be foolish to ignore it. The Minister has plenty to take away. We wish her well and we look forward to her reply.

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

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

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

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

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.