Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 42 in this group to ensure that certain parts of the victims’ code apply to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for supporting the amendment, and for going into some detail. I will endeavour not to repeat what they have said.

I am grateful for the meeting with the Minister last week, during which she mentioned the new guidance that has been recently updated. It is a good document, but it gives the victims no formal rights at all and relies on two different people—the FCDO case manager and the Homicide Service officer, provided by the charity Victim Support—to help them navigate the system. I am sure that this guidance will help improve the service from its previous iteration, but the experience of families who have a loved one killed abroad is that it can be inconsistent. Some victims also receive fragmented, delayed updates about their case, and they often have to chase information themselves, not just with Victim Support or the FCDO but within the country.

Support from the Homicide Service is currently discretionary. This can leave families without dedicated help after the trauma if there are no resources. Having it in the victims’ code will ensure certainty for victims in receiving a service, despite the many differences and difficulties of dealing with the complex arrangements abroad. It is also clear from the guidance that only a certain level of financial help is available to victims from Homicide Service caseworkers. Finally, despite what is written in the guidance, many families have to find and pay for translation services themselves, and there is a risk of inconsistency in service provision. Having it in the victims’ code would ensure that the onus is no longer placed on the victim to get documents translated. This would also give families parity of support with foreign nationals who are victims in the UK, or with UK nationals whose first language is not English.

Turning to the other amendments, we on these Benches support Amendment 37, on the extension of the victim contact scheme, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. This will probably be no surprise to him, given that it was tabled by Jess Brown-Fuller MP, my honourable friend in the House of Commons. I did write to the noble and learned Lord after it was tabled, asking him to withdraw the amendment, as we on these Benches had decided that we wanted to re-table it here in the House of Lords, as per our convention. The PBO told us recently that they received no such request, but that does not diminish our support for it.

I also signed Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The first seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour have access to victim support services provided by local police and crime commissioners. These services are only available to victims as defined by the victims’ code of practice. Persistent anti-social behaviour is not just tiresome and irritating: it can have a traumatising psychological effect on victims. I am particularly reminded of the late Baroness Newlove talking about the local youths who made her and her family’s lives an absolute misery before they brutally murdered her husband. If the police cannot stop it, then surely victims should be able to get support locally. Amendment 47B proposes that each victim have a unique identifier, to be used with all the different agencies involved in their experience. Given the debate we have had today on many of the amendments, this identifier might well solve some of the problems alluded to about different parts of the system and different bodies not understanding or even knowing what was going on.

At the moment, the experience of sharing data between relevant agencies can be woeful, and this number would strengthen the system. It would mean risk assessments can work better, as well as monitoring compliance with the victims’ code and improving communication and collaboration across agencies.

I have also signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which tackle the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to earlier, of how hospitals ensure that they balance the needs of the victim with those of a patient who has murdered a family member of the victim. At the moment, unfortunately, because of the code of ethics that medical practitioners are bound by, the balance is in the patient is their absolute priority, which can mean that victims of the most serious crimes cannot know where the offenders, the patients, are, or if there are any changes in the care that they might need to know about, which might include such things as short-term home release. This is much less than the information that is available when an offender is in prison, and the process for the victim to ask for information involves asking a victim liaison officer at the hospital, who will ask for the information from the clinicians. That is two Chinese walls between the victim and the person providing the information. Because, once behind hospital walls, there is no evidence that the medics balance or give due regard to the safety and well-being of victims, and this is very retraumatising for the victims.

I also wonder sometimes whether medical practitioners do not get to see all the relevant data about the actual act and the consequences for the victim. From these Benches, we support proposals that would ensure that the medical professionals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether to provide information to the victim and must write to the victim to explain when they have decided not to take that balanced view. There should also be an appeal mechanism. These amendments would ensure that right 11 of the victims’ code is delivered for victims, giving them the same right of requesting that information from prisons and from other bodies where a patient might be held.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, in general I support these amendments, particularly those put forward by my noble friend Lady Finlay. Having been in charge of some of these investigations over a long period of time, take it from me that they are very difficult, indeed nearly impossible, when the victim dies outside the jurisdiction. In a lot of cases, in the old days, talking to the DPP, some of us went out there personally to actually do the investigations. It was difficult in a way that is not necessary, and I think that what has been outlined by my noble friend is absolutely common sense. In the old days, if I might refer to them, things were a bit simpler: we dealt with the police, who were sometimes not quite up to our standards, and we tried to form some relationship. However, things have got more difficult in terms of the technical side of the law, so I make a kind of brief supplication, basically, as a practitioner over a long period of time: I really think that some of these amendments would have a massive effect on securing justice for victims, particularly in those places where we do not have any jurisdiction whatever.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has just used the phrase “common sense”, and I think that that is what is expected by people who are affected, who know that they could look to consular services for help if they have lost a passport, but not in such a difficult situation as this. I simply say—and this is not addressed to the noble Baroness but possibly to some of her colleagues—that over the period that we have discussed this issue, there has almost been a sense of, “That’s the Foreign Office, it’s not us”. If we could get this into the victims’ code, it might mean a duty on the FCDO to be prepared to be more effective, and actually to be more effective.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendment 45, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I apologise to the Minister for being unable to come to her briefing. It was at the same time as my Committee of the House, so I was pulled deeply. We may be able to discuss these issues at another time, but I thank her for the opportunity.

The amendment would ensure that police forces across England and Wales have access to victim navigators to support modern slavery victims. This would fulfil the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which stated:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


The provision of victim navigators will be essential to achieving the Safeguarding Minister’s pledge to drive up the prosecutions of modern slavery predators. It will help to fulfil the Government’s mission of safer streets, including tackling violence against women and girls, and achieve their election promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first by enabling more successful prosecutions and convictions of traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable.

An independent economic impact assessment concluded in 2025 that a single victim navigator benefitted the country by £150,000. This came through saving police costs, reducing victims’ needs and thus the cost of support, and increasing convictions ensuring that predators are dealt with and victims give evidence. This is vital. It also saves the exploitation of further victims.

The chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority described the benefit of victims having a victim navigator:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police recently said:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I support this amendment. It is rare that we have an amendment that goes way back on good practice.

After the riots in 1990, Northumbria Police introduced a way of monitoring and mentoring witnesses going to court. At that stage, that part of the country had the highest crime rate in Europe in relation to car crime and the like. As a result of the monitoring and mentoring—where an officer was paired up with witnesses to go to court—there was an increase of five in the convictions in that area, and it is well documented that crime in that part of the country went down by record levels, still not beaten.

Navigators are surely an expansion of the scheme and will probably deal with more difficult cases than we were dealing with in Northumbria. We know that, in trafficking and slave trafficking, it is extremely difficult to get people to come forward and give evidence, and that when they do, with the justice system as it stands at the moment, taking four to five years to get to the Crown Court, there needs to be an extra delivery to the witnesses. It is the victims who will achieve something in relation to the benefits of this.

The argument from certain quarters, I guess, will be that this is going to cost more money. That is not the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, there are massive savings in this. If it is £150,000 for each case, you only have to combine that with multiples to make the sum extraordinary.

I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is a scheme, in a different way, that worked and was created as best practice by the Prime Minister of the time, John Major. It is an old scheme that is practical and works. So, from my point of view and that of my colleagues I have talked to—you have already heard quoted a detective sergeant, but there are others higher up the tree, and constables—we would welcome this as a positive step forward.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an excellent speech and look forward to hearing a little more from her later on.

We must accept that the criminal justice system currently does not have the capacity—in the CPS, defence lawyers or prison places—to get a grip and deal with the delays we have in the judicial system. As a former commissioner, I want to talk about what is happening now on the streets in relation to policing.

The Minister has heard from me previously on rape cases and others that took place 10 days ago. It takes four years for a rape case to arrive at the Crown Court. At the present time, 91 trials listed at Snaresbrook will not be heard until the latter part of 2028. These are the same delays they have at Southwark, Woolwich, Wood Green and the Central Criminal Court.

What is the answer to this? Obviously, we must have one. There is, in my view, some low-hanging fruit. The first would be the reopening and continuation of the Nightingale courts. The second would be turning magistrates’ courts into more of a Crown Court, which is what happened at Hendon when Harrow was closed.

We have to build additional courts and they have to be at the right standard. I recently went to some courts; they were filthy, the toilets were disgraceful, and the whole atmosphere was not one that you would want to spend much time in. I believe that the court hearings should go from 10 am to 4 pm.

In addition, greater credit should be given to a defendant pleading guilty on the first day of his or her appearance, rather than the third appearance or when he or she turns up for trial.

The question of determining trials either way should be decided by a judge and not the defendant. Greater consistency should be given to listing the process, allowing the police to prioritise case types at given times. They have made a plea for me to talk about that today.

The only way that this can be dealt with is by a cross-party and cross-departmental attack, chaired by someone who has the power to get different departments to deal with the problem. It must be solved; it is a scandal at the present time.

Rape: Prosecutions

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing this matter before the Committee. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything that my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has said, but I have some additional things to say.

The year 1988 was a seminal time for the investigation of rape. A television programme was produced on Thames Valley Police, much against the views and opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It created absolute mayhem by showing the way police officers were approaching and tackling rape. I happen to believe that it is now time for another seminal moment. Why would I say that?

In his recent report, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that the loss of public trust is about the failure

“to get the basics right”.

Surely, the investigation of rape is one of the primary things the police could deliver. There have been improvements since 1923—I mean 2023; that shows you how old I am. There has been an increase in the charging rate of 51% compared to the previous year. However, the success rate does not follow, so there are some strange figures around; I could not make much of the ones I have here myself. Although the conviction rate decreased, the volume of convictions increased, which means that the quality of cases going to the CPS and the courts, and being investigated by the police, is not quite reaching the level it could.

Rape has recently been a very important issue, and how we handle it has been shown to be not up to scratch. In her 2021-22 report, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, said:

“The distressing truth is that if you are raped in Britain today, your chances of seeing justice are  slim”.


I do not believe that is quite the position now. Protections have increased but, as the Committee will hear in a minute, there are massive deficiencies in relation to the people charged with doing the job itself and, more importantly, taking these cases through the courts.

I did my own research last night and the day before, with barristers who are prosecuting and defending, as well as two solicitors who are responsible for dealing with prosecution in these cases. One of the weaknesses they identified, my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has already talked about: victim attrition. It is said that it takes 10 months to bring a case from arrest, through investigation and questioning, to prosecution. My short and maybe faulty investigation shows that it now takes 18 months. That is what I have been told, but it cannot possibly be right. One of the reasons for that, which my noble friend and colleague has talked about, is the expertise of the people doing these investigations. You cannot have someone with no experience of detective work, investigation and forensic science doing a complicated rape case. You have to have one of the best detectives, who we use for terrorism and organised crime.

Returning to victim attrition, last year, 77 people decided that there was no point in going forward with a prosecution. They had to wait a further three to four years after the police had taken 10 to 18 months to get to court. That is an absolute disgrace and a scandal, and I know this Government accept that. How has it come about? I could go on about what has been done to the police over the past 25 to 30 years, and produce evidence of that, but this is not the time for that.

So, in view of where we are, my noble friend and colleague is right. We need expertise in the front line in investigating rapes, in order to do it in a proper way. The forensic side is massively important, because a lot of that will be what I call first-hand evidence. That has to be done by properly trained detectives, but there is a massive shortage of them in this country at the moment, for a number of reasons. Let us get that right. Then, let us consider how long it takes to prosecute, and the fast-tracking of CPS decisions. Equally important—although it is harder to do this in the present circumstances because of the state of the courts and the lack of barristers—is rapid charging: taking a case to court quickly, so that people’s memories of the trauma and violence they have experienced are fresh.

At the end of the day, we are all here for the Minister. We are here to help, not to criticise. Of course, we know about the terrible, tragic scandals involving people such as Couzens—that monster who was stalking the streets. But on this issue, things can be taken forward. We are not going to create Rome in a day, but we want to go stage by stage, improving what we are doing for victims. My message is similar to Bernard’s—how dare I refer to him by his Christian name!—we are here, it can be done and, if I may say so, this Government have made a very good start. I know the Minister and the Home Secretary are behind it, so let us get on with it, stage by stage. Your Lordships’ House needs to keep a watching brief on this, because it is too important to fail.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I too would like to draw attention to the amount of correspondence that I have received, as well as the number of telephone calls and conversations in the street. There is no doubt whatever that this is one of the major issues of our time, so I too commend those who brought this Bill in front of the House. I am in general agreement on the issue of assisted dying if it preserves dignity in death and reduces pain and suffering—the choice of a so-called good death. However, there have to be proper safeguards, safeguards which have to be credible and tested.

There is undoubtedly confusion about what this Bill is about, some of which has been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Some 12 months ago, my family and I had to make a difficult decision about a very close loved one, as to whether she should be resuscitated. We decided against. In conversations with my family and others, some have said to me that this Bill addresses those issues and is similar in that respect. I do not believe that it is, but we have to bear that in mind.

What is certain is that there needs to be certainty in the law. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, the previous DPP, has basically plugged the gap. He did a superb job in his directions as the DPP, leaving the police, as my noble friend Lord Blair of Boughton illustrated, with some difficult decisions in sudden and suspicious deaths. As a junior and then a senior detective I went to hundreds of sudden and suspicious deaths, and it was one of the more difficult things that I had to judge and decide on. We in this place should be providing a certainty in law that gives those at the very front line of these issues—the police officers who go to these instances and are rightly called on to investigate—a certainty in how to deal with them. I believe that that is not too much to ask for.

Although I support the Bill in general, I have concerns about a prediction of six months of life. I have seen many cases, and heard noble Lords relate many cases, that demonstrate the uncertainties surrounding such predictions. I have massive admiration for the medical profession, but it is a nonsense that people can say that someone will definitely die within six months. That needs to be addressed.

I worry about the elderly being pressurised. I worry about the question of the agreement of two doctors being a sufficient safeguard. The Abortion Act and what has happened since is in itself evidence that that is not good enough. I firmly believe that there should be some judicial safeguards to what we do. But the Bill must go forward. It must go to Committee. It must be discussed. We have been given the responsibility of delivering answers to safeguard the dignity of the vulnerable and the dying. To do nothing is not an option.