Criminal Injuries Compensation

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all.

I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime.

I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim.

Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year.

One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions.

At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery.

Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it.

My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports.

I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended.

Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation.

That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation.

There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service.

We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.

[Sarah Russell]

If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which we can of course consider. We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course. The Victims’ Commissioner meets me regularly to talk about compliance with the victims code and how we hold agencies accountable for their failure to uphold it, so that can be considered.

As well as compensation, the Ministry of Justice provides funding for vital victim and witness support services, including community-based services, in addition to the funding that we give police and crime commissioners to allocate on the basis of their assessment of local need. Across Government the financial situation is difficult, and we await the outcome of the spending review, but the Government will be considering how we can best provide the support that the victims of crime need and deserve.

As a proud Welsh MP, I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am due to meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very soon to discuss how we can best support victims of crime wherever they reside in these isles.

I reassure hon. Members that they have all been heard today, in the same way that I have heard the respondents to the consultation. Their message to me is that we need change, with less consultation and less talk, because we need action. Listening to their experiences, views and suggestions will help me to consider how we can best improve the system, make it effective and workable, and provide victims with the justice that they long for and deserve.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for his contribution to this important debate and for all his work in supporting victims of crime.

Crime and Policing Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 8.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very pleased to be able to speak to these provisions.

We live our lives surrounded by technology that allows us to take photographs or record film at the click of a button. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, smart TVs and minute cameras and recording devices have revolutionised our lives, but they do not come without the very real risk that they can be used for nefarious purposes, such as taking intimate images of a person without their knowledge or consent.

The scale of this problem is growing. When the Law Commission carried out its detailed review of the law in this area in 2020 to 2022, it found that the police recorded at least 28,201 reports of disclosing private sexual images without consent between April 2015 and December 2021. Only three years later, a Women and Equalities Committee investigation showed that the Revenge Porn Helpline went from receiving 3,200 cases in 2020 to 22,276 in 2024. Those figures include only those reporting to the helpline. As we are all aware, many, many more individuals may not report.

I have huge respect for the work of the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is committed to supporting victims. The Government and the wider violence against women and girls sector have moved away from using the terminology “revenge porn”. Let us be clear: it is not revenge. Nothing a victim could ever do justifies any kind of abuse. It is not an act of revenge; it is an act of abuse. It is also not pornography. The participant is not consenting, and the subject never intended it to be available for public viewing. It is non-consensual intimate image abuse.

The Government share the Women and Equalities Committee’s concerns. We have committed to halving violence against women and girls, who make up the majority of victims of intimate image abuse. Taking an intimate image of someone without their consent is a violation. Victims can experience significant harm and trauma. It can impact every aspect of their lives, from their physical and mental health to their relationships and careers. It is therefore vital that our legal framework deals effectively with that behaviour.

That type of offending needs to be seen as part of the wider landscape of sexual violence and sexual offending. It may be carried out by those who are also committing the most abhorrent physical sexual offences. That was so in the case of Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband was caught because he was taking photographs under women’s clothing—an act similar to those covered by the upskirting offence in England and Wales. As is evident in that case and many others, intimate image abuse can be the beginning of an escalation, or can go hand in hand with those already perpetrating violent sexual crimes. If we can catch it early, perhaps we can prevent or stop further abuse in its tracks.

We know that there is a relationship between online and offline violent misogyny. We also know that many perpetrators start their campaigns of abuse with apparent low-level sexual offences. Sarah Everard’s murderer had indecently exposed himself before he went on to brutally rape and murder her. The escalation is clear in both the online and the offline world. The Pelicot case shows that intimate image abuse cannot be viewed in isolation; it is part of wider violence against women and girls. That is why the Government, in this clause, are cracking down on the perpetrators of violence against women and girls in all its forms. Those perpetrators need to be stopped and held accountable for their crimes. As Gisèle Pelicot said:

“it’s not for us to have shame—it’s for them”.

Existing law does address some of that behaviour, but it is far from comprehensive and effective. The previous Government introduced some new offences in this area to tackle sharing intimate images without consent, but they did not go far enough. They did not have the bravery or political will to take a real stand against this type of abuse, introducing offences on intimate image abuse in their Criminal Justice Bill, which they allowed to fall in favour of attempting to re-elect a failing Prime Minister and a failing Government. This has gone on long enough. That is why, in our first year in office and in our first crime and justice Bill, we are now doing what they should have done and are addressing the taking of those images, the first step in this type of offending.

The clause and schedule we are discussing build on what we have already done in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexual deepfakes. In that Bill, we introduced a new offence of creating purported intimate images—more commonly known as deepfakes—without consent, or reasonable belief in consent. We have also introduced an offence of requesting the creation of such an image without consent or reasonable belief in consent. Those new offences will tackle a rapidly proliferating area of offending, providing further protection for victims.

The taking of real intimate images needs to be tackled as well, however. The taking of intimate images without consent is not new. It has been possible for many years, from analogue cameras through digital cameras to the ease of the smartphone. The law has rightly criminalised some of that behaviour, but changing technology has made it even easier to take such images. Only last week, The Sunday Times reported on the widespread practice of individuals installing covert cameras in order to secretly record intimate images of women getting changed at swimming pools. Some of that behaviour is already covered by existing offences, but we want to ensure that the law is consistent and comprehensive, and captures all the behaviour that it should, giving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service the tools to tackle it.

At the moment, taking such images is covered by the offence set out in section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is part of a wider set of offences in sections 67 and 67A, which cover “observing” and “recording” of individuals in certain intimate circumstances without their consent. Section 67(3) provides for an offence of recording images of a person “doing a private act” if the person recording it intends that he, or a third party, will gain sexual gratification from looking at the image, and the person recording knows that the person in the photo does not consent to being recorded with that intention. That means that the prosecution has to prove the perpetrator’s intent and that they knew that the person in the photo had not consented to being recorded for that purpose.

The voyeurism offences also include the so-called upskirting offence in section 67A of the 2003 Act, which covers recording images, without consent or reasonable belief in consent, of a person’s genitals or buttocks, or underwear covering them, under a person’s clothes. The offence has different intent elements from the section 67 offence and a different definition of the photographs taken. Those differences were among many issues looked at by the Law Commission, which in 2019 was asked to review in detail the law on taking, making and sharing intimate images without consent. The commission submitted a final report in 2022, “Intimate image abuse”, which recommended a comprehensive suite of intimate image abuse offences to ensure that the law was consistent and coherent. We agree that that is what is needed. Consistent law will be easier to understand and to work with, ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice.

As I mentioned, the previous Government made some changes on sharing offences, but they left the law in a mess. We now have a situation where the offences relating to taking and to sharing intimate images without consent are not consistent. Different definitions of the images are covered and they include different intent elements. The Government will not tolerate that.

To address such offending properly and consistently, we will repeal two of the existing voyeurism offences, relating to

“recording a person doing a private act”

and

“recording an image beneath a person’s clothing”—

the so-called upskirting offence—and replace them with three new criminal offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent.

The base offence will be of taking or recording an intimate image without consent or a reasonable belief in consent. That offence carries no requirement to prove that the taking or recording was done for a particular reason. There will also be two more serious offences of taking or recording an intimate image without consent and with the intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or without consent or reasonable belief in consent for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

Consent must be at the heart of this new offence. It is the key element, and one that is long overdue. Previously, the onus was on the defence to prove that the accused intended to cause harm. Now, we are moving to a consent-based model that centres the autonomy of the victim. Consent is the most important element of any law of this nature. I am not interested in what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own relationship; what this Government are interested in is that, where consent is not given, the perpetrators are punished appropriately and the victim receives the justice they deserve for the violation and abhorrent abuse that they have experienced.

Crucially, these offences will all use the definition of a person in an “intimate state”, which covers images in which the person’s buttocks, genitals or breasts are exposed or covered with underwear; images depicting the person engaging in a sexual act of a sort not usually seen in public; and images showing the person using the toilet. That is broader than the current definition and provides a consistent definition across all the intimate image abuse offences, providing a package of offences.

These changes are important and overdue, but we will not stop there. One of our other concerns about the current law relates to people installing equipment in order for them, or someone else, to take an intimate image without consent. Section 67(4) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for someone to install equipment, or construct or adapt a structure, or any part of a structure, to enable someone to commit the offence of observing a person doing a private act. That means that I commit an offence if I drill a hole in a changing room wall to allow myself or someone else to spy on people getting changed for sexual gratification, knowing that those getting changed do not consent to being observed for this purpose. That is currently an offence even if I never actually use the hole to spy on those people—merely adapting the structure is sufficient.

However, the offence in section 67(4) of the 2003 Act is limited to installing equipment or adapting structures in relation to observing victims, not recording photographs or videos of them. That means that if I install a spy camera in the wall of a changing room so that I, or someone else, can remotely take photographs or videos of people getting changed, I am not committing that offence. I would have to have actually taken the photographs for that offence to have been committed. That cannot be right.

The new offence to be inserted at section 66 of the 2003 Act will change that. To address concerns about the increasing use of spy cameras to record people in public bathrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms or holiday lets, it will be an offence to install equipment with the intention to enable anyone, whether the installer or a third party, to commit one of the taking offences. To address the harmful and culpable nature of that behaviour in and of itself, it will not be necessary for any images to have been taken using the equipment.

These offences will build on the sharing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to provide a holistic package of offences using the same definitions and core elements. That addresses the criticisms of the patchwork nature of the existing law, which has resulted in gaps in protection for victims. On top of that, we know that being a victim of one of these crimes can be humiliating and degrading, and that victims can be overwhelmed by shame and embarrassment despite having done nothing wrong. It is therefore vitally important that victims will automatically be eligible for lifelong anonymity.

We are also ensuring that those convicted of the new offences of taking or recording an intimate image for sexual gratification, or installing with the intent to enable the commission of that offence, may be subject to notification requirements. That means that they can be monitored in the community, helping the police to keep the public safer from these predators. The courts can already deprive offenders of the images and the devices on which they are held upon conviction for non-consensual sharing of an intimate image. We will update the sentencing code to give courts the same powers, upon conviction, for intimate images taken without consent. I am grateful to the Law Commission for its extensive review of the law relating to intimate images and its well-considered recommendations upon which these new provisions are based.

I also extend my gratitude to all those who took the time to contribute their views, knowledge and experience, particularly the victims. The courage needed to speak out about these crimes cannot be overestimated, and we are indebted to those brave victims who have shared their experiences so powerfully. We are also grateful to the bodies representing the police, prosecutors and legal practitioners. This allowed us to hear from experts in this area, from those supporting and campaigning on behalf of victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to follow the powerful and well-researched contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh.

In the digital age, the non-consensual capture and distribution of intimate images and the act of voyeurism have become all too common. Clause 56, which seeks to confront these violations and better protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, is one that I am happy to support, and I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the case. The clause expands existing laws to criminalise the non-consensual taking of intimate images, including instances such as downblousing, the creation and distribution of digitally altered images such as deepfakes without consent, and the installation of equipment intended to capture intimate images without consent. All are in response to the recommendation from the Law Commission’s 2022 report on intimate image abuse.

The digital landscape has facilitated new forms of abuse, often with devastating consequences. Refuge has reported that one in 14 adults in England and Wales has experienced threats to share intimate images—that is 4.4 million people. The Revenge Porn Helpline has detailed the rise in those figures—it received nearly 19,000 reports in 2023, marking a 106% increase from 2022, and a tenfold rise over five years.

I also welcome the Minister framing this crime in the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. There is a clear gender disparity when it comes to this crime. In 71% of cases, the victim is female and in over 81% of cases, the perpetrator is male. Those statistics underscore the urgent need for legal reforms to address and deter such abuses effectively, and to protect women and girls overwhelmingly. However, as we have heard frequently in Committee, it will also be critical that the measures are matched with improved enforcement. The sharing of intimate images has been illegal since 2015, and threatening to share intimate images has been a crime since 2021 but, shamefully, perpetrators are rarely held to account.

Data published by Refuge in 2023 showed that conviction rates for intimate abuse remain woefully low, with only 4% of cases that are reported to the police resulting in perpetrators being charged. I share Refuge’s view that that must improve. I was also shocked to learn that there remains a gap in the law where non-consensual images remain on perpetrators’ devices even after a conviction. That must be incredibly distressing for those affected by this crime. I ask the Minister to outline what provisions are in place to protect the dignity of victims, so that perpetrators are compelled to delete any non-consensual images.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, which has been deeply moving at times, particularly when it has touched on the impact on victims in all our constituencies and how widespread and horrific the problem is. That stresses the importance of us tackling it in the Bill.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, mentioned sextortion, as did other hon. Members. It is a growing problem. Just this week, its impact—on young men as well as young women—was highlighted on “Good Morning Britain”. Sextortion is already covered by existing offences; we feel that it is already tackled. We are aware that it happens primarily online on social media platforms. Thankfully, the codes of practice that Ofcom is introducing under the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023 will compel platforms to do more to tackle this horrific abuse. However, it is already a crime, and I stress that any victim or survivor who is struggling with it should report it to the relevant authorities—to the police and to the social media platforms directly—because action should be taken to tackle it and the powers and offences to do so are available. These crimes have caused tragic suicides, and I would encourage anyone struggling to reach out and tell someone to contact the Revenge Porn Helpline, which is there to offer assistance and support. It is a brilliant resource, as has been highlighted.

The hon. Member for Windsor asked about deprivation orders, I believe, and how we can ensure that these images are removed from devices so that victims are not retraumatised but protected. We are updating sentencing guidelines, to ensure that that measure is available to the courts—that devices can be taken off perpetrators and the images removed so that victims retain their dignity and are not being revictimised consistently.

This has been a very important discussion, highlighting just how important these measures are. I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 57

Exposure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The clause provides for a modest but important reform to strengthen the offence of exposure in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Currently, the offence, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence, is committed when a person intentionally exposes their genitals and intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. Importantly, the offence—subject to certain conditions—attracts sexual offender notification requirements. That means that qualifying offenders released into the community will be required to notify the police of their personal details. Offenders have to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth and national insurance number.

In “Modernising Communications Offences: A final report”, published in 2021, the Law Commission noted evidence in response to its public consultation that suggested that the intention to cause alarm or distress was “too narrow” a mental element for this offence. The commission highlighted the fact that sexual gratification and a desire to humiliate the victim were among the major drivers of exposure. Under the existing criminal law, if a person exposes their genitals to another with the intention to humiliate, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and does not also have an intention to cause alarm or distress, the behaviour is not captured by the exposure offence in section 66 of the 2003 Act. If a person is exposing themselves only with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification and with no intent to cause alarm or distress, that is currently insufficient to commit the section 66 offence.

Crown Prosecution Service guidance makes that point clear and suggests that, in such cases, charging with the offence of outraging public decency should be considered. However, depending on the circumstances, outraging public decency might not be an appropriate or valid charge. That offence is committed only when someone does something lewd, obscene or disgusting in the presence of at least two members of the public. The offence requires at least two people to have witnessed the act or been capable of witnessing it, so if, for example, someone exposes themselves to a lone woman for sexual gratification, that very disturbing behaviour would not currently be captured by the outraging public decency offence—and it would not be captured by the existing sexual offence of exposure. If someone were to expose themselves, for sexual gratification, to a person in a private dwelling rather than in public, the behaviour would not fall within the terms of that offence, either. Furthermore, and very importantly, the offence of outraging public decency does not attract sexual offender registration requirements. On release, therefore, the additional protection to society that effective sex offender management provides would not apply to such an offender, even if they carried out the behaviour specifically to obtain sexual gratification.

It is important that we recognise the seriousness of the offence of exposure in the 2003 Act. For victims, it is clearly a disturbing and frightening experience, which can have lasting effects. It is a serious sexual offence that can be identified as a signal of potential for escalation towards even more serious and violent offences. Sadly, we have seen that time and again. Although what I am about to discuss is by no means the only example of escalation of sexual offences, it is perhaps one of the most prominent in recent history. It is one that I know has stayed with all of us across the House, and no one more so than the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, my very good and right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham. I pay tribute to the way she and her community have coped with the devastation of this tragic event five years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

The clause aims to strengthen the protections for individuals from indecent exposure, and to ensure that our communities remain safe and respectful spaces for all. It seeks to provide clearer definitions and stricter penalties for offences involving indecent exposure so that perpetrators of such offences are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve for this sexual crime.

While sometimes dismissed as minor, exposure of this kind can have a significant psychological and emotional impact on victims. It is not a trivial matter and can often be a precursor to more severe offences, as we saw with the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, and it contributes to a climate of fear and discomfort in public spaces. Multiple incidents of indecent exposure were linked to the convicted murderer of Sarah Everard before the tragic events of her death in March 2021. In 2015 and 2020, allegations of indecent exposure were made against him in Kent, where he was said to have exposed himself in public. Those reports were not fully investigated at the time. In February 2021, just days before he abducted and murdered Sarah Everard, he was reported to police for exposing himself to staff at a McDonald’s drive-through in Kent. Despite that report being made on 28 February, no meaningful action was taken prior to the murder, which occurred on 3 March. Those incidents have since been heavily scrutinised during inquests and reviews, revealing systematic failures in policing responses to sexual offences, especially so-called lower-level offences such as exposure.

While I welcome the expansion of the scope of this offence through clause 57, I urge police to use the new powers and treat these crimes as the serious crimes that they are. They can be a warning of even worse crimes to come. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the College of Policing guidance is being changed appropriately. Being subjected to indecent exposure by a stranger while walking home can leave a woman with lasting trauma. Such behaviour is unacceptable and should be met with appropriate consequences.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for his important contribution. It is right that we expand the scope of the offence to ensure that all victims are properly protected and that perpetrators are brought to adequate justice. As he rightly pointed out, justice is a system; it needs every part to work. We need to ensure that the police are equipped with the guidance, training and tools to go after these foul perpetrators—they need to know what to do, what to look for and who to find. They should be taking this seriously, so I am glad that the College of Policing guidance is now in place. We need the CPS to have the offences available to charge the perpetrators—that is what this Bill will provide—and then we need the court system to be available to hear the cases so that justice can be brought.

The shadow Minister sought reassurance that perpetrators would be brought to justice. As I have just outlined, we are assured that we have all the tools available; we just need to stop these acts taking place. This modest but vital step is part of our wider strategy to halve violence against women and girls. These crimes may be low level and classed as non-contact, but sadly we all know what happens when they escalate. It is important that we take them seriously and have robust laws in place to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Sexual activity with a corpse

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I feel that I should provide hon. Members with a content warning before I discuss what this new offence does, and it is probably quite important that we are doing this before lunch. Clause 58 is on a gruesome but none the less important issue. The clause introduces an amendment by expanding the law on sexual activity with a corpse—a distinct and abhorrent type of offending, as shown in the recent case of David Fuller. The sheer horror and repulsiveness of the crime cannot be overstated. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families of those subject to the offence, who have been profoundly affected by these unimaginable, heinous acts. The clause will address a wider range of such despicable behaviour and mark the beginning of a very important step towards ensuring justice for all. We are committed to stopping all such behaviour by making a significant change today. I would like to take a moment to set out the history of the offence.

The Labour Government introduced the Sexual Offences Act 2003 after a full and extensive consultation called “Setting the Boundaries”. It significantly modernised and strengthened the laws on sexual offences in England and Wales. One of the key recommendations from “Setting the Boundaries” was the inclusion of the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse, in chapter 8, “Other Offences”. At the time, the consultation said:

“It came as a surprise to most members of the review that there was no such protection in law for human remains and that necrophilia was not illegal.”

That is why the recommendation was simply put that sexual penetration of a corpse needed to be a criminal offence. Then and now, a Labour Government have demonstrated the importance of getting such legislation right to prevent such heinous behaviour. The commitment was evident then and remains even more crucial now.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the independent inquiry for its thorough investigation into the horrific acts committed by David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospitals. The interim report, published on 15 October 2024, provides essential preliminary findings and recommendations for the funeral sector, highlighting areas that require attention. We eagerly await the final report and will carefully consider its findings to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated. At the core of our efforts, we remain deeply mindful of the families of those subjected to the offence. Their pain and suffering are unimaginable, and our thoughts are with them. We are grateful to the families of the deceased who have bravely come forward to speak publicly about their experiences in the hopes of making lasting change. We understand that revisiting these traumatic events is incredibly painful, and we are truly sorry for any additional distress caused by bringing these matters up in Parliament, but their voices are vital in ensuring justice.

Police officers have played a vital role in explaining the immense challenges faced while gathering evidence for the courts. Their painstaking work in sifting through the horrific images and explaining the evidence was crucial. Without their efforts, we might not have fully understood the importance of broadening the offence to include sexual touching. Their dedication and professionalism have been instrumental in bringing David Fuller to justice. David Fuller is serving a whole life sentence for his abhorrent crimes. As Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb stated during the sentencing, his

“actions go against everything that is right and humane. They are incomprehensible”

and

“had no regard for the dignity of the dead.”

These words resonate deeply with all of us, reinforcing the importance of upholding the dignity of, and respect for, those who have passed.

We are committed to ensuring that justice is secured for the families of the deceased in all cases of sexual activity with a corpse, not just in cases of penetration. That is why the clause repeals the existing offence of sexual penetration of a corpse in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and replaces it with a broader offence of sexual activity with a corpse. The broader offence still criminalises sexual penetration of a corpse, but it also criminalises non-penetrative sexual touching, adding it into the criminal law for the first time. It increases the maximum penalty for sexual penetration of a corpse from two to seven years’ imprisonment. Where penetration is not involved, the maximum penalty will be five years’ imprisonment. The new offence will be committed whenever a person intentionally touches the body of a dead person if they know they are dead or are reckless as to whether the person they are touching is dead, and the touching is sexual. Touching is already defined in section 79(8) of the 2003 Act.

We want to ensure that criminal law is robust and comprehensive, effectively addressing the harm caused by this reprehensible behaviour. It is imperative that our criminal law evolves to encompass additional forms of abuse, particularly those that violate the dignity and sanctity of individuals both alive and deceased. By broadening the offence to include non-penetrative actions, such as the sexual touching of a corpse, the law will be more robust, ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape justice.

Our commitment extends beyond merely updating the law and involves a holistic approach to justice that prioritises respect for those affected. We strive to create an environment in which such heinous acts are met with the strongest possible legal repercussions, ensuring that justice is served and, importantly, that the families of the deceased receive the support and closure they so rightly deserve. I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause updates and strengthens the current offence of sexual activity involving a corpse, as set out in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The revised provisions broaden the scope of the offence by replacing the term “sexual penetration” with the more encompassing term “sexual activity”. The clause replicates a provision of the Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the 2024 general election. The change ensures that any form of intentional sexual touching of a dead body—not just acts of penetration—will be captured by the law.

Many members of the public are shocked to hear that these vile and horrific offences take place, and will be further shocked that some of this activity is not covered by the law. Currently, section 70 of the 2003 Act defines the offence of sexual penetration of a corpse. That offence applies when a person intentionally sexually penetrates the body of a deceased individual, and knows or is reckless as to whether the body is that of a deceased person. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

As the Minister mentioned, the provision was notably used in the high-profile case of David Fuller, a former hospital electrician who was convicted under section 70 for multiple instances of sexual penetration involving the bodies of at least 100 women and girls in hospital mortuaries. However, the current scope of section 70 does not extend to non-penetrative sexual acts, so it could not have been used to prosecute further allegations against Fuller relating to other forms of sexual activity with the bodies of his victims. Under this legislation, a person commits an offence if they intentionally touch a part of a dead person’s body, with that touching being sexual in nature, and if they either know or are reckless as to the fact that the body is that of a deceased person.

The clause also provides a new, tiered sentencing structure. Where the sexual activity involves penetration, the offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. In all other cases, the maximum penalty is five years. These sentencing thresholds aim to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, while allowing courts flexibility to reflect the nature of the offence. The new offence introduces different maximum sentences depending on whether penetration is involved. Can the Minister explain how these sentencing thresholds were determined, and have the Government considered how the updated offence aligns with comparable offences in other jurisdictions? Does this bring us into line with international best practice?

[Jack Rankin]

There have been some truly harrowing cases that have exposed the inadequacies of our current legal framework in this regard. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister highlighted, the case of David Fuller is the obvious and most extreme example—a hospital electrician who, over 12 years, sexually abused the bodies of more than 100 women and girls in women and mortuaries. His crimes went undetected for decades, revealing significant systematic failure. I fully support the clause that the Minister has outlined, particularly because, as Baroness Noakes has highlighted during parliamentary debates, had Fuller not been convicted of murder, he might have faced only a minimal sentence for his other offences.

I have several critical questions on clause 58. I appreciate that the clause would significantly increase the penalty, but are those proposed penalties sufficient? Given the gravity of these offences, should the maximum sentence not be even higher, so that it serves as a stronger deterrent? Take the example of David Fuller. If we had caught him before the murder, under the provisions of the Bill, would he have been given seven years, and is that enough? What safeguards are in place? How can institutions, especially hospitals and funeral homes, implement stricter protocols to prevent such abuses? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. How do we support the victims’ families? Beyond legal measures, what support systems are available to help families to cope with the trauma inflicted by disgusting crimes such as this? Clause 58 is clearly a necessary and long overdue reform that acknowledges the sanctity of the deceased and the rights of the families, and provides greater justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I welcome it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Windsor. Both touched on sentencing, and I am happy to address their questions. We have considered a range of options. Increasing the statutory maximum for section 70 to seven years is in keeping with the other serious contact offences in the Sexual Offences Act, while it remains lower than most of the serious contact sexual offences against living victims. Sexual assault and rape, for example, have a maximum penalty of 10 years and life imprisonment respectively. The statutory maximum set out in the clause is for a single offence. If a person receives multiple convictions for this offence, or if that offence is committed alongside other offences, then the court may adjust the overall sentence to reflect the totality of the offending in the ordinary way.

We also heard strong evidence of the harm caused by this offending to victims’ families and believe that two years does not reflect the harm caused. We have, therefore, considered, in particular, the serious emotional and psychological distress and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that the families undergo, knowing that the bodies of their loved ones have been sexually abused. It is therefore right that the new law takes

“Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body”

as a factor that indicates high culpability on the part of the offender, and that a more serious punishment may, therefore, be appropriate.

I remind hon. Members that we currently have a sentencing review in place, which is reviewing all the offences available and looking at this. That independent review is ongoing and we anticipate that it will report this year. We are also aware that the Law Commission is considering a review of the criminal law around the desecration of bodies as part of its next programme of law reform. We are currently discussing the possibility of looking into this with it. Let me reassure Members that we are not stopping and that we will not hesitate to go further if required.

On the support available for victims, I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Windsor that victim support is always available for anyone who has been a victim of crime, whether or not that crime has been reported to the police. I encourage any victim, survivor or family to reach out to victim support. The Ministry of Justice funds a number of victim support organisations and provides grants to local police and crime commissioners to provide tailored support in their areas for whatever they feel is necessary. We also have the victims’ code, which outlines exactly what victims are entitled to if they have been a victim of crime, and support is one of the many elements available to them there. I encourage anyone to reach out and seek the support that is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Notification of name change

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 59, page 59, line 11, at end insert—

“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of policies applying to bail conditions in domestic violence cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

This Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. A broad range of bail conditions can be imposed to protect victims, including electronic monitoring for those who meet the remand threshold, exclusion zones and non-contact orders. Suspects can also be remanded in prison.

[Ellie Chowns]

I raise this issue following a meeting with a constituent whose case raises deep concerns that are more widely relevant. First, bail conditions—sometimes weak, sometimes poorly enforced—do not always protect victims of domestic violence from further harassment by their abuser. Secondly, despite the increase in the time limit to two years under the 2022 regulations, the six-month limit for prosecutions means that some cases time out. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss what more can be done to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are fully protected from their abusers?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue from her constituency. We know that more needs to be done in this area, and that is why this Government have started to roll out our domestic abuse protection orders to help victims of domestic abuse in selected areas. We are seeing how that goes. We are developing policy in this area to protect victims, and women and girls in particular. I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss what more we can do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having spoken to Essex police and other professionals, and having worked for a homeless charity myself, I know that often the hardest part for victims of domestic violence is making the decision to leave what is sometimes the family home. What work has the Minister done with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Tackling violence against women and girls is not just a Ministry of Justice problem to fix, but a problem for every Government Department to fix. That is why I have met with my counterparts across the Departments, including in MHCLG, to discuss housing needs. We will be publishing our violence against women and girls strategy later this year, and I look forward to discussing it with him in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to ensure child safety during private law proceedings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration for family courts, which should follow the welfare checklist, as set out in the Children Act 1989. Our new approach to private law proceedings—the pathfinder pilot courts—focuses on problem solving, putting greater emphasis on the voice of the child, but we are acutely aware that more needs to be done.

[Mr Forster]

The previous Government’s harm panel report stated that there is a crisis in family courts and that they are too pro-parental contact, despite there being concerns about the child’s safety. As with many things under the previous Government, the Conservatives did nothing about the report. Will this Government and the Minister commit to reversing the parental presumption where there are concerns about child abuse?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I have stated, the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration. The presumption of parental involvement states that a court should

“presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare.”

I take this opportunity to state, however, that that applies only if the parent does not put the child at risk of harm. We will publish our review of the presumption in due course.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle intimate image abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

We are introducing new offences of taking intimate images without consent and installing equipment with intent to commit such offences. We are also criminalising creating deepfake intimate images without consent. I proudly co-chair the violence against women and girls ministerial group, which oversees a cross-Government approach to tackling VAWG, including online abuse.

[Matt Turmaine]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Sexually explicit deepfakes are a scourge on our society, whether it is young boys in their bedrooms making them of their fellow pupils and teachers, or those who create explicit images of celebrities to order. How will the legislation the Government intend to bring forward on this help victims of this disgusting abuse and punish those who perpetrate it?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and that includes the horrendous, degrading and humiliating crime of taking intimate images without consent, as well as creating deepfake images without consent. For far too long, these crimes have gone unpunished, with perpetrators allowed to carry this out at will and to cover their sick behaviour under the rules of banter. We will not stand for it: we are legislating, and we are protecting women and girls.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

16. If she will have discussions with the HM Prison and Probation Service on the potential merits of reviewing its guidelines on bail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

A British mother in my constituency, having fled domestic abuse, faces forced return to Poland to stay with her young children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. With no knowledge of the local language and no source of income there, she risks either dependence on her abuser or homelessness. That is because the convention ignores the issue of domestic abuse, allowing it to be manipulated by abusers. Would Ministers support my Bill on the Hague abduction convention and domestic abuse, which I will present soon and which would change the implementation of the Hague convention in UK domestic law to protect mothers from the threat of return in this way?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss her Bill and tackle this issue head on.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary for the announcement she made today and the Government for listening to bereaved families and surviving victims. It is only right that the inquiry is statutory to ensure that it has the power to compel witnesses and hold those responsible for failings to account. What assurances can she give that the inquiry will be conducted in a timely manner and that the lessons it uncovers will be implemented swiftly to help ensure that similar attacks do not take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister take a special look at the problem of rogue builders who repeatedly target our constituents—often very vulnerable people? They take thousands from them and wreck their homes, yet the only redress is said to be trading standards. Surely that amounts to fraud and there ought to be a prosecution to follow.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

If any crime is committed, or even alleged to have been committed, it should be reported to the police in the first instance. Victims have rights under the victims code. We have recently done a campaign to advertise the code to create awareness of it, and we will soon consult on the code so that it reaches all potential victims of crime more broadly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I can say with confidence that the Sentencing Council is talking about issues to do with race and criminal justice because of a history, going back decades, of problematic issues in relation to race and criminal justice. I will come to those later. The independence of the Sentencing Council is crucial, and the idea that anybody in the Chamber is standing up for law and order yet seeks to undermine its independence—and by implication, that of the judiciary as a whole—is quite remarkable.

Next, what do the guidelines actually say? Much of the debate implies that black and minority persons are singled out for pre-sentence reports under the guidelines. On the contrary, there is a whole list of people in the guidelines on whom, the Sentencing Council suggests, judges and magistrates might ask for a pre-sentence report. Those persons include those at risk of committing their first custodial sentence; young adults; women; ethnic minorities; yes, cultural minorities, of course; pregnant and post-natal women; and the sole or primary carer for dependent relatives. The Sentencing Council is clear that that is not an exclusive list; ideally, every defendant should have a pre-sentence report. The aim of the guidelines is to ensure that judges and magistrates get the most information possible. Who could object to garnering more information on any defendant? It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to dictate the sentence in any given case.

Yet it is being argued that a pre-sentencing report will discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail. We are asked to believe that our judiciary is weak-minded and susceptible, and that it will not live up to its centuries-old standards, which, as we heard earlier, go all the way back to Magna Carta. However, the House was also told earlier that our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded. Both propositions cannot be true.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Yes, they can.

[Ms Abbott]

Well, either our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded, or it is so soft-minded that the very existence of a pre-sentencing report will make it rule in a way in which it would not otherwise have ruled.

Decisions by judges and magistrates on individual cases are not the same as policy. The Sentencing Council itself is very clear that it does not seek to dictate policy; it is simply trying to ensure that judges and magistrates have the maximum amount of information. Leading King’s Counsel Keir Monteith says that there has been a deliberate misreading of the rules in order to generate a row, and I believe that is correct.

Then we come to the talk, which I have heard on both sides of the House, about two-tier criminal justice. That can only mean that black defendants are treated more favourably than white defendants. Yet the facts tell us to the contrary. Ministers will be aware of the Lammy review, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—now the Foreign Secretary. It was a review of race in the criminal justice system, in which he found that

“Despite making up just 14% of the population,”

black and ethnic minority men and women

“make up 25% of prisoners, while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds.”

He added:

“If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.”

My right hon. Friend did not find a criminal justice system where black and brown people are treated more favourably than white people, and he did not find equality before the law. There is no reason to believe that things have changed since he drew up his review.

We need to appreciate that not only do we have a two-tier system, but it is a two-tier system in completely the opposite way to what the Lord Chancellor suggests, and it has been like that for decades. The population wants to see our two-tier criminal justice system taken seriously.

Members may remember the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Home Secretary to commission a judge-led inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1999 the Macpherson inquiry reported. It spoke in an unequivocal way about institutional racism in the police service, and it spoke in a way that I had never heard it spoken about in this House or at the most senior levels in the state. Nobody since then has challenged the notion that there is institutional racism in the police.

Do we have to have our own Macpherson inquiry into the workings of the judicial system before people will accept that institutional racism is an issue in the courts as well? It is not enough to say, “Well, you know, the facts point in that direction but we are not quite sure why the figures are like that.” We know why the figures are like that, and we have known that for decades.

If we want to win the respect of the community as a whole, we must be seen to be working towards a fair criminal justice system, not just trying to score points off the opposition; and we must look at the long term, rather than the short term. We know that, in England and Wales, black people are much more likely to be arrested than white people. Specifically, black individuals are twice as likely to be arrested as white individuals. That disparity extends to imprisonment, with black individuals being more likely to be sentenced to prison and serving longer sentences than their white counterparts. Everybody knows that people are not treated the same, and it is misleading of Members on both sides of the House to imply that that is so.

Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, said:

“We have experienced racist two-tier policing for over 500 years. If we achieve equal treatment that is not two-tier as it is long overdue. We have never asked for special treatment only equal treatment.”

The Lord Chancellor should pay attention to the wish of so many members of the community, in her constituency in Birmingham and my constituency in east London, and the wishes of so many millions of people in the community to see a fair criminal justice system that treats people fairly, not unfairly as has happened in the past. Members will know that it took the Macpherson inquiry to get a measure of understanding about criminal justice in policing.

In closing, I will say this. It is interesting to hear the banter about this issue between those on the two Front Benches, but this is not an issue for banter. This is people’s lives; this is people’s liberty. I do not think that the debate is enhanced by some of the Trump-like narrative that we are getting from the Opposition. We do not need Donald Trump-type politics in Britain today. We need seriousness about the unfair discrimination in the criminal justice system, and a willingness not just to talk about it, but to do something about it.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a privilege to serve under your inaugural chairship today, Mr Turner, and what an important debate for that chairship. I also place on record my sincere diolch yn fawr iawn to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for bringing this important debate to this place, and for highlighting the case of his constituent, Mr Buckle, and his family.

Fairness is a core pillar of our justice system. Miscarriages of justice are thankfully very rare, but they have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. They are victims of the state, so it is right that the state should help and support those people in rebuilding their lives. It is also right that we should seek to redress the occurrence of miscarriages of justice and to reduce them by learning lessons when things go wrong. Ensuring people are better protected from miscarriages of justice is one part of the Government’s “Plan for Change.”

Any miscarriage of justice is a tragedy, both for the person who is wrongfully convicted and—as was eloquently expressed by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—for the victim of the original crime and their family, who have not seen justice done. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and violence against women and girls, I know how important it is that victims have confidence in the criminal justice system and that we have safeguards in place such as the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We work hard to ensure that, when errors occur, changes are put in place to prevent similar cases from ever happening again.

As we have heard, the last year has seen some miscarriages of justice that have shocked all of us as a society, including the Post Office Horizon scandal and the appalling case of Andrew Malkinson, who was convicted of a crime he did not commit. While those cases are the exception, they require serious and swift action, which we are taking.

The Lord Chancellor has met Mr Malkinson to hear how his case has affected him. Following her meeting with him, she acted swiftly to ensure that those receiving a compensation payout for a miscarriage of justice will not have their financial eligibility for legal aid affected. The Lord Chancellor has stated her conviction that justice must be a reality, not an ideal, and I wholeheartedly agree. Following the agreement of Parliament to overturn the postmasters’ convictions, this Government acted swiftly to stand up a compensation scheme specifically for those affected. As of February this year, 273 final claims have been paid along with 407 interim payments, with the Government issuing £190 million in compensation.

As I turn to the issue of compensation, which is what this debate is about, I feel it is important at the outset to clarify what we mean when we talk about a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal is a vital safeguard in the criminal justice system. If someone appeals their sentence within the time limit, which is normally 28 days, and the Court of Appeal overturns their conviction, that is the system working as it should to correct any errors. That is not a miscarriage of justice. The interest here today is in those who have exhausted the usual appeal processes, and have often referred themselves to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If the CCRC finds that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will not uphold the conviction, it will refer the case. If the conviction is then overturned, the person may have a qualifying miscarriage of justice for the purposes of compensation. It is important to outline that here.

The miscarriage of justice application service, known as MOJAS, pays compensation to those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice. References today to a 93% refusal rate do not necessarily provide the full picture, because the Department routinely receives applications from people who do not pass the initial triage stage. Reasons for that may include that they had their conviction overturned simply following an in-time appeal, or that they had not had their conviction overturned at all; in some cases, there is no criminal conviction in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) highlighted, in the six years to April 2024, there were 591 applications received, but only 133 passed the triage and were eligible for full consideration. Of the 133 applications that passed the triage, 39 have been awarded compensation, with the Government paying out £2.4 million.

Understandably, there is some debate about where the line should be drawn for the purposes of compensation, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for outlining that. However, I highlight that there are a number of reasons why someone might have their conviction quashed on appeal, and we believe it is right that there should be a process by which eligibility for compensation from the Government should be assessed. That will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used appropriately and effectively. The test is designed so that only those who can demonstrate that their conviction has been reversed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence can receive compensation from the state.

The 2023 European Court of Human Rights judgment, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, considered the test by which eligibility for compensation was assessed in the case of Nealon and Hallam. In its judgment, issued in 2024, the Court found that the test did not breach applicants’ rights under article 6, specifically the presumption of innocence.

MOJAS is just one route by which someone whose conviction is quashed can receive compensation or support. For example, it may also be open to someone to bring a civil claim in cases where a particular agency is at fault. Support is also available through the miscarriage of justice support service, which is part of Citizens Advice, based at the Royal Courts of Justice. The support service provides advice and support to those who have their convictions quashed to help them to rebuild their lives. That could involve helping someone find accommodation, assisting with benefit claims or signposting to psychological support services. Anyone who has had their case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission is eligible for that support.

I also highlight the work that we are doing in this area both to reduce occurrences of miscarriages of justice and to improve the Government’s response to them. The Post Office scandal highlighted the lack of oversight of prosecutions brought by private prosecutors. On 6 March, the Government launched a consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutions, with the aim of ensuring that any organisation bringing a private prosecution does so according to rigorous standards and is subject to appropriate scrutiny. In addition, we have launched a call for evidence on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings. That will inform potential reforms to the law, to ensure that evidence produced by software can be properly assured.

As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli mentioned, the Law Commission is currently consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals. The consultation is rigorous, with more than 100 questions, including questions on compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to the final report in 2026, and we will consider all its recommendations in the round before deciding on any necessary reforms.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the process is fair for all involved in the criminal justice system, and a key part of that commitment is the effectiveness of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which carries out the vital work of investigating potential miscarriages of justice. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Secretary of State is in the process of recruiting an interim chair as a matter of priority. The interim chair will be tasked with conducting a full and thorough review of how the organisation operates. The findings of that review, together with the final report of the Law Commission, will provide us with the evidence we need to ensure that any change we make to the system will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.

I will ensure that the request for a meeting is passed to the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who is responsible for this brief. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today as she is in the assisted dying Bill Committee, but I will ensure it is passed on. I will also take a keen interest in the case, which I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli will mention to me at every opportunity.

It is an important principle of the justice system that people who are convicted should have the right to seek leave to apply to a higher court to review their conviction. It is also vital in the rare cases when things do go wrong that the system works effectively to correct errors and ensure that those who have suffered can rebuild their lives. I emphasise again that when the wrong person is convicted, it fails those who are wrongly convicted and also the victim of the original crime. The Government have acted and will continue to act to ensure that lessons are learned and justice is done.

Domestic Abuse Offences

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for his commitment to tackling domestic abuse. His leadership is not just political, but deeply personal and shaped by his own experiences; it drives his advocacy for better support for victims and survivors. His dedication is truly inspiring. Only through working in partnership across Government and society will we succeed in tackling domestic abuse and halving violence against women and girls. The hon. Gentleman’s passion, dedication and personal commitment to this cause shines a light on the challenges faced by victims and survivors, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

As the House will be aware, this Government were elected on a landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, and driving down domestic abuse is right at the heart of that pledge. For too long, the justice system has not been working for domestic abuse victims. We know that reports are higher than they were five years ago, while prosecutions are lower. That is unacceptable. We have taken swift action to begin reforming the system to better support victims and ensure that they have access to justice.

Across Government, we are taking steps to improve the justice system’s response to domestic abuse, from the first time that someone calls the police, to court and all the way through to the way in which perpetrators are managed after a sentence. We have introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres in selected areas so that when a victim calls the police, specialists can support first responders to assess the risk and ensure that there is an appropriate response. The Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have launched the domestic abuse joint justice plan, which brings police and prosecution experts together for a stronger, more co-ordinated approach to investigating and charging domestic abuse so that we get better outcomes for victims.

At the court stage, we have taken swift action to tackle delays by funding more than 108,500 sitting days in the Crown courts this financial year. Next year we will fund the Crown courts to run at a record level of 110,000 sitting days. We need to do that to tackle the outstanding caseload. We have also commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once-in-a-generation reform for our criminal courts, and he will report in spring this year.

We are ensuring that domestic abuse victims can access legal aid throughout the court process by changing the means test, recognising that while victims may own property or be listed as a tenant, they are often unable to benefit from the home if their abuser still lives there. We are also taking action to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse and their children are better protected in the family courts. We are expanding the pathfinder pilots, which are helping to ensure that children’s voices are heard in each case, reducing their trauma and providing more access to specialist support.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for bringing forward this really important debate. I absolutely agree that more needs to be done in the family courts, and I welcome what has been done so far, but does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at the rules around presumption of contact, particularly for children, where domestic abuse is involved? We need to update those in order to ensure that get away from the assumption that contact with an abuser is advantageous to a child’s welfare.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on this issue. To echo the words of the Prime Minister, the family courts should never be allowed to be used as a means for an abuser to continue their abuse, and this Government will report on the issue of presumption soon.

We need to ensure that the severity of domestic abuse is captured in our sentencing framework. We have committed to implementing two of the outstanding recommendations made in Clare Wade’s domestic homicide sentencing review to make murders involving strangulation and those connected with the end of a relationship statutory aggravating factors.

We are further strengthening our response through the improved management of perpetrators. We have launched domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, combining the strongest elements of other orders to protect victims from all forms of domestic abuse. They put tough restrictions on abusers and can include orders for behaviour change programmes to finally stop the cycle of abuse from repeating. Since February, offenders sentenced for 12 months or more for coercive or controlling behaviour are now automatically eligible for management under multi-agency public protection arrangements. That rightly puts the response to this awful offence on a par with physical violence.

Alongside our work to tackle offending, we are strengthening protection for victims. Our new victims’ code will help ensure that every victim of crime, including domestic abuse, understands their rights, and will also ensure that we can properly monitor the service that local agencies are offering. The duty to collaborate will improve how local commissioners commission services for domestic abuse victims. We are also increasing the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that there is more accountability when victims are let down by the system.

On funding, we are continuing to prioritise support for victims and survivors of abuse. Police and crime commissioners are provided with funding to commission local practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including domestic abuse. The criminal justice system is facing considerable demand pressures and a challenging fiscal environment. Difficult decisions have been made regarding funding, but we have continued to prioritise victims of violence against women and girls by protecting that spending within the Ministry of Justice, maintaining last year’s funding levels for sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year. This will ensure that domestic abuse and sexual violence support services can continue their vital work. That is on top of the core funding that we give to police and crime commissioners to allocate locally, and I should stress that we are encouraging police and crime commissioners to prioritise victims of violence against women and girls in their budgets.

Our work to tackle domestic abuse and better support victims will require a cross-Government approach—we have already heard this evening how important it is to include the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Treasury and financial services. We will use every lever in our power and work with key partners across Government to deliver against this ambition. I am proud to co-chair the violence against women and girls mission board, which brings together Ministers from across Government with responsibility for this area to drive forward delivery of our mission. I have also been engaging extensively across Whitehall on prevention and early intervention, as well as on the wider support that victims of domestic abuse need, such as safe housing provision or support for their pets. All of our important work will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls, which we will publish later this year.

I now turn to the particular interest of the hon. Member for Eastbourne in creating a cohort of domestic abuse offenders in order to exclude these offenders from early release measures, as he has set out. As he knows, SDS40 was an emergency measure introduced to avert a prison capacity crisis that this Government sadly inherited. However, we made sure to exclude certain offences from that change, including: sex offences, irrespective of sentence length; serious violent offences with a sentence of four years or more; and a series of offences linked to domestic abuse, including stalking, coercive or controlling behaviour, and non-fatal strangulation. As the hon. Member has said, exclusions from the policy are based on offences, not offenders. This means that it has not been possible to exclude all offenders with a domestic abuse history, as there is no current single means of determining whether a given conviction was for an offence committed in the context of domestic abuse.

I am hugely sympathetic to the issues that the hon. Member has raised this evening. However, I am not convinced that his particular solution—creating a series of domestic abuse aggravated offences—is the right one. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of attempting to capture and define via a list of specific offences the full spectrum of offences in which domestic abuse could be a factor. As we have heard this evening, that spectrum of offences is vast, and I am extremely wary that attempting to capture them in a list could unwittingly create a system in which some offences are deemed serious enough to constitute offences that could be aggravated by domestic abuse, whereas other offences in which domestic abuse could play a part are not. For example, we should not return to the outdated view that domestic abuse only involves physical violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) has said, economic abuse should also be taken into consideration, and it will be a core part of this Government’s violence against women and girls strategy.

This Government are dedicated to ensuring that the harm caused by offences typically committed against women and girls—including domestic abuse—is appropriately and proportionately reflected in the sentencing framework. That is why the sentencing review chaired by David Gauke, the former Lord Chancellor, has been asked to look specifically at the sentences for offences primarily committed against women and girls. I recognise that being able to better identify domestic abuse offenders throughout the system and to capture that data is important in supporting victims and managing perpetrators.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the Minister for her response and for her feedback. I appreciate that setting a static list of offences to which a domestic abuse aggravation is connected could mean that when offences and the nature of domestic abuse change, things get left behind. Would she therefore consider a more open-ended aggravation that is dynamic and could attach to any offence? What I have proposed is an aggravation on the basis of the definition in the Domestic Abuse Act. Would she consider a more dynamic one that does not list a finite number of offences?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and he has pre-empted the next section of my speech. The Government and I are actively considering how we can better identify domestic abuse offenders, and I want to reassure him that nothing is off the table. I would be happy to work with him, and I invite him to come and meet me to discuss how best we do that in more detail. I know he has a similar agreement from my ministerial colleagues and those he has already met to discuss it.

Tackling domestic abuse is a top priority for this Government and a core part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. We are working across Government and using every lever in our power to deliver against that ambition—not more rhetoric, but action; deeds, not words.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim support services to help victims recover from the impact of crime, including knife crime. The Government have committed to the creation of a new programme, Young Futures, which will offer support to children who are at risk of being drawn into crime in a more systemic way.

[Richard Baker]

Does the Minister agree that the support she has outlined for the victims of knife crime will continue to be essential in our justice system, and that it is essential to work alongside devolved Administrations to raise awareness of the tragic impact of knife crime on communities across the UK? Communities in Glenrothes and Mid Fife feel particularly strongly about knife crime, and about the sale of knives online, following deeply concerning knife offences involving young people.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. As a Member of Parliament representing a devolved nation, I wholly agree. It is important that we work across the board to tackle this issue, which is not solely about England; all of us must do better. The Government are taking firm action and putting in place stronger consequences for carrying a knife. They are also cracking down on the sale of dangerous knives, and have announced Ronan’s law, a range of measures that will include stricter rules for online retailers selling knives.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to address knife crime, and anything that can be done to reduce the number of young people who are drawn into this type of violence. How will the new offence of possessing a knife with violent intent differ from existing legislation relating to possession of an article with a blade or point, or possession of an offensive weapon? How far will the law go when it comes to proving intent? Will it refer only to the posture of the individual when arrested—for example, they may have been caught in the act of a machete-style fight—or will it have regard to other factors, such as someone appearing in a scoreboard video on social media?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question. My understanding is that the hon. Member is a member of the Crime and Policing Bill Committee that will be scrutinising the legislation.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Is he not? I will welcome engagement with him, though, and his scrutiny as the legislation progresses through the House. The Government are increasing penalties for illegal sales of knives, and are funding a new online police co-ordination hub, which will take action against illegal knife and weapon content online. We also intend to consult later this year on the registration scheme for the online selling of knives. A lot of work is being done in this space, and I look forward to engaging with him further on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

First, I want to acknowledge something horrific that happened in my constituency over the weekend. In Talbot Green, my constituent Joanne Penney was tragically shot and killed on Sunday night. I pay tribute to the police, who took swift action, and my thoughts are of course with the victim, her friends and her family. She will be mourned by our whole community. Her loss has been deeply felt.

The Government have made an unprecedented commitment to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. That is underpinned by our new strategy, which will be published shortly. We have introduced new offences of creating deepfake intimate images and taking intimate images without consent. We have also launched a new domestic abuse protection order in selected areas, including in Cleveland just last week, and we are determined to do more.

[Katie White]

I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the Minister’s constituent Joanne, and I am sorry for that loss. The scale of violence against women and girls in my constituency of Leeds North West and across the country is intolerable. Our manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade, which the Minister mentioned, is much needed and ambitious. How will her Department contribute to delivering this critical commitment? Specifically, what steps does her Department plan to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases, and to support victims of domestic abuse?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Government are determined to meet our ambitious target of halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. I proudly co-chair our cross-Government working group with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to look at how we can bring every Government Department to the table. This issue is not just for the Ministry of Justice or Home Office to tackle; the onus is on all of us—every Department and all of society—to do better if we are to reach the target.

We have funded a record number of Crown court sitting days to hit the backlog and tackle it head-on. The majority of domestic abuse cases are heard in the magistrates court, and we are determined to do more to reach vulnerable victims.

[Adam Thompson]

May I thank the Minister for her answer, and also extend my thoughts to Joanne’s family and friends?

In recent years, women and girls have increasingly expressed distrust in the ability of the justice system to resolve cases of violence and sexual harassment, as so few of those events result in prosecution. What steps is the Minister taking to restore trust in the justice system, so that my constituents in Erewash know that they have somewhere to turn when they are targeted by such hate crimes?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As part of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have committed to improving confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We will introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force, as well as domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms. We will also give victims of adult rape access to an independent legal adviser to help them understand and uphold their rights from day one. I want every victim, whether in Erewash or in Pontypridd, to know that they are heard, and that this Government support them.

[Patrick Hurley]

May I associate myself with colleagues’ comments about the tragic events in the Minister’s constituency?

Back in 2021, a young woman in my constituency was the victim of an alleged assault. Even now, in 2025, she advises that there has been no trial, and she worries that she could run into the accused around town. What can be done to expedite such cases in which violence is alleged, to better protect our citizens and ensure that our streets are safe from crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Government are committed to bearing down on the caseload and bringing waiting times down for victims. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up time for the Crown courts, so that they can hear the most serious cases. We have also commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once-in-a-generation reforms to our criminal courts, and we look forward to receiving his report in the spring.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I recently met a distressed constituent who escaped a very abusive marriage, only for the courts to order a financial settlement that allows her ex-husband to still exert financial control over her. I was shocked to discover that the financial remedies court relies on outdated legislation—the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which does not allow domestic abuse to be taken into consideration in a settlement. What consideration has the Minister given to the Law Commission’s recent scoping report on the issue, which recommends significant reform?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government are determined to tackle all forms of abuse, including financial abuse. I am aware of the report that the hon. Lady mentions. We are considering the findings closely, and will report back soon.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I went to visit a lady in Ashfield who had been beaten black and blue and then locked in a cupboard by her boyfriend. He was arrested and she made a statement, but because of his controlling behaviour in the relationship—he was in control of the finances and was also her employer—she had him back. When she finally had the courage to kick him out, the police would not prosecute the man. What can this Government do to ensure that women who are victims of these animals can go to the police at any time, even when their partner has gone?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I apologise for the horrific circumstances that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent found herself in; that is intolerable, and no victim in our country—no woman or girl—should ever feel that way. If he wants to write to me with the specifics of the case, I will gladly look into it more closely. This Government are determined to restore faith and justice in the criminal justice system as a whole: in policing, our courts, our probation service—every element of it, from the bottom up and the top down. I look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman on that case.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The impact of Crown court delays on victims, victims’ services and the wider criminal justice system is troubling to many. One of many affected Wokingham residents is a survivor of domestic violence and sexual assault that began three decades ago. She has had numerous court hearings adjourned. Will the Minister tell my constituents how these injustices will be ended?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record Crown court caseloads that continue to rise. That has had an impact on far too many victims, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Since July, we have put more funding into Crown courts, so that they will have their greatest capacity ever, and we have doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that Crown courts can focus specifically on serious crimes. We are committed to bearing down on that caseload and bringing waiting times down, while also protecting victims’ funding and introducing domestic abuse protection orders to protect victims in pilot areas.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I start by associating myself with the comments made at the beginning in relation to Joanne. So many victims and survivors rely on the victim contact scheme to know when their abuser is being released from prison or moved to an open prison and to have input into the kind of conditions that should exist when they are released. However, the system that we have inherited from the last Government is such that only survivors whose abusers have been convicted for more than 12 months qualify for the scheme. In the upcoming Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, will the Minister commit to scrapping that threshold so that all victims and survivors can qualify for the scheme?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are looking carefully at the victim notification scheme as part of any forthcoming legislation, to ensure that victims’ rights are taken into full consideration and that victims are aware of the situation if that is deemed appropriate. I look forward to working with them closely, and I have no doubts about how we should develop the best and strongest possible laws to support the victims of all crimes in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department plans to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The judiciary prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes those involving domestic abuse. Most domestic abuse cases are heard in magistrates courts, where cases tend to be heard more quickly. As I have already stated, the Government have taken action to address the outstanding caseload in the Crown court, funding record levels of sitting days in the upcoming financial year.

[Paula Barker]

The backlog in the court system harms efforts to instil confidence in women persisting with domestic violence charges against their abusers. Violence against women and girls is a national scandal, and femicide is ongoing, with countless women losing their lives to male violence. Sadly, my region of Merseyside is now the second highest region in the country for femicide. Does the Department agree that any moves to fast-track cases via the criminal or civil courts to remove abusers from our streets must involve appropriately severe sentences, irrespective of the prison places crisis?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important and timely question. We take all forms of homicide extremely seriously, and our strategy, which will be published later this week, looking at tackling violence against women and girls will cover all forms of violence and abuse that disproportionately impact women, including femicide. We will of course prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we have funded record numbers of Crown court sitting days. We are extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and strengthening the victims code. We have protected funding for victims services looking at domestic abuse, rape and sexual offences to ensure that victims are listened to and are put at the heart of the criminal justice system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For last week’s International Women’s Day, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the names of the 96 women who were killed in the last year. I am always conscious of the loss of life, as I know the Minister is. If domestic violence today is the violence against women and murder tomorrow, what can be done to support women and their children?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are doing everything we can to support women and their children. We have declared this a national emergency, and we have that ambition of targeting and halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. My personal ambition is that the names read out at this Dispatch Box next year are far fewer than the ones read out this year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of illegal drug use in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle intimate image abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

We are determined to keep victims safe both offline and online. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have introduced offences to tackle the taking or recording of intimate images without consent, and in the Data (Use and Access) Bill we are criminalising creating or asking someone to create deepfake intimate images without consent. Together with existing offences on sharing intimate images, those measures give law enforcement a comprehensive package to tackle all aspects of that degrading and abusive behaviour.

[Joe Morris]

I pay tribute to the Minister for the work being done. Although that work is welcome, we need to direct our attention towards ensuring that police have the necessary technical tools to investigate reports. Will she meet me to discuss what further action can be taken to address and prevent intimate image abuse in all our communities?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend, but let me reassure him: we are launching within policing our national centre for violence against women and girls and public protection—that includes a £2 million funding settlement to target violence against women and girls better, including online—and in November, we launched our domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas to improve protection for victims of all kinds of domestic abuse, including online. The police are also able to use stalking protection orders to protect victims of online abuse.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

16. What steps her Department is taking to increase prison capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

T5. Victims of rape have been consistently failed by our justice system. Under the Tories, 60% of victims dropped out of their cases due to long waiting times, and in my own area of Bournemouth, the charging rate is only 5.8%. Given the outrage we have heard from Conservative Members about the court backlog and the state of our system, which was left to us by their own Government, can the Lord Chancellor please tell us what we are doing to fix the problem and put victims first?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. As part of our manifesto, we committed to fast-tracking rape cases through the system. We are carefully considering the best way to do so, and we will be able to say more about our plans shortly. We are also creating independent legal advisers for adult rape victims, who will be able to access that support at any point from report to trial, so that they know their rights and their rights are protected.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

T7.   The Government say that foreign national offenders make up 12% of the prison population. Can the Secretary of State tell me when that number will be zero?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

One of my constituents has endured prolonged financial abuse due to drawn-out divorce financial order proceedings, which largely ignore domestic abuse except in rare cases. Will the Minister commit to reviewing financial settlement proceedings guidance to ensure that the impact of domestic abuse is properly considered, and to prevent the legal system from being used as a tool of continued coercion and control?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, and my thoughts are with his constituent as she navigates this difficulty. The Government will consider carefully the 2024 report on financial provision on divorce, in which the Law Commission looked into the specific issue of domestic abuse as a factor. Later this year the Government will consult on the delivery of our manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections of cohabiting couples, because all abuse is abuse, financial or otherwise.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When someone enters this country illegally from another country to which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously expressed support for terrorism and terrorist organisations, but not in this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State content that the Government have enough powers to protect the community from such a person walking free in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I regularly meet both the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales and the London Victims’ Commissioner to consider all issues affecting victims and their families. We are strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner through legislation, we will be strengthening the victims code, and we will of course consider any other measures that are needed to protect victims and their families wherever they may be.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

On several occasions I have met my constituent Beverley, whose son suffered a horrific murder. He was stabbed more than 140 times. She has been desperately attempting to get hold of the court transcripts, but to no avail. Will Ministers please meet me to help this still grieving mum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to confirm that an inquest should be an inquisitorial process. It should not be adversarial either. I will raise the issue that he has mentioned with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but what is deemed to be in scope of legislation is a matter for the House authorities and the Leader of the House.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Prison maintenance privatisation has been a complete and utter disaster. When will it be taken back in-house?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?

Regulation of the Bailiff Sector

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Diolch, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on a very important subject. The Government share his concern to ensure that the public are protected against inappropriate enforcement action, and the harrowing stories we have heard today demonstrate why that is so critical.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he powerfully and respectfully told the individual stories of first-hand experiences that had been entrusted to him, so that we heard them directly. They are so important to us as parliamentarians and legislators, and what we have heard about the scale of the issue should rightly shock us all. I also thank the organisations he mentioned, including StepChange, for the immeasurable and vital work they do to highlight the impact of debt enforcement on the most vulnerable in our society.

As my hon. Friend said, figures from the enforcement sector indicate that it is sent about 4 million court orders each year for enforcement using the taking control of goods procedure. Those debts and fines are owed to a wide range of parties, from private individuals and small businesses making individual court claims to local authorities, central Government and companies issuing large numbers of claims. The enforcement sector therefore plays an important role in supporting economic growth, funding public services and underpinning the rule of law.

However, the enforcement sector also has a significant impact on people’s lives, as we have heard. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and for reducing violence against women and girls, I can only imagine how intimidating it would be for a vulnerable woman who might be home alone or with her children, to hear that knock, or a pounding on the door, from a bailiff. That woman, and everyone else in society, has the right to expect that laws and safeguards are in place to ensure their safety.

While the vast majority of enforcement agents comply with the law, sadly some do not, as we have heard in this debate, and we share the concern to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. For many years, successive Governments have sought to balance the need to ensure that vulnerable people are treated fairly with the need to ensure that creditors are able to enforce debts and fines, and this Government want to ensure that the right balance is found between those two competing objectives.

Back in 2007, the then Labour Government recognised that measures were needed to protect vulnerable people from aggressive enforcement action, and they created an ambitious new framework with the regulation of bailiffs in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Those reforms, known as the taking control of goods reforms, were finally implemented in 2014. The 2014 reforms aimed to set out clearly and transparently the procedures that must be followed by enforcement agents when enforcing debts using the taking control of goods procedure.

Those reforms set out several safeguards to protect the public, and vulnerable people in particular. They aimed to disincentivise aggressive or unnecessary enforcement action, including introducing a compliance stage to give people an opportunity to pay without that visit being necessary, and to provide protection against inappropriate and threatening enforcement agent action. The reforms introduced a new court-based certification scheme for individual agents and, importantly, mandatory training to ensure that enforcement agents have the skills needed to carry out their job effectively. The Ministry of Justice review found that the reforms had brought some positive changes, including full transparency and consistency, but also that some enforcement agents were still perceived to be acting aggressively and, more importantly, that they were not complying with the new rules.

As a result of complaints being made about enforcement agents, the Justice Committee held an inquiry in 2019. In its final report, the Committee expressed surprise that enforcement agents appeared to be

“under-regulated compared with other sectors.”

It recommended having a regulator with the ability to stop unfit enforcement agents and companies practising. The Committee also found the complaints system for bailiffs to be

“fragmented and hard to navigate, especially for vulnerable people”,

and recommended that an independent complaints body be set up, to which all complaints and enforcement agents could be escalated.

In response to those findings, the enforcement sector worked with the debt advice sector and the Centre for Social Justice to create the Enforcement Conduct Board. Its mission is to ensure that all those facing enforcement action in England and Wales are treated fairly. As we have heard, the ECB is a voluntary independent oversight body. The enforcement sector has on the whole accepted its oversight, and the ECB demonstrated that it has a valuable role to play.

The ECB has established an accreditation scheme for firms, which 96% of the industry has signed up to voluntarily; it has published professional standards for agents and the companies that employ them and it is about to begin considering complaints made against enforcement companies. It is establishing an independent dataset about enforcement, for example, and recently commissioned a study of body-worn camera footage, which found that enforcement agents broke the rules in 6% of cases—but, as we have heard, that 6% is too many.

The ECB believes that legislation is needed to fulfil fully its mission as an independent body. My hon. Friend set out some of the arguments in favour of the Government legislating to set up a statutory independent regulator. The Government recognise that legislation could ensure a level playing field, guaranteeing that everyone facing enforcement action would be dealing with an enforcement agent and firm subject to the same standard, overseen by that independent body. It would also mean that everyone facing enforcement action would be able to complain to an independent body using that same procedure.

My hon. Friend has suggested a number of responsibilities and powers that a regulator could be given. We also welcome the debate on how Government can build on the excellent work that the ECB has already done with the sector on that voluntary basis to protect boards facing enforcement action.

I reassure the House that we are considering all the issues that have been raised today. We are also considering how best to engage with stakeholders to inform decisions about whether further legislation is necessary and, if so, what such legislation should in fact do. It is important that we consider all those issues carefully. On the one hand we know that when regulation is done well, it can protect the public and support economic growth and innovation; on the other hand, poorly designed regulation can fail to keep the public safe, stifle economic growth and prevent regulated bodies from adapting to emerging technologies and new challenges.

The Government are also considering our response to a consultation held by the previous Government on the reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which aimed to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages by, for example, giving people more time to access debt advice. We are also considering the findings of a report by the previous Government that recommended uplifting the fees that enforcement agents can recover under the 2013 regulations by 5%. We are still reviewing both those issues and will set out the way forward shortly.

The Government want to ensure that the enforcement sector operates fairly and effectively and, more importantly, is regulated properly. The experiences we have heard about today illustrate why it is so important that we absolutely get this right. As we move forward, we will continue to engage with Parliament and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that our approach is balanced and just, and that it takes into account the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. I extend that invitation to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members across the House to ensure that we hear a wide range of views and get everyone’s input, which is important if we are to get this right—and we are determined to get this right.

Question put and agreed to.

Violence against Women and Girls

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.

As things stand today, the scale of violence against women in this country is intolerable and a national emergency, so I welcome the opportunity for the House to unite and debate it. Tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms is a top priority for the Government and central to our wider mission to make the country’s streets safer.

Let me be clear from the start that I condemn the threats against the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in the strongest possible terms. They are abhorrent and demonstrate all too clearly how some men view women’s place in the world. I know that so many right hon. and hon. Members have experienced that kind of hateful misogyny online—threats and abuse levelled at us just for doing our job—but we will continue to speak out; we will not be silenced. I am sure that the House will join me in offering my friend every support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

The Government were elected on a landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, rightly putting the issue at the forefront of the political agenda after years of neglect, and where women have been let down by the system. It is an ambitious target, but it is absolutely right that we are ambitious when it comes to the safety of women and girls.

In this country, it is estimated that a woman is killed by a man every three days, on average, yet that rarely makes the headlines. Their deaths have become normalised and I think we, as a society, have become desensitised. That is nothing short of a national scandal. Every woman lost is a daughter, a mother and a friend with her life brutally cut short. They are not statistics to me, and nor are they to the Government; their lives matter and we are determined to act. We will use every tool at our disposal to target perpetrators, protect victims and address the causes of this appalling abuse and violence. We will go further than ever before to transform how we work together across Government, public services, the private sector and charities, and our efforts will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls that we will publish later this year.

As a first principle, prevention will always be better than cure, so if we are to tackle these crimes we must start by tackling their root causes. Education will be fundamental to our approach. We need a culture shift where abusive, harassing and discriminatory behaviour is called out for exactly what it is, where women are at last respected and championed and where every woman can be safe wherever they are, whether at work, at school, online, in the street or in their own homes.

Women make up over 50% of society, but the mission shared by those of us in the Chamber cannot be achieved by halves or by women speaking only to women; everyone needs to play their part. Men must be part of the conversation and part of the solution, and I am clear that there are many great male role models out there—many of them in this Chamber We need to understand why boys and young men are being drawn down the rabbit hole of toxic masculinity that so often fuels these crimes. Critically, how can we step in, support them and steer them away from that?

No one agency can solve this alone. It will mean working across the House and across society with schools, parents, police and the judiciary—everyone—if we are to make a difference for the next generation of women. That is the approach the Government will take.

Secondly, we must ensure that our legal system is able to respond effectively to these crimes so that women are protected and perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I understand that there may be some difficulties with the criminal law in relation to people being followed. In the event that they have been actively harassed and threatened, there is a potential crime in the threat, but there may be a gap in the criminal law for those who are simply followed, with that not being part of a continuing course of conduct. Will the Minister commit to looking into that, please?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We will happily look at that. We have already done some incredible work on stalking and harassment, but we will look to go further wherever possible.

Let us look at the offence of rape. As it stands, about 60% of adult rape complainants, despite bravely coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. That means too many offenders are getting away with their crimes and too many victims are being left without the justice they deserve. Often that is because the agony of a long wait for justice is much more than they can bear. It is a sad fact that some victims, and particularly those of sexual offences, are waiting almost three years for their case to come to trial. Some decide not to pursue their cases at all, feeling, quite understandably, that they need to focus on their own mental health and move on with their lives.

I once spoke to a victim who told me that she had been raped and her case had taken years to come to trial. She told me something that I will never forget: that the experience had made her want to die. That anyone should feel that way about our justice system is unconscionable. The Government are determined to do better. Justice must be swifter. We will work with the judiciary to fast-track rape cases through the courts so that victims like her are not left in limbo.

There is no escaping the Government’s bleak inheritance of a criminal court system under the most intense pressure. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Crown court, where the outstanding caseload stands at over 73,000—a record high. We have taken decisive action to drive the caseload down, funding an extra 2,000 sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest level in almost a decade. We are also extending magistrates court sentencing powers from six months to 12 months for a single triable either- way offence, which we expect will free up about 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the most serious cases.

But if victims are to see justice done more swiftly, we cannot simply do more of the same; we have to go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of the country’s top legal minds, to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform during the first phase of the review. That could include consideration of an entirely new type of court entirely, intermediate courts, in which cases too serious to be heard by a magistrate alone could be heard by a judge flanked by magistrates. The second phase of the review will consider how our courts can operate more efficiently, and the timeliness of processes. Sir Brian will report his findings later this year, and I am sure that Members will await them with interest.

As a third principle, we must ensure that the criminal law is equipped to deal with the evolving range of threats that women face today. I am sure the House agrees that sexually explicit deepfake images are particularly appalling, and shares my concern about the fact that this kind of abuse is on the rise. Artificial intelligence technology now means that perpetrators can, at the click of a button, turn innocent images from a person’s social media account into pornographic material—images that can then be shared with millions online, in milliseconds. It is not funny. It is not banter. It is a gross violation of a woman’s privacy and autonomy which causes untold harm, and it is disturbing to hear that a third of women report falling victim to intimate image abuse. It cannot continue unchecked.

Our laws must protect victims and punish those responsible. That is why the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to ban the creation of these vile images, and it is why we are committed to tackling the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes by introducing a new criminal offence in the policing and crime Bill.

However, we are going further. While it is already a criminal offence to share, or threaten to share, an intimate image without consent, it is, quite bizarrely, an offence to take an image without consent only in certain circumstances. So-called up-skirting is an offence, while taking photos down someone’s blouse or setting up cameras in a changing room is not. As I am sure the House will agree, that makes little sense, so as I explained earlier this week, the Government will introduce new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment with intent to enable the taking of an intimate image without consent. We are sending the clear message that this appalling, misogynistic behaviour will not be tolerated and that predators who violate women’s trust in this way will face the consequences, which could mean up to two years in custody, depending on the perpetrator’s intent.

As women, Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not have to watch our friends’ drinks while they go to the bathroom. We should not have to worry about being spiked by a needle, or a vape. The Government will therefore introduce a new criminal offence covering spiking, and will work hand in hand with police and business leaders to crack down on this behaviour so that women can enjoy a night out without fear and victims are empowered to come forward, knowing that they will be taken seriously.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement just before Christmas that spiking will become a specific offence. Will the Minister join me in commending the campaigning work of my constituent Dawn Dines and the organisation Stamp Out Spiking, and will she commit herself to working with Stamp Out Spiking and other organisations to ensure that the new law and other issues related to spiking are embedded in the knowledge of, in particular, police forces around the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will take every opportunity to commend Dawn Dines and the work of Stamp Out Spiking. Both the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I have met Dawn Dines many times. We will, of course, be working with every single agency to ensure that we crack down on this abhorrent crime.

In November, we announced pilots of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders with Greater Manchester police, in three London boroughs and with the British Transport police; North Wales police and Cleveland police will come on board early this year. Domestic abuse protection orders will impose tough restrictions on abusers and keep victims safe, making it a legal requirement for perpetrators to inform the police of any change of name or address, with the option to impose electronic tagging to keep tabs on offenders. They will also enable assessments for behaviour change programmes to be ordered to prevent the cycle of abuse from being repeated. We need to stop this behaviour.

Fourthly, we must ensure that victims are given the right support, wherever they are in the justice process. We need them to be empowered to come forward in the first place, whether to make a report or just to obtain the help that they need to rebuild their lives. Every woman should know that she is seen, heard and taken seriously—that is the kind of justice system to which we should aspire—but sadly that is not always the case, especially for those who have endured rape or other sexual offences. We are determined to improve women’s confidence in the justice system by ensuring that it focuses on perpetrators rather than pointing the finger of blame at victims. No one who has been burgled has been told, “Maybe you gave the wrong signals, and he thought you wanted to be burgled.” No one who has had their wallet stolen has been asked, “What were you wearing at the time?” For far too long, the way in which survivors of rape and sexual offences have been treated has been unacceptable, and this Government are determined to stamp out those harmful, misogynistic stereotypes. They are a threat to justice, and a threat to women in all aspects of our society.

My colleague the Lord Chancellor has announced the introduction of independent legal advisers who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial, helping them to understand their rights in relation to, for example, the use of personal information, such as counselling details or medical records, to which access can be gained during an investigation. As will have been said in the House before, such demands have sometimes gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and, on occasion, resulting in their dropping out of a case altogether. Requests of that kind should be made only when they are relevant, necessary and proportionate to the case. The advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence from coming to light; they will simply help victims to understand and, if necessary, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.

More broadly, the Government will ensure that all victims know their rights and that those rights are upheld, and that they are supported as they go through the justice process, not retraumatised when their day in court finally arrives. The victims code helps victims to understand what they can expect from the criminal justice system, and sets out the minimum level of service that they should receive. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 has the potential to improve awareness of and compliance with the victims code by ensuring that the victims know about their rights under the code, and it sets out a new compliance framework to ensure that agencies will be held accountable for delivering those rights. The Act also places a duty on local commissioners in England to collaborate in the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. We will soon consult on a revised victims code and the duty to collaborate guidance, and we will ensure that the right data and systems are is in place to monitor compliance with the new code. The Government have also pledged to increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner so that there is more accountability when victims’ needs are not being met.

Let me emphasise that while women may suffer these horrific crimes more often, I am well aware that many men are affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence. They too deserve every protection and support, and these measures will of course apply equally to them. Let me also take a moment to thank victim support organisations. I am sure the House will agree that they are vital to the justice process: without them, many victims would struggle to see their cases through, which means that many more perpetrators would get away with their crimes.

As I have said, this Government inherited a criminal justice system under immense pressure, and a black hole in the nation’s finances. While we have had to make difficult decisions to deliver the justice that victims deserve, through the courts and across the system as a whole, I am pleased that we have been able to protect dedicated VAWG victims spending in the Department by maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels, which have been ringfenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse support next year. We want to ensure that help is available to survivors of these awful crimes as they seek to rebuild their lives. That includes funding for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic abuse advisers, and is in addition to the core funding that the Department provides for police and crime commissioners to allocate at their discretion on the basis of their assessment of local need.

As I have also said, the answer to these appalling crimes does not lie with a single Government Department or agency. It demands a united effort across Departments, across the system and across society. We must all commit ourselves to ambitious change, and I know that everyone here today shares that view. I look forward to hearing from Members in all parts of the House, and to a productive debate that will move this important conversation forward as we collectively say, “Enough is enough.” Violence against women and girls can have no place in our society, and every woman and girl deserves to live her life free from violence, abuse and harassment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister and my Sussex neighbour, Mims Davies.

Trial of Lucy Letby

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for securing this debate. First, I want to acknowledge the impact on the families that any debate surrounding this case may have. As Lady Justice Thirlwall stated at the outset of her inquiry, much of this debate has come from people who were not present throughout the trial to hear the evidence in full. The parents have been waiting a long time for answers, and it is important, whatever may be said here this evening, that we agree that we must work towards delivering closure for those families, who are going through unimaginable and intolerable grief.

It is an important principle of the rule of law that the Government do not interfere with judicial decisions. In this case, the Court of Appeal has carefully considered the arguments before it and delivered its judgment. Given that, and the ongoing police investigations, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on Miss Letby’s case specifically, but I will outline the principles and procedures regarding expert witnesses and appeals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not, as unfortunately we are tight on time. My apologies.

First, in the area of expert evidence, the criminal procedure rules apply the common law principles that govern the admissibility of expert witness and provide a structured framework for expert witnesses and the courts to follow. They cover expert witnesses and how medical reports are commissioned, and the “Criminal Practice Directions 2023” provide detailed guidance on expert evidence. All of those are followed for every criminal proceeding where it is relevant. Like all criminal procedure rules, they are regularly reviewed by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The committee is made up of legal experts appointed by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lady Chief Justice, and its role is to make the criminal justice system as accessible, fair and efficient as possible.

The rules outline that expert evidence is admissible only if

“the witness is competent to give that opinion”

and

“the expert opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.”

They further state that the expert witness must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions and must give notice of anything that might undermine the reliability of the evidence or detract from the impartiality or credibility of their evidence. Expert witnesses are required to sign a declaration of truth to that effect.

The right to a fair trial by jury in the most serious cases is a fundamental principle of the justice system. It is designed to protect the rights of the defendant and to ensure thorough examination of the evidence. That includes the presentation of evidence by both the prosecution and the defence; the examination and cross-examination of witnesses; and the impartial judgment of the jury. Where scientific evidence is presented, the judiciary utilises judicial primers written by leading scientists, peer reviewed by scientists and legal practitioners, and approved by the councils of the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. While I note the concerns raised about the trial process as set out, the jury considered all the evidence put before them and made their determination.

Secondly, I turn to the appeals process in the criminal justice system. Following Miss Letby’s first permission to appeal application, the Court of Appeal heard legal argument over several days on a number of grounds and issued a detailed 58-page judgment setting out why permission to appeal was refused. That included the trial judge’s handling of the arguments raised by the defence as to Dr Evans’s evidence.

It is not appropriate for me or the Government to comment on judicial processes, nor on the reliability of convictions or evidence. Furthermore, the criminal justice system provides a route through the Criminal Cases Review Commission for those who believe that they have been wrongfully convicted and the appeal system has been exhausted. The CCRC is an independent body, and it reviews any applications made to it according to its statutory role and procedures. Its role is to investigate cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted and to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal where it believes that there is a real possibility of a conviction not being upheld.

Miss Letby, as with any other convicted person who maintains their innocence following a refusal to appeal, is able to apply to the CCRC. The decision on whether to seek a review from the CCRC is a matter for Miss Letby and her legal team.

Thirdly, it is relevant to take into account that the Thirlwall inquiry was established in October 2023, chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall—one of the country’s most senior judges—and that that is ongoing. The inquiry is purposefully set up to be independent from Government, and it will play an important role in identifying learnings following events at the Countess of Chester hospital, contributing to the future of patient safety. It will cover the experiences of the parents of the babies named in the indictment, the conduct of staff management and governance processes, and the effectiveness of governance, external scrutiny, and the professional regulation of keeping babies in hospital safe, including consideration of the NHS culture. The inquiry will examine not the conviction, but rather the response of individuals within the trust based on what they knew or should have known at the time of the events when they occurred. Lady Justice Thirlwall made that clear in her remarks when opening the hearings. A statutory inquiry cannot apportion civil or criminal liability and will not review the jury’s findings.

It is, of course, open to the experts to contact the inquiry directly and seek to participate through the provision of evidence for the inquiry’s consideration. It is then for the chair to manage the inquiry as she considers appropriate to deliver the public terms of reference, which were agreed in consultation with the families and other stakeholders. The chair will consider all relevant available evidence when drawing conclusions and when writing her report and recommendations in due course. Given the importance of the inquiry, I am sure it is appreciated that it must have space to gather evidence from the various stakeholders and to draw its own findings without ministerial involvement.

The criminal justice system has well-established processes and procedures for how expert evidence is used, and routes to challenge if any individual, including Miss Letby, maintains their innocence.

[Jim Shannon]

Setting aside what the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I have been made aware that some NHS staff question their culpability and their ability to do their job—that is how they feel. Some NHS staff have left the profession simply because of their concerns. I ask the Minister gently, what can be done to restore the confidence of NHS staff, particularly the nurses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Member makes an important intervention. It is important that all individuals in public life feel that they can speak openly and with a duty of candour. That is why the Lady Thirlwall’s inquiry will look at the culture in the NHS. More broadly, this Government are committed to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, which will look at a duty of candour to ensure that individuals in public life tell the truth.

It is not safe for me or the Government to undermine any of the processes in the justice system. Our attention should rightly remain on the families and parents impacted by this case and on continuing to work towards providing answers and closure for them. It is to the families that I speak to. The Thirlwall inquiry will play a key role in this.

Question put and agreed to.