Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Before I begin, on behalf of the Opposition, I express my deepest condolences to the officer who was killed in Croydon police station last night. It is a tragic and shocking loss that reminds us how important it is to recognise the risks that our police officers face and take every day of their lives. I also associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and other Members who paid tribute to the sad loss.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on his timely and much needed Bill, which covers an area that has not had much attention in recent years. I also congratulate Members who have taken part in the debate on the manner in which they have conducted themselves and on their broadly warm consensus on the Bill. I very much hope that we will see progress as a result of the debate.

In order to understand why the Bill should be welcomed, it is necessary to look back at key points in Parliament’s interest in the work of the Forensic Science Regulator. In the heyday of the coalition Government, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee carried out an inquiry into the Forensic Science Regulator, publishing its report on 17 July 2013. In its conclusion, the Committee made the following recommendations.

On quality standards, it said that

“there must be a level playing field between those who conduct forensic tests for the police, prosecution and defence. In particular, the police must work to the same quality standards as they demand from external forensic science providers.”

On a Forensic Science Regulator, the report concluded that

“the disparate nature of forensic science provision across the public and private sector means that the role of the FSR now needs a statutory underpinning. The current FSR has done an excellent job in raising the profile of forensic science quality standards during his tenure, and this must be continued.”

That was back in 2013.

As part of the Government response to the inquiry, on 8 November 2013 the then Home Office Minister Norman Baker made a written statement announcing the launch of a consultation on strengthening the powers of the Forensic Science Regulator. Acknowledging the regulator’s role in setting standards, and accepting that the meeting of standards by forensic service providers was voluntary, he added:

“there is a risk that voluntary quality standards might not, in the future, provide the high level of assurance required for forensic evidence. For that reason we now propose introducing stronger powers, including putting the regulator’s codes of practice, which set out the quality standards for forensic science providers, on a statutory basis.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 24WS.]

That was back in 2013 when there was a consultation which clearly showed the Government’s intention of the day.

Following the consultation, the Government’s response in July 2015—things sometimes move slowly in the Home Office, although hopefully that will now change— showed that the overwhelming number of respondents agreed that all stages of the forensic evidence process should be covered by the regulator’s statutory powers, as should all forensic science disciplines. The section entitled “Next Steps” stated:

“The Home Office is developing a Forensic Strategy to be published by the end of 2015. This will consider current and emerging opportunities and challenges in the forensic landscape. Alongside this work, options for the Forensic Science Regulator are being considered and the way forward will be published alongside the Strategy.”

That strategy was published in March 2016, and page 7 includes the aim of having a clearer statutory role for the Forensic Science Regulator. Paragraph 44 states:

“We will develop proposals to give the Forensic Science Regulator statutory powers, put the current remit and the associated Codes of Practice on a statutory basis and enable the Forensic Science Regulator to investigate non-compliance where necessary.”

That was in the strategy, and the Bill does exactly what was set out in 2013, 2015 and 2016. Since then there have been ample warnings and opportunities for the Government to take action and implement their own strategy commitments, but despite further scrutiny from the Lords and Commons, via the respective Science and Technology Committees, they have not yet done so.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) gave an excellent speech and is clearly an expert in this area. He introduced the Forensic Science Regulator Bill in March 2018, but despite promises from the Home Office and its responses to the Select Committees, the Bill did not progress and action was not taken. That was unfortunate, but we are where we are. I am pleased the Government have indicated that this time they will support the Bill.

The Bill aims to put the forensic science regulator on a statutory footing so that it has investigatory and enforcement powers to use against non-compliance by forensic science service providers, with standards advised by the regulator. It seems perverse that the regulatory position was created to set standards, but there was no way of compelling anyone to follow them. Although there has been a reasonable level of compliance with established areas of forensics, new and evolving areas such as digital forensics tell a different story. Levels of compliance with ISO standards in digital forensics are less than 30%.

The Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, has always maintained that although under the current system we can get average compliance of 75% across all forensics, the final 25% can be achieved only with enforcement powers. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. The code of practice in clauses 2 to 4 sets out the statutory footing for forensic science standards. Clauses 5 to 7 give the regulator enforcement powers to ensure that the code is complied with. The powers of investigation include the power to require the production of documents or the provision of other information, with the sanction of legal measures in the High Court as an ultimate last resort for failure to comply.

Those powers are welcome. The Government’s forensic science strategy from 2016 recommended giving the regulator statutory powers to identify and sanction forensic service providers that fail to maintain standards, and the Bill does the Government’s job for them, because everything within it is exactly in line with that strategy.

It is important to ensure that those standards are met because of the catastrophic impact on the criminal justice system if they are not—hon. Members across the House have made that point. The Government’s strategy refers to the case of the Birmingham Six, who were acquitted of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings on appeal in 1991. Fresh evidence was introduced that cast doubt on a key piece of forensic evidence that was used at the original trial to secure their convictions. Standards go to the heart of our criminal justice system. We must ensure that standards are met so that the public retain their trust and confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system.

Experienced forensic scientist Professor Angela Gallop, in her book “When the Dogs Don’t Bark”, gives a compelling account of how, 18 years ago—this case was also referenced in today’s debate—Stephen Lawrence’s murderers were not brought to justice due to lack of evidence. However, new procedures, high forensic standards and a dedicated expert team found fibres from Stephen Lawrence’s clothing and identified and matched a microscopic speck of blood on the clothing of the two men who were later convicted of his murder. The evidence had been there for 18 years, but the standards and methods had not. That is why it is so important to ensure that forensic standards are met and that techniques in the field continue to develop and evolve.

Research in the field of digital forensics identified significant areas of concern with the potential to impact negatively on the production of expert reports and the criminal justice system. Those areas were identified during the process of assessment for accreditation to ISO standards. The evidence therefore supports the need for quality standards in digital forensics. Considering that it is a growing area in forensics, as Members mentioned, regulation is necessary to ensure the robustness of this field. We must maintain the development of our standards to keep up to speed with new developments in technology, and there must be recognition of the challenge of implementing those standards in digital forensics. That should not be underestimated, particularly in an environment where there is insufficient capacity to meet growing demand for services in an area of complexity and fragmented delivery.

I have spoken so far about standards and regulation, but we also need to consider the individuals who work in forensic science. Members have mentioned “Quincy” and other television shows about individuals, but we must not forget the largely public sector workforce who deliver forensics for our criminal justice system. They need to be brought along on a cultural change, but they also need to have their professionalism continually recognised as integral to delivering justice in our system. They are one of the few workforces in society who deal exclusively with death and destruction on a daily basis. Many forensic specialists work in the communities that they live in, and they take great pride in their work when they find evidence that leads to justice and greater protection for their community. We should pay tribute to them for the work that they do, which must have a big impact on them mentally.

Members have mentioned the substantial cuts and continuing squeeze on police budgets, and job losses, particularly in back-office staffing. That has led to a reduction in the capacity for crime scene investigations and other forensic work. I acknowledge that the Minister has mentioned the provision of additional funding, but those cuts have left forensic specialists feeling demoralised and unable to protect their communities. There has to be understanding and sensitivity about the fact that regulation is, inevitably, an additional load on an already overburdened workforce. That needs to be taken into account, and that is why these staff must be brought along with the wider cultural change.

Even the private sector, which carries out a significant amount of police forensics work, is not immune to financial pressures. According to evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into forensic science and the criminal justice system in 2019, spending on forensic services reduced from £120 million in 2008, when the FSS was still in existence, to approximately £50 million to £55 million in 2018-19.

There seem to be financial pressures across the board in the whole sphere of forensic services, with those carrying out defence work on legal aid rates among the worst paid. As was mentioned, regulation should not place additional financial burdens on small providers. I know that the regulator has given much thought to this area and has worked with the House of Lords and the Minister to look at ways of reducing costs proportionately for niche and small private providers.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting the current regulator, Dr Gillian Tully. Hon. Members have mentioned what she said, but it is worth repeating that:

“forensic science should be firmly rooted in good science. Courts should not have to judge whether this expert or that expert is ‘better’, but rather there should be a clear explanation of the scientific basis and data from which conclusions are drawn, and any relevant limitations. All forensic science must be conducted by competent forensic scientists, according to scientifically valid methods and be transparently reported, making very clear the limits of knowledge and/or methodology. Implementation of quality standards is a means to this end, ensuring a systematic approach to scientific validity, competence and quality. It therefore remains my absolute priority to publish a standard for the development of evaluation opinions, to ensure that this systematic approach to quality covers all scientific activities from crime scene to court.”

The Bill does exactly that. It is long overdue and will be the first step in rebuilding the reputation and trust in our forensic science service and criminal justice system. I commend the Bill. I hope that the Government adopt it and that it takes the next steps to become law.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill (Third sitting)

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Butler]

Q But here we are talking specifically about terrorist offenders who, by dint of one single act, can cause mass murder and atrocity. Do they not merit a special type of sentence, as is proposed in the Bill?

Professor Silke: Sentences for terrorism can be long and, again, I am not opposed to that at all. One of the challenges we have is that we are imposing blanket long sentences across the board, when we know that the high-risk prisoners are a tiny minority of that group. One of the concerns I have with the Bill is that it does not distinguish; it is across the board. It would be nice if we could be more targeted and focused in terms of how we are identifying and managing the high-risk terrorist prisoners, as opposed to the entire group.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Q Professor Silke, I have just one question. It is about reviewing the Bill through the prism of Isis and radicalisation from Muslim extremists, and also the far right. Where do you see the threat of terrorism in the future coming from?

Professor Silke: Far-right and Islamist-inspired terrorism remain the two dominant threats in England and Wales, but many will be aware that the most active group in the UK continues to be dissident republican terrorists in Northern Ireland. Looking ahead, what are we likely to see? That will tie into a whole range of different factors. One of the concerns many people have is what are the implications of dealing with the pandemic for terrorism trends going forward. There are concerns about increased radicalisation in certain quarters, but also pressures on criminal justice and other agencies in terms of budgets going forward and what potential impact that might have over the next four to five years.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We have time for maybe one or two more questions, if anybody would like to ask one.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

These amendments would require the Secretary of State to commission an analysis of the impact of this section of the Bill before it comes into force on people with protected characteristics, as well as the consequences of any disproportionate impact on efforts by the prison authorities to rehabilitate prisoners convicted of terrorism offences. With this amendment, we seek to address the issue that was highlighted by the probing amendment and to clarify whether the same criminal standard of proof would apply to determining a terrorist connection for all offences, as is currently the case for listed offences. In particular, we seek to determine whether the clause may have a disproportionate impact on people from minority faith and BAME communities, including on the numbers who are received into prison and the length of the sentence served.

There are significant risks involved in expanding the number of individuals who fall under the provisions of separate terrorism legislation, particularly if the imposition of additional sanctions is seen as neither fair nor proportionate and is found to have a disproportionate impact on minority faith and BAME communities in particular. As I said during my speech on amendment 35, the equality statement on the Bill acknowledges that

“Asian/British Asian and Muslim individuals within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) have been disproportionately affected by terrorism legislation relative to the total percentage”

of those individuals “in the total population.”

In 2016, a Ministry of Justice study of Crown court decision making found that, under similar criminal circumstances, the odds of imprisonment for offenders from self-reported black, Asian, Chinese or other minority ethnic backgrounds were higher than for offenders from self-reported white backgrounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West spelled that out in some detail.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber to hear the urgent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham about the Lammy review, but he pointed out that, when the review was done in 2017, the proportion of BAME people in prison was 41%; it is now 51%. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about that?

[Alex Cunningham]

Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber for that statement, but I bow to the superior knowledge of my boss and my Whip on this matter. It is absolutely essential that we never lose sight of the facts that my hon. Friend has just outlined.

Unfortunately, when it comes to magistrates courts, systematic scrutiny of magistrates’ decisions is hindered by the absence of reliable data collected on a number of key issues. For example, magistrates courts keep no systematic information about whether defendants plead guilty or not guilty, although there are similar disparities at the Crown court level. Magistrates courts also do not keep proper records of defendants’ legal representation, which means that no one knows whether particular ethnic groups are more or less likely to appear in court facing criminal charges without a lawyer.

The cliché suggests we are all equal under the law, but it would be foolish to deny that our justice system has a certain bias. We must make sure that when we amend or introduce legislation, we do so with our eyes and ears open. Particular attention needs to be paid to the equality impact of the Bill, to ensure that the House is as informed as possible about its impact. We must also ensure that the provisions do not have a disproportionate effect on minority faith or racial groups.

During the oral evidence session, one of my questions was to Peter Dawson from the Prison Reform Trust. We talked about the expansion of sentences for offenders of particular concern and how they would work. Peter Dawson said in written evidence:

“The expansion of SOPCs and the expansion of the number of offences able to be identified as having a ‘terrorist connection’ will need careful monitoring for their impact on prison security and on people from minority faith and ethnic communities”.

I asked:

“How can we improve the Bill to achieve that careful monitoring?”

Mr Dawson replied:

“It may not be something that the Bill can achieve, but I think it is reasonable to ask the Government, after the Bill becomes law, to provide a report on what the impact has been. I entirely take the point that the nature of terrorism at the moment means that certain communities are likely to be more heavily represented, but the point is that all criminal justice agencies need to go beyond that to guard against the unconscious bias that will otherwise creep in.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 38, Q88.]

Other witnesses talked about similar things during the evidence sessions. It is important that we do not lose sight of that.

Along with the expansion of sentences for offenders of particular concern, the clause has the potential to increase significantly the number of individuals in prison who are subject to separate terrorist sentencing. Many of those individuals are vulnerable to radicalisation and they have experienced a steady accumulation of institutional discrimination.

The danger with these provisions is that they could create a significant population of individuals in prison and under supervision in the community who will receive longer sentences and be subject to more onerous and lengthy supervision requirements and forfeiture orders than others who may have received shorter sentences for equivalent offences because the terrorist connection to their offence has not been identified.

That could place those individuals at greater risk from people who would seek to exploit that sense of grievance, in order to radicalise them in support of an extremist ideology. It could also undermine the effective management and supervision of this group in prison, increasing the currently small number of people designated as terrorism offenders to a substantial proportion of the population. This morning, we heard from a representative of the Prison Officers Association, who talked in some detail about the difficulties that prison officers now face in trying to manage particular groups in the prison establishment.

It is right that we commission analysis of the impact of our legislation and if such an analysis proves that there is a disproportionate impact on certain groups, Ministers need to act to correct any discrimination and, if required, change the law. Amendment 42 would require the Secretary of State to commission analysis of the impact of extending sentences for offenders, which is a particular concern regarding people with protected characteristics, and for that analysis to be laid before Parliament before the section comes into force.

Clause 21 replaces schedule 13 of the sentencing code, with the schedule set out in schedule 6 to the Bill. That schedule lists offences that require the imposition of an SOPC where an extended sentence or life sentence is not imposed. This will bring a wider number of offences into the SOPC regime, removing the possibility of those committing such offences from being eligible for a standard determinate sentence. That would mean that only the most minor terrorism offences—those with a maximum sentence of two years or less—would not require an SOPC where an extended determinate sentence is not imposed.

The Bill will also create new sentences—the equivalent of an SOPC for adult offenders in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for under-18s throughout the UK. Clause 21 addresses a problem created by the TORER Act, which made all terrorist offenders serving a custodial sentence eligible for release two thirds of the way through their sentence, subject to the discretion of the Parole Board. There remained an issue with offenders who were not granted a release until the end of their sentence, and who, as a result, would be released into the community without any form of supervision. The amendment would address this anomaly by requiring that terrorist offenders in the UK would have a minimum period of supervision on licence of 12 months following release, even if they serve the full custodial part of their sentence in custody.

The combined impact of the TORER Act and the provisions of this clause, along with the provisions of clause 1 that allow for the court to determine a terrorist connection for any offence, is to significantly increase the number of individuals subject to separate and more onerous terrorist-sentencing legislation. This includes a longer period in custody, release subject to the discretion of the Parole Board, and a minimum 12 months’ supervision in the community.

There are significant risks involved in increasing the number of individuals who fall under the provisions of a harsher sentencing regime, particularly if the imposition of additional sanctions is seen as being neither fair nor proportionate, and is found, as I have said, to have a disproportionate impact on minority, faith, and BAME communities in particular.

The amendment also seeks to determine the consequences of any disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics of efforts by the prison authorities to rehabilitate offenders convicted of terrorism offences. Many of those vulnerable to radicalisation have experienced a steady accumulation of institutional discrimination. The danger with the provisions is that they could create a significant population of individuals in prison and under supervision in the community who will receive longer sentences and who will be subject to those more onerous and lengthy supervision requirements than others who receive shorter sentences for equivalent offences. I have already covered that point. That could place them at greater risk from people who seek to exploit that sense of grievance to radicalise them in support of an extremist ideology. It could also undermine the effective management and supervision of this group in prison by increasing a currently small number of people designated as terrorism offenders to a substantial proportion of the prison population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sure that these amendments come as no surprise to the Minister and other members of the Committee, given my interrogation of our witnesses during the oral evidence sessions over the past few days. This area needs particular attention from the Government, and I intend to press the amendment to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister comes up with an appropriate answer. On the basis of all this kindly co-operation and friendliness that we are sharing, and our intention to prove to the public that we can work across parties, perhaps he might surprise me a little.

Amendment 37 would require that when a court considers a serious terrorism sentence for a young adult under the age of 21, the pre-sentence report must take account of the offender’s age and consider options other than a serious terrorism sentence for rehabilitation and reducing harm. It means that the court must also take into account the issues raised in the pre-sentence report and whether it constitutes exceptional circumstances under proposed new section 268B(2).

We need a basic recognition in the Bill’s sentencing framework that, simply put, young adults and adults are inherently different, not only in terms of maturity, but in their potential for rehabilitation. Regarding the level of maturity, numerous organisations, such as the Howard League, have advocated for this proposal. It has been recognised in reviews such as the Lammy review, and by the Justice Committee. Why is it not recognised in the Bill?

As we have said from the outset, serious terrorist offences deserve a serious sentence, but it is still important to consider the age of the offender when other offences of a non-terrorist nature are committed. Although the amendment is specific to under 21s, in line with the Bill, evidence of maturation suggests that young adults up to the age of 25 ought to be considered as a separate group requiring a distinct response from criminal justice agencies.

The work in this area continues apace, and I have no doubt that Ministers may well have to address their approach to all manner of sentences for people up to the age of 25 when we can all be satisfied that the science proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that they ought to be treated differently. We had a considerable amount of evidence on that. I asked Peter Dawson from the Prison Reform Trust for his view on the different factors relating to young people. He said:

“The Bill should have a different sentencing framework for children and for young adults. At the moment, the law defines a young adult as someone aged between 18 and 20. It is not for this Bill to do, but at some point that should change to between 18 and 24.”

I think that is his opinion. He continued:

“At least taking account of the detention in a young offender institution provisions would allow some recognition of the fact that young adults are different from more mature people.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 34, Q75.]

We also discussed that issue with Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who said that the point he was making was that

“there is recognition that people who are young and immature are probably more susceptible to change than adults.” —[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 10, Q15.]

I asked him whether the bottom line was that with young people, there was perhaps a greater chance of change; he had said that there might be greater opportunity for reform than with those who are considerably older. Mr Hall responded:

“That is what judges are increasingly finding.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 10, Q16.]

I want to refer to a little more of Jonathan Hall’s evidence. He said that he believed that a younger person dimension needed to be considered in the Bill:

“One of the final points I make in my note about removing the Parole Board’s role is that, again, if it is right that children are more likely to change, and as a matter, perhaps, of fairness, one ought to give them the opportunity, then removing the opportunity to say, at the halfway or two-thirds point, ‘I have now genuinely changed; that was me then and this is me now,’ where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Parole Board, does seem a little bit—I would not necessarily say ‘unfair’, but it fails to recognise the difference between adults and children.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 11, Q18.]

The current science and evidence tend to relate to people under 21, some of whom are a long way from full maturity. Analysis from the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that in terms of brain physiology, the development of traits such as maturity and susceptibility to peer pressure appear to continue until at least the mid-20s. That view was supported by the Justice Committee, which reported in 2016 that the growing body of evidence drawing on criminological, neurological and psychological research had led the Committee to conclude that young adults’ characteristics and needs made them distinct from older adults in terms of both their needs and their outcomes. There is no distinction in the Bill that recognises what the Justice Committee had to say.

The “Judging Maturity” report by the Howard League for Penal Reform also cited research that found the following:

“For the purposes of informing sentencing practice, the neurological and psychological evidence that development of the frontal lobes of the brain does not cease until around 25 years old is particularly compelling. It is this area of the brain which helps to regulate decision-making and the control of impulses that underpins criminal behaviour.”

As the Minister knows, I support trusting the experts where there is a significant trend. The trend of opinion from experts seems to be that we need to recognise the differences in maturity and development of young adults. In 2016, the Justice Committee reported:

“Dealing effectively with young adults while the brain is still developing is crucial for them in making successful transitions to a crime-free adulthood.”

Research into the success of interventions aimed at tackling radicalisation suggests that approaches that encourage young people to engage in education and training may be particularly beneficial, and that early interventions to encourage young people to undertake that education and training can be capable of successfully challenging radicalisation.

We talk a lot about rehabilitation, but we do not do enough of it. Labour Members do not want young offenders to be condemned to a life with no opportunity for rehabilitation when it has been reported to be successful in early adulthood. We can reform and rehabilitate, but doing so is a choice.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on this point. On the point about young people’s brains still developing, there is potential for grooming and undue influence by adults. With the Justice Committee, I visited a young offenders institution in Kent, where a young woman who was being held for terrorism offences had been influenced by her mother. Will he comment on that?

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed, that is very much the case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he reminds me of some evidence we heard this morning about young people being more susceptible to being radicalised. Another important point raised this morning was that our prison system is not yet properly equipped to deal with young offenders in a suitable environment that prevents radicalisation. They are housed—wherever they are—with people who have committed similar offences, who will be aiming to build on their insecurities and their immaturity to encourage them into further wrongdoing. We must never lose sight of that important point. That is why I will talk about young people throughout our proceedings on the Bill, because young people have to be given a chance.

I will talk about this later, but if a 20-year-old is sentenced to14 years in prison, that will make them 34 on their release. Add another 25 years to that, and they are almost pensioners before they are clear of the shackles of the state. They have not been given the opportunity to reform, because they are constantly looking over their shoulder, perhaps with an attitude of, “Why on earth should I change when the authorities are always on my back?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very important question and the points she has made. Any form of hate crime is of course completely unacceptable, and we expect the perpetrators of such crimes to be brought to justice. I suggest and ask that anybody who is a victim ensures that they engage with the police and has crimes reported. On the Government’s response and work across Government, obviously the Home Office and MHCLG continue to work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, importantly to ensure that all police forces—we police by consent in this country—are providing assistance to communities and community organisations, and having the right kind of dialogue and support. But we are also encouraging that hate crimes—throughout this pandemic, there are no excuses for them—are reported. I and we, across police and across Government, continue to work with civil society partners. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and we will continue to do so.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State has mentioned, there has been a sharp increase in online hate crime during the coronavirus lockdown. Organisations providing advice and support for victims are predicting a big surge in hate crime following the relaxation of lockdown measures, so what steps are the Government taking to introduce counter-messaging for religious, ethnic and LGBT+ groups that fear an escalation in hate attacks, and what additional funding will be given to the organisations responding to increased demand for advice and support?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and he is right to ask about the cross-Government work that we do, and the support that we give to organisations, in the Home Office, but also with MHCLG. It is clear, in particular, that we see a lot of this activity taking place online. We are absolutely making sure that we can tackle that. We have robust legislation in place to deal with cyber-attacks, internet trolls, harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, menacing and obscene behaviour, and we will continue to do so. Of course, through other means, such as places of worship funds and other activities across Government, we will absolutely continue to make sure that such organisations are resourced in the right way and, importantly, that we continue such community engagement and dialogue.

Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill [ Lords ]

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Second reading committee & Second reading committee: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 General Committees

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The aim is to simplify, yet we have these exceptions. A balance has to be struck. We cannot, as responsible legislators, do anything that violates the long-established common law right she refers to, or breaches human rights. We want to keep it as simple as possible. It is worth bearing in mind that sentencing law sets generally the maximum and in some cases the minimum sentences, but it is always up to the independent judiciary to decide exactly what sentence they hand down. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the exceptions, though. I hope we have enunciated those comprehensively, particularly in schedule 1 to the Bill, and that we will not have to add to them as rightly warns against.

The second substantive provision, clause 2, provides for various pre-consolidation amendments, which are listed in schedule 2. They are almost entirely highly technical in nature. They are explained in detail in the explanatory notes, but essentially they tidy up and correct small historical anomalies before the sentencing code is enacted. I will give one example to illustrate:references in schedule 9 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to now repealed petty sessions districts in Northern Ireland are replaced with references to their replacements, administrative court divisions. That is the sort of technical amendment we are making via schedule 2. There is a list in the explanatory notes that we can examine in more detail during the Committee stage of the Bill, if required.

Let me be clear: everything we are doing, both in this Bill and in the sentencing code that will follow, is essentially about clarifying and simplifying. In none of these provisions are we changing substantive sentencing law. It is a simplification exercise. Nothing is being changed in the way that sentencing policy operates. It is simply a clarification exercise, which is supported by the judiciary, barristers and academics. It has been scrutinised at some length in the other place, which has among its Members some very distinguished former judges, and it is the culmination of four or five years’ work by the Law Commission. I thank the commission for the extraordinary work it has done, especially the outgoing criminal law commissioner, David Ormerod, who led the work.

The Bill has one simple purpose: to pave the way for the sentencing code. That code will make the sentencing process easier, quicker and more transparent. The Sentencing Bill, which creates the code, was introduced in the House of Lords on 5 March under the special procedure reserved for Law Commission consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the Committee as an important and, some have said, long overdue step to simplify a very complicated area of law.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. As the Minister set out, this is a largely technical and, as such, uncontroversial Bill to bring to fruition the Law Commission’s four years long project on consolidating sentencing legislation. The Opposition fully support the Government’s intention to conclude the commission’s work and will not oppose the motion. I too take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its work drafting the sentencing code, and the many others who fed into the process through the consulation and outreach work.

We all agree that sentencing legislation is overlong, complex and obscure, even to experienced legal professional and judges. It is clear that urgent change is needed. As the Law Commission pointed out, current sentencing legislation, with its sources in numerous places in legislation, runs to well over 1,300 pages and creates immense difficulties in understanding and access the relevant law. It is also widely disparate in the way in which it can be amended, as the Minister described. Some changes can be made by amending previous enactments, others by introducing their own enactments, and there are even some that modify the effects of other enactments without actually amending the wording of the provisions. The way these amendments are brought into force is just as inconsistent.

The Law Commission also highlighted the number of times that Parliament has amended sentencing legislation and the erratic way in which it has done it, which just compounds existing problems with the complexity of sentencing legislation. As the volume of changes and the pace at which they are made increase, it becomes ever more difficult first to locate the law and then to fully understand it. In fact, I think the only people who oppose the Bill are law librarians, who have the knack of identifying sources of legislation in obscure places.

The result of all this can quite simply be described as a near-dysfunctional mess that is a considerable problem for our legal system. It puts burdens on lawyers and judges, results in wrong sentencing decisions that subsequently need to be appealed, and requires additional court hearings which have a knock-on effect of delaying other hearings. That clogs up a system already straining under nearly a decade of cuts to courts and legal services.

Although those from a legal background who have wrestled with sentencing legislation and its many complexities will probably welcome these long overdue measures, the sentencing code offers substantially greater benefits than just making the lives of lawyers easier—although that is also to be commended. Consolidating legislation in a sentencing code could give the public confidence in sentencing procedure. We accept that it is not possible for the legal system to be infallible all the time; that is why the appeals process exists. But when it is found that more than one in three of the cases assessed by the Law Commission in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal in 2012 involved sentences that the court simply should not have made, it is inevitable that public confidence takes a knock.

The public must feel secure in the belief that sentencing decisions are the correct decisions as often as possible. By addressing the immense complexity and inconsistencies with sentencing legislation, the sentencing code can give them that confidence, but if the public are to properly have confidence in sentencing, they must also have confidence in those handing down the sentences, so the Government must not repeat their reckless encouragement of partisan attacks on our independent judiciary.

Although we accept the need for the sentencing code set out by the Law Commission and we support the Government in bringing it to this House, we are concerned about the time that it has taken to reach us—a point raised by the aptly named Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice who expressed disappointment on its slow progress. The Law Commission published its report on the sentencing code project in November 2018 and the draft Bills that they included are innocuous and uncontroversial pieces of legislation. As a consolidating measure, procedures available allow this Bill to be heard in a Second Reading Committee, as we are doing today, with time not needing to be made available in the Main Chamber. Will the Minister tell us what caused the delay in enacting the Law Commission’s sentencing code? How many offenders since November 2018 have handed sentences that were unlawful, too short or too long as a result of the complexities of the current sentencing legislation?

Broadly speaking, however, we support the Government in bringing forward both this Bill and the Sentencing Bill that will fully enact the sentencing code, which is awaiting its Second Reading in the other place. We also support any measures that will simplify our sentencing system and will benefit the legal process, legal professionals, the judiciary, and ultimately, the public. We support this Bill being given a Second Reading.

[Chris Philp]

With the permission of the Committee, Dame Rosie, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his considered support for the Bill. It is very welcome indeed, and I am glad that we can work together in a spirit of co-operation to get it through the House. He mentioned a delay. He is right that the Law Commission report was published in November 2018. In fairness to my predecessors, I should say that 2018 was a rather eventful year in Parliament, with quite a lot going on, including a change of Prime Minister and a general election, along with various other things. As a result, matters progressed through Parliament a little more slowly than they might otherwise have done. The Bill was introduced in May 2019, carried over and then had to be reintroduced after Dissolution. It has suffered from the political turbulence of the past 12 months, but we are here now and want to get it passed as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill and look forward to working with them to get it on to the statute book quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Progress should always be welcomed, and the Bill is progress. It sends a clear message to Parole Board members about the Government’s priorities. Our priority should be to have a laser-like focus on the victims of crime and their families.

Of all the things that can happen to us, having a close friend or family member murdered or fall victim to a paedophile is one of the greatest possible injustices. Through the police, the courts and the wider justice system, ordinary people should be able to secure redress for injustice. That is why we have these systems and why they have been introduced and built on over time. Otherwise, ordinary people would have no alternative but to take matters into their own hands.

Today, we are trying to deliver improved redress in at least one regard. We are aiming to prevent the truly horrendous injustice of a victim’s family having to watch as the person who killed their loved one walks away from prison having not revealed the location of their relative’s body. We are also aiming to prevent paedophiles from leaving their victims unidentified, with all the uncertainty and distress that that might cause families whose children were within the reach of these people.

To ensure that we truly honour the memory of Helen and others, it is vital that we ensure that the changes and the progress we are making in the House today make a difference in the real world for victims of crime and their families. That is how we ensure that campaigners such as Marie are truly able to think about their lost relatives and to take at least some comfort from the fact that their deaths have led to something positive.

Will any guidance be issued to the Parole Board as to how the new statutory duty is expected to be given consideration and what weight it is likely to carry? Will the Minister outline the expected impact this change in law will have? How confident can we be that people who, prior to this law, would have been released will now not be?

I would ask that we keep an open mind on this issue. Today’s legislation is welcome and positive, but we need to make sure that, in reality, it secures the redress that victims and their families rightly seek.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

As I stated on Second Reading, the Opposition will support the Bill. It rightly addresses the situation of prisoners who have been convicted of murder or manslaughter who then refuse to reveal the identity or the whereabouts of the body, and also the situation of those who have been convicted of taking or making indecent images of children and refuse to identify their victims. Under the Bill, the non-disclosure in both cases is to be formally considered by the Parole Board when someone is being considered for release on licence.

The Bill is the result, first, of Helen’s law, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). My hon. Friend’s constituent Helen McCourt was murdered, and her mother has led the campaign for Helen’s law. To this day, Helen’s murderer refuses to disclose the whereabouts of her body. That compounds the family’s grief and denies them the right to lay their loved one to rest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has also campaigned for the provisions in the Bill. The shocking case of the nursery assistant Vanessa George shook the community in his constituency. Vanessa George took indecent images of children at the nursery where she worked and was subsequently convicted, but she still refuses to identify the children.

I cannot praise enough the determination and tenacity of Marie McCourt, the mother of Helen McCourt, who fought and lobbied so hard to get this Bill to become law, as it surely now will do, or the community in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which also campaigned hard to get the Bill on the statute book in relation to the images of the children.

The Government have done a good job in drafting the Bill and placing the requirement in it on the Parole Board. The Parole Board rightly owes a duty to victims. Reliving the trauma and horror of a crime when giving a statement can sometimes be distressing and overwhelming for victims, and they should not have to go through that trauma. If the Parole Board was minded to release a prisoner because they were no longer regarded as a threat to the public, the only option open to victims to challenge that view would be to seek a reconsideration of the Parole Board decision. The Bill puts in an additional safeguard in these exceptional cases; we are not talking about a huge number of cases, and the changes will very likely impact only a handful of cases each year, but the suffering caused is immeasurable for the families and loved ones affected.

There cannot be many people who do not agree with the measures in the Bill. It is clear from the speeches on Second Reading and the comments made in this Committee stage that the Bill has cross-party support. To condemn the relatives of victims to further unnecessary anguish is truly appalling and should not go unpunished. This Bill is short—only three clauses—but by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it allows for non-disclosure to be formally considered when deciding whether to release a prisoner on licence. That helps to avoid the additional pain and suffering of having to draft a victim statement. The Minister eloquently gave the details of the two amendments the Government have tabled, so I will not repeat or explain them, but both have the support of the Opposition.

As the prevalence of image sharing increases, it will be much easier for the identities of child victims of indecent images to be hidden via various software, and there is a real possibility that there could be more cases of indecent images of unknown child victims. Sentencing guidelines must keep pace with new developments in technology and the regulation of associated offences that we are yet to identify. I therefore await with interest the Government’s White Paper on sentencing, which is due later this year.

I hope the Government will tighten up the victims code and think about introducing a victims law. For now, however, the Opposition are content to support the Bill and the two Government amendments and to help Helen’s law become an Act of Parliament.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive tone in which he has engaged with the Bill in general and for his remarks a few moments ago. To pick up on his comments on the sentencing White Paper, we do indeed intend to bring it forward later this calendar year. Hopefully, we can look at a much wider range of issues connected with sentencing to make sure that the punishment always fits the crime. In relation to a victims Bill, it is our intention to legislate in that area later in the current Session.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on both the points he raised. Where there is a collection of offences, some of which come within the scope of the Bill but others of which do not, this Bill will be engaged when release comes to be considered, even if only one of the offences falls within its scope. His constituents can be reassured that the Bill will apply in those circumstances.

All sentence types are covered. Clause 1, which amends section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, will cover life sentences and, as amended, sentences for imprisonment for public protection. Clause 2, which amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, covers extended determinate sentences, so all sentence types are covered by this Bill, as amended. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance he requested.

In relation to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), I expect the Parole Board to give significant weight to non-disclosure. The fact that Parliament has gone as far as legislating in this area will send an extremely clear message to the people taking these decisions, and I expect this to weigh heavily on the mind of Parole Board members when they take these decisions. A wider review into the operation of the Parole Board will commence in due course—the so-called root-and-branch review announced in the manifesto last December—and there will be an opportunity for my hon. Friend and all Members to contribute to that discussion.

Putting on the face of the Bill the requirement to take non-disclosure into account means that it can never be changed, other than by a subsequent Act of Parliament. It will also send a message to Parole Board members about how important these issues are for Members of this House, for the reasons described today. I commend the amendments and clauses to the House.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out “Section 28A contains” and insert “Sections 28A and 28B contain”.—(Chris Philp.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

I would like to join the Secretary of State in thanking all hon. Members for their contributions and for the tone they have set throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages of this debate.

I again give my thanks to Marie McCourt for her tireless work in making sure that this Bill—Helen’s law—has come before Parliament. Its first form was a private Member’s Bill brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and a version of that Bill has now been picked up by the Government, taking us to where we are now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for leading the community campaign to incorporate the offences regarding indecent images in this Bill. This campaign followed the conviction of Vanessa George, who refused to disclose the identities of the children she abused.

There can be few things worse than learning of the murder of a close relative and having to endure the living hell of how it happened. There is also the trauma of the trial and the painstaking detail that is raked over to ensure a conviction. I doubt that anyone grieving will be consoled by a guilty verdict and justice being done, although it may help in the coping process, but the never-ending turmoil of not having a body to lay to rest is one of the cruellest forms of emotional torture.

The body of Helen McCourt, murdered in 1988, has never been found. Her killer, who was released from prison four weeks ago, has never disclosed the whereabouts of her body. The pain and suffering of Helen’s family sadly goes on, and if it is any comfort to Marie McCourt, this Bill passing into law will be a fitting tribute to her campaign in her daughter’s memory. It is equally distressing not knowing if your child has been the victim of the sharing of indecent images. The appalling abuse perpetrated by Vanessa George has been compounded by her refusal to disclose which of the children in her care were the subjects of indecent images.

Both Ian Simms, who was given a life sentence for the murder of Helen McCourt, and Vanessa George, who was convicted for sharing images of children at the nursery where she worked, have now been released on licence by the Parole Board. The unbearable suffering that Ian Simms and Vanessa George have caused, and continue to cause by the nondisclosure of information about their victims, endures.

At present, the only way a victim could have made their views known about a potential release on licence by the Parole Board would have been by making a witness statement to the Parole Board or seeking a reconsideration of the decision within 21 days. Both these avenues would require the victims to be proactive, invariably having to relive the distressing experience of the crime and to justify their reasons for objecting to the release. This Bill makes it a requirement for the Parole Board, for the offences stated in this Bill, to take into account the prisoner’s conduct in not disclosing information about victims and in prolonging the pain and suffering.

While a duty is owed to victims by the Parole Board, it does not go far enough in my view, and the victims code certainly needs revamping. The Parole Board’s decisions can have a profound effect on victims and prisoners alike, and no decision should be taken lightly. The fact that the Parole Board can place conditions on the release of a prisoner does not in my view go far enough, and it cannot address wilful refusal in relation to the non-disclosure of information. Let us be clear: the Bill does not extend a prisoner’s sentence, but it makes it clear that non-disclosure must be a factor in assessing the fitness of a prisoner to be released and their potential risk to the public.

In Committee and on Second Reading, hon. Members told us of their own experiences and of cases involving their constituents where the pain and suffering had been exacerbated by the conduct of the prisoner or their experience of dealing with the Parole Board. There are still issues to be resolved regarding the Parole Board, such as the transparency of its decision making, the lack of information given to victims, the lack of emotional and practical support available to victims throughout the whole process, and even keeping people up to date with decisions about a prisoner’s release. There are many areas of improvement that need to be looked at in relation to how victims are treated. Although they are outside the scope of this Bill, they are matters that need to be viewed in tandem with the Bill.

The debate and discussion we have had on this Bill shows Parliament at its best—when we are working together with a united purpose for a common good. While this Bill will not assist us in finding the whereabouts of Helen McCourt’s body or identifying the images of the children abused by Vanessa George, the measures in this Bill will, I hope, provide added pressure on prisoners to think again when refusing to disclose information about their victims. The Opposition will be supporting this Bill.

Children and Domestic Abuse

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children and domestic abuse.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, for a very timely debate. The Leader of the House and relevant Ministers—including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I am pleased will be responding to this important debate—committed to introducing the Domestic Abuse Bill at the earliest opportunity. I was pleased to see the Bill return to the House earlier today, and I congratulate the Minister on staying true to that commitment. I look forward to hearing her detail the Government’s plans to support children affected by domestic abuse.

I want to continue on that positive note, because the Domestic Abuse Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver real change in how we respond to domestic abuse. When the Bill was introduced in the last parliamentary session, there was much to be welcomed—not least the introduction of a definition of domestic abuse, which will help guide our response. It is commendable that the definition specifically identified the coercive control elements of abuse, which we know are all too common. There were also improvements to the Bill on the advice of the Joint Select Committee that undertook prelegislative scrutiny, including clarifications on the independence of the new domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that they can carry out their role as effectively as possible. It is also positive that the commissioner will be expected to encourage good practice in identifying children affected by domestic abuse, and I was pleased to see Nicole Jacobs appointed as the commissioner designate; she brings a breadth of experience in this area.

The Domestic Abuse Bill is a prime example of legislation that, if done well, stands a real chance of securing widespread support from hon. Members of all parties, and from outside the House. I am sure that every hon. Member present wants to ensure that we get it right, but the Bill is not perfect. The crux of my concerns is that the Bill fails to grasp the opportunity to truly take account of the needs of children affected by domestic abuse, which is why we are having this debate. It is an issue that was brought close to home by my constituent Christine, who is a survivor of domestic abuse. Christine came to see me about her experiences and about her concern that the needs of children are not properly taken into account when considering the impact of domestic abuse.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I congratulate her on securing this important debate. Does she agree that children who see, overhear or experience domestic abuse are sometimes at risk of copying that abuse and the behaviour of the person who survives it? Does she agree that there is greater need for specialist support for children who experience such abuse, and that the Government should take it seriously and try to fund that support?

[Liz Twist]

It is absolutely right—it is the crux of my argument—that we need to ensure that specialist and appropriate services are available for all children going through that experience.

My constituent Christine believes strongly that the effect of domestic abuse on children needs much more attention, so that they, too, can be helped to survive and thrive with the right emotional support. She told me that years after her leaving that abusive relationship, her daughter, who is now over 18, is still dealing with the damage caused by experiencing the abuse that her mother suffered. Christine is an amazing, strong woman and I am glad to be able to raise this issue for her.

I sincerely hope the Minister takes on board the points that come from the debate. I also hope she will work with organisations from across the children’s sector and the violence against women and girls sector, which have informed today’s proceedings, to ensure that the Bill addresses the needs of children and young people affected by domestic abuse.

Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 General Committees

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

We recognise that alcohol is a serious driver for offending in cases of violent assault and domestic abuse. We further recognise that alcohol monitoring tags provide clear benefits and have a prominent role to play in reducing reoffending that is linked to alcohol. We therefore support giving those who impose sentences the power to use sobriety tags and AAMR orders, where they are appropriate.

We are clear that our support for the tags and AAMR orders is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Government, which the Minister set out eloquently. It shows that there is a high level of compliance and that AAMR orders are an effective way of reducing reoffending driven by alcohol. However, that does not mean that there are no questions that the Government must answer over the national roll-out of AAMR orders.

While the Government have carried out two pilots of AAMR orders in London and across the Humber, Lincoln and North Yorkshire region, we are concerned about the significant length of time that they were in place before the national roll-out. The Government must clarify why the pilots were in place for a number of years—much longer than would have been presumed necessary—and why, after having hopefully learned so much over such a length of time, AAMR orders are now being rolled out nationally only in an incremental way.

The Government must set out whether the two pilots will be independently evaluated, and whether their findings will be publicly available and widely circulated to demonstrate that the evidence base for a national roll-out is built not just on enthusiastic backing from certain stakeholders, but on credible data that demonstrates beneficial impact. Pilots of new technology and procedures will almost always be welcomed to get things right and iron out any issues, but they must also always be open and transparent to ensure that the right lessons are learned.

We are concerned about the Government’s track record on electronic monitoring contracts, with the fiasco over 24/7 GPS location tagging fresh in our minds. Originally announced in 2011 for a national roll-out in 2013, those location monitoring tags ended up being delayed for five years at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, with the supposed cost-saving benefits not now expected to be fulfilled. That alone is serious enough, and should disqualify those involved from participating in the programme of rolling out and administering the use of sobriety tags, but the issues with the tagging contracts go much deeper.

In 2013, the Serious Fraud Office was forced to investigate the irregularities in Serco and G4S’s handling of the GPS location tagging contract. A criminal investigation found that Serco had charged the Ministry of Justice for tagging people who were dead, in prison or abroad. With such a record, G4S and Serco must not be allowed anywhere near another tagging contract if the public are to have confidence in the system. The Minister must guarantee today that the delays and costs of the GPS location tags will not be repeated in the case of sobriety tags, so that security and value for money are delivered for the taxpayer.

The Minister must make it clear that, unlike what has been done with the probation service, he will not further reward the failure of private companies in the criminal justice system. Under the Ministry of Justice’s public procurement regulations, there is a clear basis for disqualifying Serco, G4S and any others involved in fraud from bidding for and participating in the sobriety tagging programme on the grounds of a significant deficiency, so he must categorically rule it out.

With the prison system stretched to breaking point and internal MOJ figures reporting that our prisons will be full by the end of the year, the Government must set out what provisions are in place to ensure that offenders who breach AAMR orders do not put further undue pressure on our prisons. The Government must ensure that existing alcohol and substance misuse treatment services in our prisons, which are in a dire state, are strengthened to ensure that offenders do not have problems with alcohol and drugs, but have the support that they need.

The London pilot reported that the use of AAMR orders did not place a significant additional burden on stakeholders and responsible officers. The Government must guarantee, however, that that will also be prevented in the national roll-out, particularly considering the substantial understaffing and overworking of people in the National Probation Service that was recently reported by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of probation.

With alcohol abuse a significant factor in many domestic abuse cases, I hope that the Minister will heed the advice of stakeholders in the MOPAC pilot, who stated that AAMR orders should be imposed alongside specialist programmes, such as the building better relationships programme, to address the thinking and behavioural causes of domestic abuse reoffending and the ongoing risk of further abuse and harm. I hope that the Government will commit to naming a date by which the domestic abuse Bill will finally be reintroduced to Parliament after being dropped twice. I have learned that it may receive its First Reading tomorrow, but I wait to hear if the Minister is aware of that.

I hope that the Minister will commit to ensuring that the national roll-out of sobriety tags will not end up like previous MOJ contracts, give a guarantee that the contracts will neither overrun nor overspend, and make a firm pledge that G4S and Serco will be disqualified from the process, based on their previous conduct, so that the public and sentencers can have the confidence they need in the programme.

Release Under Investigation

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of release under investigation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful to all Members who have come along to this debate about a dangerous situation that has arisen in our justice system—a situation that poses a threat to both victims of crime and those who stand accused of committing them. I speak, of course, about the use of release under investigation.

It is ironic that a lot of attention has been paid recently to the dangers of early release; release under investigation poses at least as many questions, if not more, but it has received far less attention from the Government and the media. Unintended consequences and austerity have combined to create a dire situation. Rather than helping serve justice, RUI hinders justice and puts victims of crime in danger. It is creating a situation in which justice delayed is becoming justice denied. However, there are some straightforward solutions, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response and reaction to them. I will start by explaining the current use of release under investigation and outlining the problems surrounding it for victims and suspects. I will then outline suggestions by the Law Society and the Bar Council for improvements in the system.

The first important point to make is that being released under investigation is different from being released on police bail. When a person is released on bail, they are subject to certain conditions. For instance, they may be required to live at a particular address, not to contact certain people, to give in their passport so they cannot leave the UK, or to report to a police station at an agreed time—perhaps once a week. With release under investigation, the situation is dramatically different. The accused is released with no time limit—it could be for weeks, months or years—and is not subject to any conditions at all. That means the accused is free to contact anyone, including their alleged victim, and to go anywhere, including leaving the UK. It also means that those who are falsely accused can be left in a state of limbo for years, not knowing whether they will stand trial.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. In the Thames valley, the number of people on police bail dropped to 379 in 2018, while the number on RUI increased to more than 11,000. Police bail just is not being followed. Does he share my concerns about that?

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will come to that point later. The use of police bail has dropped dramatically, and the use of RUI has increased exponentially. That is partly because police bail is out of date, but I will come to that.

As I said, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Before we consider all the implications of those stark facts, let me draw attention to the huge increase in the use of release under investigation. All evidence suggests that the use of RUI has expanded massively since changes to bail introduced by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. In London, for instance, 67,838 people were released on bail in 2016-17. In 2017-18, that number fell to 9,881, yet the number of people released under investigation in the same period was 46,674. That indicates that RUI is being used to replace bail. The checks and balances of the bail system are being swept away by a system that has neither.

The picture is incomplete, because only 20 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales have released data on RUI. However, despite the patchy data, a clear pattern emerges. For instance, in Nottinghamshire, the Thames valley and Cheshire, as in London, the number of people on bail has plummeted, while the number released under investigation has skyrocketed. Worryingly, the Bar Council estimates that the number of offenders suspected of violence against people or of sex offences who are released under investigation has risen from 1,300 in 2016 to 27,000.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Is not the real rub that because of the exchange in effect of bail for RUI, two safeguards are lost? The first is the protection of the accused in relation to the review process and time limits that go with bail and the ability to argue a case, and the second is the protection for the victim, who cannot have, for example, non-contact or address conditions attached? There is also, in terms of general public protection, the risk of reoffending. Is that not what Assistant Commissioner Ephgrave meant when talking about the unintended consequences?

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. It is the loss of those safeguards after the Policing and Crime Act introduced RUI, in effect to replace bail, that I am highlighting in my speech. It is easy to understand why this has happened: huge reductions in police and Crown Prosecution Service resources under austerity make it extremely difficult for evidence to be collected within the timeframes imposed by bail conditions.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I am a former criminal legal aid defence solicitor, and in preparing for the debate I spoke to a number of colleagues still involved in the area. They say that people can be in the RUI process for more than 12 months, but from the start, when a statement is taken by the police, to the end, 12 months later, the statement and evidence are the same—nothing happens between the two dates. Therefore, a charging decision could have been made right at the start rather than after a prolonged wait. I would welcome the hon. Member’s comments on that.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I agree with the hon. Member, who is entirely right about the taking of the statement, which provides the potential for charging early on. However, there is an issue with collecting digital data held on phones and other devices, which may need investigation. I will come to that.

Decreasing police resources make it increasingly difficult to complete investigations within a 28-day period as required under bail. When introducing RUI at Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said:

“In the case of pre-charge bail, it is apparent that a significant number of individuals have spent an inordinate amount of time on bail only to end up not being charged or, if charged, found not guilty. Of course, the police and prosecution need time to assemble and test the evidence, particularly in complex cases, before coming to a charging decision, but we need to recognise the stress caused when people are under investigation for prolonged periods, and the disruption to their lives where they are subject to onerous bail conditions.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 45.]

However, the added time flexibility in the justice system given by release under investigation is coming at a dangerous cost. The available data indicates that tens of thousands of dangerous individuals are being investigated for a crime under no conditions and with no time limit. Victims can be targeted again by a perpetrator, and some case studies demonstrate that that is happening.

The super-complaint from the Centre for Women’s Justice detailed case studies of victims of domestic violence and rape. A woman in Yorkshire reported her ex-husband for repeatedly raping her during their 13-year marriage. He was released by the police after interview with no conditions. He forced his way into her house at 2 am, held her hostage for five hours, cut her with a broken glass and tied her to a table.

The Law Society has also uncovered examples. A solicitor’s client, who had been arrested for rape and bailed, was accused of a further sexual offence against the same complainant. They were placed under RUI for the original rape accusation due to bail not being extended. Let us consider that for a moment: an alleged rapist is left entirely free to contact, intimidate and even attack their victim again. That is an utter failure of the system. Here is another example: an individual in the west midlands was arrested for murder and then placed on bail, but after the bail expired they were placed under RUI. Again, a potentially extremely dangerous individual is left entirely free to commit a crime or intimidate witnesses.

How can that be acceptable? I argue that it is not. The bail system is not perfect by a long stretch, but allowing possibly tens of thousands of dangerous criminals to be entirely free to reoffend before a trial is dangerous—especially for the victims of domestic violence. It is a sad but known fact that virtually all domestic abuse-related crimes are of a repeat nature. It is therefore essential that bail conditions are used to safeguard victims while an investigation is ongoing, yet the big reduction in the use of bail and the huge increase in RUI means that highly dangerous offenders are released while investigations are ongoing. As Women’s Aid points out, there is absolutely nothing to stop highly dangerous domestic abusers contacting their victims or going to their homes.

Again, it is clear that part of the problem relates to a severe lack of resources and cuts. Because the initial bail period is only 28 days, an extension must be approved by a superintendent. That procedure imposes a big administrative burden on police forces, who, it seems, therefore avoid using bail altogether and instead release suspects under investigation. Unless the police are given sufficient resources to investigate crimes, the use of RUI will continue to spiral.

It is clear that RUI is creating a situation where vulnerable victims may be made more vulnerable and their lives placed in danger, but, looked at from the other side, its use is also grossly unfair to those accused of committing a crime and yet to be found guilty. They are essentially left in limbo for long periods—sometimes more than a year—with no updates or no indication from the police about if or when the case will progress.

I recently spoke to a barrister in my constituency who said she has a client who stands accused of serious sexual violence along with others. The allegation was made within 24 hours of the incident in 2017. All the suspects were arrested and interviewed within a matter of weeks, and they were all released on RUI. The investigation continued, but the defendants were not charged until the beginning of 2019. The trial has been fixed for a date in 2020, almost three years after the allegation was made. There can be little doubt that both the complainant and the defendants will be affected by that significant and serious delay.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing our attention to this matter. He is eloquently showing why RUI is almost totally failing to achieve anything. Has he worked out what it is intended to achieve? From what he has said so far, it appears simply to be a way to take pressure off the police as a consequence of their not having the resources to investigate crimes.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that was the intention. At the time, there were significant cases where bail was constantly extended, so it was designed to allow the police to investigate further, but it has had an adverse effect and needs to be reformed.

In another case study, my constituent said that she has a youth client who has been subject to RUI for more than 15 separate investigations. It has not been possible to find out the details of each RUI or the status of the investigations. Accordingly, her client could end up being charged after he turns 18 in relation to allegations that date back to when he was 16. If that happens and he pleads or is found guilty, the court will not be able to impose any youth sentences such as referral orders or youth rehabilitation orders. Under the law, we have an important principle of innocent until proven guilty. It is not reasonable for suspects or victims to have to put up with such delays. Again I repeat: justice delayed becomes justice denied.

Data from police forces that have provided it shows that the average time people are subject to RUI is shockingly long, ranging from 114 to 228 days. There are cases where RUI has gone on for years. Let us pause for a minute and consider the impact of that on suspects—let us remember, they remain innocent until proven guilty. They are left unaware of what is happening with their case, whether they remain a suspect or whether the police are even investigating their case. Such uncertainty creates enormous stress, which can impact on personal and family lives as well as employment.

The Law Society has unearthed case studies that illustrate that. In one case, an elderly man was interviewed about allegations of sexual abuse in a care home in 2015-16 and released under investigation. He received no updates on the case despite five letters from his solicitor to the CPS. The man, now aged 82, was finally told at the start of June 2019 that he would not be prosecuted. Unsurprisingly, the length of the process placed extreme strain on the man and his wife, who is seriously ill.

As I said at beginning of the debate, some straightforward changes to the system could be implemented. I am glad that the Government are embarking on a review, and I was heartened to hear that they today agreed to commence their consultation on pre-charge bail. It is pleasing to see that, in the consultation document, they recognise the impact of longer investigations, the need for better resourcing and the need for regular updates to victims and the accused on RUI. I would be interested to know more about their proposed new framework following the consultation, and I hope that my speech today is considered part of that consultation.

[James Daly]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel there is any merit in going back to the system that I well remember—of giving the custody sergeant the right to charge for certain offences? The question, which the hon. Gentleman is eloquently putting across, is about the delay in investigations. In my experience, an investigation can be done in the first 24 hours in the vast majority of cases, as very little changes. X says Y has done it, and Y says, “I haven’t done it,” and that is it for the majority of cases. The idea that most cases are extremely complex and need weeks, or even months, to be reviewed is not correct. In my view, we should go back to the old system, where the custody sergeant was able to assess the evidence there and then. From my experience over many years, that did not do justice any harm whatever.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to review the process that takes place before charging, but we now live in an age where more information has to be collected from phones and digitally, which takes up a fair amount of resources.

It is vital that the following issues are taken into account by the Government. First, it is essential that RUI incorporates time limits. It is understandable that the bail system needed reform. Time limits attached to bail have often been unrealistic in terms of dealing with huge amounts of digital and social media evidence, which is now often relevant to cases. It has been suggested to me by a senior police figure that a longer and staggered time period, with different levels of approval, might make bail work better. However, it is still essential that time limits of some kind are brought into the RUI system so that victims and suspects are no longer left in limbo. For these time limits to work, it is also vital that the police, the CPS and criminal lawyers are properly resourced.

Secondly, while the promised increase in police numbers by the Government is welcome, there must also be proper resourcing for the collection and sorting of evidence, especially where it is stored digitally or where forensic analysis is required. The Government must ensure that procedures and funding fit for the 21st century are in place.

Thirdly, it is imperative that certain categories of crime are excluded from the RUI system. It is entirely inappropriate for suspects accused of domestic violence, violent crime or sexual violence to be placed under RUI.

[Sir Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is making an impressive speech. Could his last point be dealt with by reforms to the codes of practice set out by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to say that the use of RUI must be proportionate? If an offence were of the nature that it would attract unconditional bail, RUI might be a convenient way forward, but it is almost inconceivable that people charged with violent or sexual offences would be released on unconditional bail. In such cases, there would normally be a non-contact condition or a condition of residence—something of that kind. It would be simple to take those offences straight out of the system and go back to bail, to the benefit of everybody.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent suggestion. I hope the Minister takes note of that and that it is fed into the consultation.

Finally, it is vital that where RUI is used, some conditions can be imposed. There should be a mechanism for knowing where suspects are and for preventing them from being in contact with alleged victims and witnesses. All parties should kept updated at regular intervals.

To conclude, we must uphold the two vital principles of our justice system: justice delayed must not become justice denied, and everyone has a right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

It is pleasing to hear the comments from the Minister. Following the consultation, many of the issues will hopefully be addressed. He will have seen the cross-party consensus on the concerns about RUI. We will wait and see what comes forward from the consultation.

I still have some concerns, because some of the delays are not necessarily down to police resources, but resources elsewhere. For instance, the collection of data and forensic data may be handled elsewhere, so it could be that additional staff who are not necessarily frontline police officers need to deal with that. That issue needs to be looked at. The Minister mentioned the possible extension of timescales from 60 to 90 days. There is a police resourcing issue there in terms of whether that should be dealt with by a superintendent or by somebody at inspector level. That needs to be teased out as well. We need to put suspects and victims at the heart of this, as well as the general public. That needs to be front and centre of any reforms, but I welcome his comments, and I hope we see reform following the consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the use of release under investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I would absolutely like to put on record my thanks and gratitude. Flooding is a dreadful issue that has an appalling impact on people’s lives, livelihoods and homes. Of course, our fire and emergency services, the Environment Agency and police officers have done a great deal of work to provide a great deal of support and comfort to local residents.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I have a constituent whose mother is in her 90s. She came to the UK from Poland after the second world war as a refugee. She now has dementia, and she needs to apply for settled status. She has very few documents proving her residency over the past five years. Will the Minister advise me on what she and people in her situation have to do to acquire settled status?

[Priti Patel]

I would be delighted to look at that application directly with the Home Office. We also have 57 voluntary organisations that have been resourced by the Home Office to reach out to individuals who will not necessarily be able to access technology easily. But, as I say, I will be very happy to look at that individual case.