Baroness Levitt
Main Page: Baroness Levitt (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Levitt's debates with the Ministry of Justice
Victims and Courts Bill
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.
That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.
With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.
The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.
How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?
By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.
I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.
That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.
Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.
As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.
In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government
“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]
Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:
“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]
There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.
As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.
Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.
In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.
Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.
I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.
I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.
I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:
“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.
I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.
That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.
Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.
I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.
It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.
Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.
I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.
I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.