Victims and Courts Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.

Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.

We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.

Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.

Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.

Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.

The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.

While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.

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

I join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her work on the part of this Bill that ensures there are no parental rights for child sex offenders or those who conceived a child by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent. I thank the Minister for taking those things forward and for her work in ensuring that victims are at the centre of this Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas.

Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.

Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families.

While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families.

Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts.

It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for.

Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather.

A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it.

Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.