Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have two questions. The first relates to queries raised around the associate standard, for which you are looking to recruit. Are there any minimum standards that you would look for in any candidate for the new associate roles, and what is the current vacancy rate at the CPS that we need to fill through this? The second question concerns private prosecutions. Do you think there will be any potential impact on the CPS in terms of an increase in the use of private provision and prosecutions?

Sarah Hammond: If I may, I will take the first question in two parts. I do not have that figure on the current recruitment rate with me today, but we can write in and let you have it. On minimum standards, we would have an interview process for people to become Crown prosecutors. There would be minimum standards for people to pass that interview stage, and we would not lower them just because we are broadening the pool of Crown prosecutors. It is important that professional standards do not slip.

I am not aware of any reason why private prosecutions would increase as a result of the particular recruitment issues, but if that is problem, obviously we will look into it, and work with our colleagues on that as well.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q A quick question: would you support the publication of sentencing remarks to support transparency, and to enable victims to reflect on what was said in court?

Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence this morning.

Examination of Witnesses

Dame Nicole Jacobs, Baroness Newlove and Katie Kempen gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

There are three people on this panel. Please be focused.

[Jack Rankin]

Q I have a question for Baroness Newlove, in the first instance. I understand that there are new measures in the Bill that allow you to look into individual cases for the first time. Is that something you broadly welcome, and how do you envisage that working?

Baroness Newlove: I broadly welcome it, with a bit of a caveat, as I am the victims’ champion. Currently, I have to explain to every victim who writes in that I cannot get involved in individual cases under the statute. That is not to say that I do not pass on the information to Ministers and ask them to help and support. I am very concerned about how we may class victims under two tiers, and that is what we have to look at—it will not be me, but the future Victims’ Commissioner.

I receive hundreds of letters, even in the House of Lords, and I am trying to separate them using three criteria. First, does the correspondence highlight a gap in the policy? That is about a victim’s right to a review, and if it is not right, I raise it with the Minister or the Attorney General. Secondly, does the correspondence highlight a failure to deliver in line with policy? I see cases that seemingly meet the ASB case review threshold, but the local authority has added further obstacles, which does not help.

Thirdly, and finally, does the correspondence highlight policy that perverts outcomes for victims? By that, I mean that the court orders compensation, which is deducted from criminal injuries compensation—that is another debate that I will not go into. In some cases—or in the majority of cases, if we are perfectly honest—the victim waits years, because it is a drip feed. If we are looking at funding, there is over £1 billion outstanding in unpaid fines and compensation. I would like the courts to act and get the money off the offender so that it goes to victims, who have to wait too long.

Those are the criteria I am looking at. It will take a while, but it is paramount that the Victims’ Commissioner sets guidelines. I hear that line, “Does not look at individual cases”, but my correspondents think I can, and it really hurts me when I have to say that I cannot as Victims’ Commissioner—it is all the jargon and waffle that we do. I ensure that victims truly understand that I will signpost their correspondence to the people in charge. I will show them, and they will get transparency in that way.

[Jack Rankin]

Am I out of time, Dr Murrison?

[The Chair]

You are, but you can ask a question very briefly.

[Jack Rankin]

I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.

[The Chair]

I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Before I ask my question, I declare my interest as a member of the Prison Officers Association, a former POA branch chair, and a former prison officer at the rank of SO trained in control and restraint, PAVA and SPEAR.

I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?

Genna Telfer: Obviously it is not something we are trained in, or something we do, so there would be a whole training implication. We do use spit hoods—that is probably as close to that that we get, in terms of putting something over someone’s head, but that does not affect sound and even those are quite controversial, so they are used quite sparingly. It is difficult, because if we did not do that, we are back to the disruption point and potentially removing people straightaway for contempt of court.

On the legality, I do not know—it is something that we would have to have a look into. If it were agreed, it would need to be checked whether it was legal, and then there would be a whole range of training. But that is not something policing would do; it would be the Prison Service involved in that, rather than us.

I can talk about my own experience. I was an officer safety trainer, so I have quite a lot of knowledge and, again, that would be really difficult to do. We use leg restraints, handcuffs and things, but to restrain someone effectively and to gag them to move them into a courtroom, I think would be really challenging.

Clare Moody: I go back to the point that I was making earlier about not making this a theatre show. I think that would somehow make it a spectacle, and it puts the perpetrator at the centre of all the attention. As I said earlier, this is about justice for the victims, and I think that there would be real problems with that. Adding to the points that Genna made about the practicalities of it, making a show of it, or making theatre in the courtroom, I do not think is the appropriate thing to do.

[Jack Rankin]

Q To pick up on this theme, Assistant Chief Constable, the police show all the time that it is possible to move and restrain people legally, do they not?

Genna Telfer: Yes.

[Jack Rankin]

Q So how is this different?

Genna Telfer: It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.

[Jack Rankin]

Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that—

Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.

[Jack Rankin]

Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?

Genna Telfer: I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case.

Clare Moody: I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that.

Genna Telfer: I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, both; thank you for appearing this morning. There are lots of cases in my constituency, and I am sure in those of other Members as well, where housing associations are not taking strong enough action against tenants who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. We have heard from you and from the previous panel; there are lots of different agencies involved. How do you see the role of the police working alongside the Victims’ Commissioner, housing providers and other agencies to combat antisocial behaviour? How do you think the Bill could help make that relationship and partnership working more fruitful?

Genna Telfer: We obviously have really close working relationships with our partners. There should always be a number of people around the table trying to work out the best option to deal with these cases—from a problem-solving point of view, not just in the short term. Rather than just solving the immediate problem by, for example, moving people from one address to another, they might ask, “How do we manage this for the future?”

In my experience, I do not think there is an unwillingness from housing associations and local authorities to get involved. I think sometimes there are just challenges with being able to resolve some of the issues. The new power for the Victims’ Commissioner on the requirement to give a reasonable response as to why something has or has not been done will be really helpful, because it will provide more transparency and scrutiny of the problems we are trying to resolve. I do not think there is an unwillingness; I just think there are some challenges in the system that make it difficult.