Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I made the Liberal Democrat position on this very short Bill, and on this issue more widely, abundantly clear in the last debate that we had on this matter: we believe in equality before the law, we believe in the rule of law, and we believe that no one is above the law. That is why we believe that anyone facing the prospect of a custodial sentence should be the subject of a pre-sentence report. We believe that the state has that duty before dispensing its power to deprive someone of their liberty.

There is no world in which judges and magistrates having more information about an offender, whoever they are, and their circumstances is a bad thing. That is why it is an injustice that the use of pre-sentence reports had fallen from 160,000 in 2015 to just 90,000 by 2023, which is a cut of 42%. That has left judges and magistrates with fewer resources and insights than ever with which to go about their work. Less informed sentencing means less satisfactory sentencing outcomes. It means more reoffending, more victims and more turmoil, and that is unacceptable. That is not justice.

This is a product of the under-investment in our Probation Service—it compiles the reports—which was gutted under the Conservative Government. I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister, in his closing speech on Second Reading, agreed with me that

“the debate should be about how we move to universality of pre-sentence reports, not about rationing.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1019.]

I will come to new clause 1 shortly.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Member will be aware that any sentencing magistrate or judge can request a pre-sentence report, so I would say that his use of the word “rationing” is inappropriate.

[Josh Babarinde]

I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Sentencing Council’s summary of the responses to the draft guidance that was in consultation under the Conservative Government, but it paraphrased magistrates and judges as saying that driving the universality of pre-sentence reports would be challenging in the light of the limited resource for the Probation Service and of the court backlogs. I would suggest that he consult that document to see the phrases used by those legal professionals.

[Dr Luke Evans]

How much would universality cost? Have the Lib Dems calculated how much it would cost?

[Josh Babarinde]

If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was making the point that these reports should exist come what may, the cash should be ringfenced and earmarked for the use of judges and magistrates to request them, but he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) cannot have it both ways. We know that if we best tailor a sentence to whether it will result in somebody not reoffending—if we best match the sentence to an offender—we can spend to save. If we can reduce reoffending by ensuring that people get the appropriate sentence, we will keep people out of our crumbling prisons who do not need to be there because they will not reoffend in the first place. We can spend to save.

I regret that this issue has become a political football and one that is sowing the seeds of division. Plainly and simply, this is about the shadow Justice Secretary attempting to hijack our criminal justice system for his own political ends. So desperate is he to score political points that he uses his platform in this House to undermine judges by name, in the full knowledge that they cannot respond and that there is a formal process by which judicial complaints can be investigated and addressed. So desperate are the Conservatives to score political points that they paint judges as activist villains and are working to undermine public confidence in them just because the shadow Justice Secretary does not agree with their rulings.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I would expect the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to at least acknowledge that such references are to judges in their capacity as leaders of the Sentencing Council, not to judges sitting in individual cases. That is an important distinction to make when parliamentarians comment on their conduct.

[Josh Babarinde]

I refer the hon. Member to the comments the shadow Justice Secretary made at the last Justice questions—I think the hon. Member was not in attendance for that—when he named a specific judge and made a critique of or complaint about them outside the formal processes.

[Ayoub Khan]

Judges have been vilified, as have others sitting on the Sentencing Council, by Members of this House. Does the hon. Member agree that, if there is to be any vilification, it should be of the Conservative Members who formed the previous Government, who held the consultation and agreed to the guidance?

[Josh Babarinde]

I do not agree that vilification is the right approach from any side of the argument. This debate should be conducted with respect and courtesy, and I feel that that was missing from some of the comments I just referred to. Absolutely, there must be accountability. Indeed, the previous Government were held accountable in huge respect at the general election, where they suffered the biggest defeat in their history. So desperate is the shadow Justice Secretary to rise to the top of our democracy that he is prepared, in the ways I have described, to undermine our democracy itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

One problem with the proposals is that consultation has been minimal. They come from a rushed place. They come from a place of responding to a culture war. We are voting on people’s liberties and we need to consider the issues in great detail before responding, not in a knee-jerk way. What I can say, and what I have discussed with Members, including the Lord Chancellor, is that, for example, in the guidance on pre-sentence reports, the circumstances of victims of domestic violence, modern slavery and so on should be considered. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, on pre-sentence reports we should lean toward a presumption of universality rather than one of rationing, so that for all the groups and individuals that have just been mentioned, and more, judges can access a pre-sentence report.

We make the call I have just made not only because we have grave concerns about the impact of the proposed changes, but because we remain steadfastly committed to evidence-based policy making. Against the backdrop of cynical culture wars and leadership manoeuvres, it is more important than ever for the Government to assess the outcomes of this policy, with assessments based on statistics, data and evidence as opposed to dogma and ideology.

To conclude, we must not dance to the tune of the populists or the culture war fanatics, or undermine our legal institutions. As such, our position has not changed since last time and we will act accordingly. We will defend our judicial system and its independence, but we reject short-term reforms that fail to address the wider issues of disproportionality at play.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate. I commend him on behalf of my party, and I am sure everybody in this room, for the bravery that he exhibited in sharing his own story of victimhood and engagement with the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

Victims and survivors in Eastbourne and beyond deserve dignity, respect and meaningful support when someone has violated their safety, their rights, their property and the law that is there to protect them. While no amount of compensation can take away the damage that such acts cause to those victims and survivors, compensation can, as has been described already, represent a powerful acknowledgment from the state about what happened to an individual survivor, and the sum awarded—to be spent on whatever it might be—can contribute towards their healing. Often it is spent on trying to access court transcripts, even though they are extremely expensive, or on therapy to overcome some of mental impacts of the crime.

For too long, victims and survivors of crime have been trapped by not only the trauma of their experiences but a criminal injuries compensation system that fails to recognise their suffering in a fair and humane way, often retraumatising them. The criminal injuries compensation scheme has become a maze of bureaucracy, and is unknown to swathes of victims and those who support them. I think we can all agree that it is in urgent need of reform.

First, the scheme must be simplified in order to make sure that it is as accessible as possible to victims and survivors. When people like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) encourage people to apply if they feel entitled, there should be minimal barriers. Submitting a claim involves a lot of paperwork. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, 40% of victims feel as though they have to secure legal advice to apply for this compensation. That often means giving away a share of their relatively small amount of compensation, which has not been uprated in line with inflation. I would argue that, in cases where there have already been criminal court proceedings, even one additional sheet of paper to fill in is too many.

As a survivor of abuse myself, which I have spoken about in this Chamber, in the House and elsewhere, I personally found the prospect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme process too much to engage with.

[Laurence Turner]

The hon. Member is making a very informed speech. On his point about the complexity of the application, I recently had cause to see the application form for the pre-statutory scheme, and it was simpler than the form that victims have to fill out today. Does he agree that something has gone quite wrong here down the years, and that we should be looking to make the process as brief as possible, and leave those detailed checks to the Government agencies that have already dealt with the victim and crime?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more that the burden of bureaucracy should not be on the victim. Having spent almost two years going through a police process as a victim, and then a very traumatising Crown court trial, the last thing that I wanted to do was rush to fill in application forms for compensation before the imminent two-year deadline from reporting to the police, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) described, was about to be hit, so I did not apply.

For exactly the reasons that the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) described, it takes more than two years to process a crime. In my case, it took many decades, and I still process those crimes today. The system is not conducive to that healing process. A question that I asked was essentially, “Is this system for real? After dragging me through what is a shocking, adversarial and dehumanising criminal process, you’re going to ask me to jump through more hoops just to prove that what has happened to me has happened to me? You can go and take your paperwork and stick it where the sun don’t shine.” The sun shines in Eastbourne a lot, as many folks in this room know, so it did not have to go far.

In scenarios where a court case has happened, and where the evidence has already been presented once, it must be possible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme to access that evidence with the consent of the victim and make some kind of compensation assessment without dragging the victim through another legal ordeal from square one. I would be interested to understand what exploration the Government have undertaken in this area.

Inefficiency costs time, and, to the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is no longer in her place, no victim should have to wait years and years for their claim to be assessed, as is too often the case today. Alexis Jay, in her IICSA report, also suggested that, in cases where proceedings have already gone to court, there could be merit in empowering a judge to order the payment of criminal compensation from offender to victim. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made regarding the merit of that suggestion too.

Secondly, the scheme must be more visible, because so many victims are unaware of it. Fewer than four in 10 victims recall being told by the police about the scheme, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. Significant numbers of victims and survivors are therefore missing out on the compensation that they need to rebuild their lives. I was not told about the scheme by the police; I was first told about it by an incredible child abuse solicitor, Dino Nocivelli, who I was connected with through a friend of a friend. As has been said already, awareness should not rely on who someone knows. The system is failing victims and survivors by leaving them in the dark.

Thirdly, victims and survivors must receive the support they need to navigate the system. I have touched on some of the complexities, as have other hon. Members. In my case, although I did not end up applying, I discussed the scheme with my ISVA—independent sexual violence adviser—from SurvivorsUK, Alan Robertson, to whom I pay tribute. ISVAs play a critical role in giving survivors the practical guidance and confidence to navigate our justice system, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is a part.

One of my key concerns, which I have expressed several times before, is that charities report that their capacity to provide support is being diminished by the national insurance contributions hike and the cut to core funding for police and crime commissioners. Those are debates that the Ministry of Justice will need to have had with the Treasury. Some charities that provide such guidance and support to victims have told me, and said publicly, that these measures are tantamount to a 7% real-terms funding cut.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank the hon. Member for his speech and particularly for his reference to ISVAs and victim support. In the Warrington area, there is no support available through either the NHS or third sector organisations for people under the age of 18 who have been victims of violence. That is why the CICA scheme is so important: it gives victims the ability to get specialist therapy outside the NHS and the charitable sector. Does he agree that ISVA services need to be far better funded, so that they can offer much more bespoke support to victims throughout the UK, including child victims?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. As someone who has used an ISVA service myself—I am not sure that I could have gone through the process without it—I think that the value of those services cannot be overestimated. It is of great sadness to me that across our country there are what I would describe as ISVA deserts, where it is very difficult to access those services. This should not come down to a postcode lottery. People should not be victims of these terrible crimes in the first instance, but if they are, then wherever they are in the country, they should be able to access those critical services and support to help them to navigate their trauma, their survival and their recovery beyond.

I welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to protect funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, but we know that there are victims and survivors beyond this cohort who will be left with less support at a time when they need more.

The test of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Right now, we are failing that test. Victims and survivors of crime deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. They deserve more than a criminal injuries compensation scheme that retraumatises those it is meant to help; they deserve a scheme that is fair, fast and fighting for them. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with the Government as they prepare the update to the victims code and forthcoming legislation, with a view to helping to achieve just that.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats believe in equality before the law, Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, and Liberal Democrats believe that no one is above the law, so it has been heartening to hear those words echoed across the Chamber today.

But actions speak louder than words, which is why I regret to say that few have acted more to erode those legal and democratic values than the two-tier Tory party that occupies the Benches next to me—two-tier Tories who unlawfully partied in No. 10, while the rest of us missed funerals for lost relatives; two-tier Tories who unlawfully suspended Parliament to get their way, while lecturing us about the rule of law; two-tier Tories who unlawfully approved developments for their donor mates, while purporting to talk tough on crime; and two-tier Tories whose unlawfulness, chaos and double standards landed them with the biggest election defeat in their history.

The Conservatives still have not learned, because that hypocrisy continues today in the context of the sentencing guidelines in question. They nodded through earlier editions of the guidelines when they were in government, yet they make a scene about them today now that it has become politically convenient for them to do so. According to the Sentencing Council, just one MP objected to the cohorting in the previous guidelines put out to consultation in 2023-24. I will give way to the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if he can confirm that it was he who made that objection. No—radio silence. [Interruption.]

Our country deserves better than the circumstances that have given rise to the Bill. Those circumstances are ultimately that the previous Government underfunded our probation and courts system so severely that pre-sentence reports have since been rationed and are not used universally, or indeed anywhere near it. In fact, the use of pre-sentence reports has declined by 44% over the last decade almost, according to Lord Timpson. That is despite the sentencing code having a presumption in favour of their use, regardless of any personal characteristic or circumstance.

The Liberal Democrats believe that that near-universal presumption is critical, because when the state is considering depriving someone of their liberty, judges and magistrates should be equipped with all the information possible to pass the sentence that is most likely to reduce reoffending and protect victims and survivors. Offenders need it and victims deserve it.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we should really be having a debate about how we can resource a criminal justice system that can fulfil pre-sentence reports for all offenders who need them, rather than a debate that feels grounded in rationing their use. We will therefore abstain on Second Reading, not because of indifference, but because of principled concerns that I will present constructively, to reciprocate the constructiveness with which the Secretary of State and her officials have engaged with me on this matter in recent weeks.

One concern is that this Bill simply is not necessary to achieve its stated aim. The Sentencing Council has, in response to the strength of feeling in Parliament, paused the implementation of its guidelines. It has not said how long that pause will last. My understanding is that the Department has not asked the council how long it would be willing to pause the guidelines. It seems to me that, in response to the most recent act of the Lord Chancellor, there is new-found space for an agreement to be reached, through dialogue with the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice, without a single minute of debate on primary legislation. Such legislation could then be devoted instead to patching up other injustices in our system.

Another concern is that this proposal is being rushed through without comprehensive consultation or co-ordination with wider work that is already under way. David Gauke is currently conducting an independent review of sentencing, which is due to report this spring. That review ought to have provided a clear opportunity to examine these issues in depth and to ensure that any reforms are evidence-based, balanced and considered in the broader context of sentencing policy. If the Government are convinced that primary legislation is required, why not wait for the Gauke review to report, take advantage of that independent insight, and then introduce coherent proposals in legislation later in this Session?

An additional concern is that although the Bill ostensibly gestures towards fairness, it fails to confront some of the most pressing injustices in our criminal justice system—to which the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), referred—including those identified by the Lammy review.

We know that there is disproportionality at most stages of the criminal justice process affecting various groups, from stop and search to charging decisions, early guilty pleas and sentencing outcomes. Ethnic minority individuals, women and those with mental health issues continue to be over-represented and underserved, yet this legislation makes no attempt to address that. While I welcome the review of data that the Justice Secretary described, it is unwelcome that the outcome of that does not feature in these proposals.

Finally, I am deeply troubled with the political context in which this Bill is being introduced. It may appear technical on the surface, but the legislation risks falling into a trap in which criminal justice is used by some in this House and beyond to stoke division, appeal to populist headlines and wage a cynical culture war. We must not allow our courts and sentencing practices to become pawns in that political game, nor part of a second stab at a Tory leadership campaign.

It is critical that in this debate and in any reform we make to sentencing policy, we lead with an evidence-based process and with a determination to tackle the injustices embedded in our criminal justice system, whether it is those disproportionately affecting women, ethnic minorities or white working-class boys—the list continues. We urge the Government to listen, reflect and return with proposals that work with the Sentencing Council, with the judiciary and with the findings of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review. Only then can we abolish the unjust two-tier system created under the two-tier Tories.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

After the Chair of the Justice Committee, I propose to introduce a four-minute time limit. I am conscious that many Members will be disappointed this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

One of the dying acts of the last Conservative Government was to shake hands with Serco on an electronic tagging contract that Channel 4’s “Dispatches” found was completely inadequate. People with serious convictions were left without tags for days and weeks. Victims and survivors were failed, including survivors of those released early under the SDS40 scheme. What will the Secretary of State do to hold Serco to account for these failures, and to clear up the mess that was fundamentally created by the failures of the last Government?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member is right: this is one of the many difficult inheritances left for us by the previous Conservative Government. The contract with Serco was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration. We acknowledge that the performance of Serco has been unacceptable. We have already been closely monitoring—day by day—its performance and delivery under the contract, and we have imposed fines for poor performance. Some of the issues relating to the SDS40 emergency releases were ultimately dealt with after close oversight by officials and Ministers, and we continue to monitor the contract very closely. As I have said, should further fines or other measures be required, all options are on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Key agents of reform in our prisons are prison officers. Unlocked Graduates is an amazing scheme that supports the production of prison officers with new innovations, but it has had the rug pulled from underneath its feet, beyond its current cohort. There are mixed accounts of what has happened from different civil servants and other individuals in government. Will the Minister explain exactly what has happened? Why has the contract not worked? Will he sit down with me and Unlocked Graduates to see if we can find a way forward?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I very much praise the work that Unlocked Graduates has done over many years. Unfortunately, when the contract was let previously, Unlocked Graduates was unhappy to progress with the contract. That is the situation. Obviously, these things are very difficult, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss matters further.

Court Waiting Times: Kent

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing this debate.

As I have said in the Commons Chamber before, the fact that tens of thousands of victims and survivors have been waiting years for their day in court is one of the darkest inheritances this Government have taken on from those that came before. The backlogs in Kent are unacceptable, and so are those in Sussex, where both I and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) hail from.

We have heard about the problems in Kent, so I will not go over those again, but I will share Sussex’s woes, which are not dissimilar. For example, our Crown court faced a 117% increase in backlogs at the end of last year compared with 2019. That is 1,166 open cases in limbo, of which 195 are sexual offences cases waiting to be heard and 316 are violence against the person. New court listings are running into 2027 and beyond.

As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, these are not just statistics—they are people. In Eastbourne and beyond, they are individuals awaiting justice, victims in prolonged distress, families seeking closure and communities yearning for safety. The agonising delays also mean that victims and witnesses may withdraw from proceedings, as we have seen time and again, or that those who do stay in the mix find their recollections weakening over time and the quality of evidence declining, which compromises the dispensing of justice altogether. We have heard this twice already, but I am going to say it again because it is so true: justice delayed really is justice denied.

While the Government’s announcement of additional court sitting days is welcome, we all know that it is a drop in the ocean, as the Justice Secretary has said in the Chamber. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Leveson review, and I have met with Sir Brian to input my proposals, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, for tackling this scandal. In particular, we have been calling for a presumption against sentences of less than 12 months, in light of the 58% reoffending rate among those offenders, which demonstrates that these sentences are not effective at tackling crime—they do not provide time for sufficient tough in-custody rehabilitation to take place.

Ultimately, the Government must turbocharge their efforts to prevent the very crimes that end up clogging our courts in the first place, as part of a public health approach to tackling crime. That includes, for example, investing in the diversionary youth provision so neglected by the last Government. Before I arrived in this place, I dedicated my career to running an organisation as one of those providers. Youth provision is about much more than pizza, ping-pong and PlayStation. It is about creating safe spaces for young people to develop pro-social values—sensitive communication, conflict management, team working and the rest—all skills that support people to function at the core of society, rather than being pushed to the antisocial or criminal margins.

For as long as these delays continue, and victims and survivors are left in limbo, the Government must support the victims’ charities that provide essential help and guidance to those facing that lengthy anguish. That is why it is heartbreaking that the Government have proceeded with cuts to PCC core funding and the national insurance contributions increase, which organisations such as Victim Support have said are tantamount to a 7% real-terms cut in their funding. I have heard the Government respond that tackling violence against women and girls is protected, but Victim Support has said that, notwithstanding that protection, there are still significant problems. I sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider those moves. Victims in Eastbourne and across the country deserve that, as well as the robust action needed to tackle the gross injustice of these lengthy court delays.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.

It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.

I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.

In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your inaugural chairmanship, Mr Turner. I look forward to speaking in the debates that you chair in the weeks, months and years to come.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate, the focus of which strikes at the heart of our justice system: principles of fairness, accountability and, ultimately, the duty of the state to right its wrongs. There are no two ways about it: those who have been wrongfully convicted are not merely victims of an unfortunate mistake; they are victims of a gross failure of the state. These individuals have lost not only their liberty, but their livelihoods, their families, their reputations, their dignity and much more. For all the talk of compensation today, no amount of money is able to restore a loss of such profound dimensions.

On the subject of compensation, the miscarriages of justice compensation scheme was set up with the best of intentions to ensure that those who have suffered the gravest injustices are properly compensated. However, as we have heard both in the Chamber today and beyond, that system has perpetuated the injustices it was meant to put right. How? We have heard that in cases where a person’s convictions are quashed, our system forces them to jump acrobatically through legal hoops to access even the most basic financial redress.

We have heard about the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison following a conviction that transpired to be unsafe. He had to wait years beyond that for his first tranche of compensation, and he is still waiting for the rest. Such waits and injustices are a national disgrace, not least because they are experienced by so many across our country.

The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who also suffered such gross injustices after being wrongly convicted in the Horizon Post Office scandal. People like Kathleen Crane, the former sub-postmistress at Old Town post office in Eastbourne who was wrongly convicted of fraud and made to “pay back” £18,000 that she never owed before her conviction was overturned last year. Despite the injustices that those caught up in this scandal faced, the Horizon convictions redress scheme and the Horizon shortfall scheme—the two special compensation schemes—have been paying out compensation at much too slow a pace, which is a great dishonour to those who were unfairly convicted. I thought the Business and Trade Committee put it aptly when it said of the process that it was,

“akin to a second trial for victims”.

Many folks in this Chamber and beyond, across party political divides, have long campaigned for a fairer approach to addressing miscarriages of justice. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been part of that tradition, and we continue to be. We believe that when the state wrongfully convicts an individual, it has a moral and legal duty to provide full and proper compensation without unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, or barriers that undermine fundamental maxims of our legal system. That is why urgent reform is necessary. We must ensure that compensation is granted promptly without retraumatising legal battles, and must ensure that it reflects not just the financial cost, but the emotional and psychological toll of wrongful imprisonment. When the state gets it wrong in such a profound way, it must have the courage to put things right.

I conclude my remarks by touching on an insightful comment made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about victims and survivors. What we are talking about today, being passionate about correcting these injustices, is not incompatible with supporting those victims and survivors who are brave enough to come forward, who report what has happened to them to the police, who take what has happened to them to the court, but who ultimately do not get the conviction they hoped to secure. To have a criminal justice system that works for those victims and survivors, it is critical that everybody can have confidence in how it functions on both sides of the dock and both sides of the courtroom.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s take. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli for securing this debate.

Domestic Abuse Offences

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to lead this debate on domestic abuse offences, and a particular honour to do so on the very spot from which I saw the most moving speech that I have ever seen in the House of Commons being given. It was in 2016, around November or December time, and it was given by Michelle Thomson, who was then the independent Member of Parliament for Edinburgh West. She spoke about her experience of abuse and being a victim of violence at the hands of a man, and at the end of that speech she said:

“I am not a victim. I am a survivor.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 409.]

Those words sent a shiver down my spine, gave me goosebumps, and unlocked in me a real determination to try to use my own experience and my family’s experience to improve what life is like for victims and survivors across the country.

I say in Michelle Thomson’s words that I, too, am not a victim, but I am a survivor. As a result of that, and also of my mum’s experience at the hands of a former partner of hers, we know what domestic abuse looks like. I know what it is to be crying upstairs under the covers as a child, listening to shouting, screaming, smashing and the rest coming from downstairs and not knowing if mum was okay. I know what it is to go downstairs the morning after and see broken glass, or a kicked-in hoover and the rest, and to not know whether mum was okay. I know what it is to live in a household where you are worried that any word that you say, any movement that you do and any thought that you might have can be attacked by an abuser in your own home who is meant to keep you safe and who you are meant to trust.

There are so many people across our country who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. It is estimated that one in five people will be a victim or a survivor of domestic abuse in their lifetime. In my view, the law does not go far enough to protect people in those circumstances. Great progress was made in the last Parliament in the form of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which defined domestic abuse in law for the first time. It also created a series of domestic abuse-aligned offences, including coercive and controlling behaviour, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation, but I am afraid that that piece of legislation, and indeed our legislative framework overall, do not go far enough to recognise the domestic abuse that my family has experienced and that many Members of this House will be familiar with, too.

An example of a failing in the law exists in the form of the experience undergone by an extremely brave and inspirational survivor, Elizabeth Hudson. Elizabeth was a victim, a survivor, of domestic abuse at the hands of her ex-husband. He, among many other terrible acts at home, held a knife to her throat. He was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for his crimes. For her, and for so many, such a conviction does not reflect the full gravity or the full circumstances of such a nefarious crime. That has led to all sorts of problems, not just for Elizabeth but for many other survivors as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first commend the hon. Gentleman for his courage in telling his personal story. We are all moved by it—I know I am—and I thank him for that. He has shown himself to be a determined, capable Member of Parliament, and I wish him well.

Across Northern Ireland, we witness people being arrested for first-time domestic offences. Ultimately, the charges are not prosecuted in court and the cases are dropped. Fast forward and people are re-arrested for domestic charges that are in fact worse, showing a pattern of escalating violence. Does he agree that arrests for domestic abuse must be fully investigated and, if proven, prosecuted to the full extent of the law to protect people from violence and instil confidence in the judicial system?

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank my friend the hon. Member for his kind words, and I completely agree that all abusers, domestic or not, must face the full force of the law. It is critical that happens for victims and survivors to have confidence in the police and our wider criminal justice system, and that is lacking for many victims and survivors. We see that in some of the consequences of the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—early release scheme that the Government had to implement in the light of the poor state that the last Government left our prisons in.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward such an important debate. Does he agree that one of the challenges of the current system is that domestic abusers and perpetrators are often convicted of a single act when domestic abuse happens over many years and can vary in the type of attacks and abuse that happen? Convicting abusers and perpetrators for the totality of their abuse therefore becomes difficult, and the prosecution will often go for the easiest single act to convict, thereby early release and the length of the conviction do not reflect the amount of abuse that their victim-survivor has had to endure.

[Josh Babarinde]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that domestic abuse is more than just an act; it is a campaign—a campaign of abuse, of misery and of an abuse of power by one or more people against another, and that is what makes it so difficult to convict.

There are so many areas in which the law could do better, and I was speaking about the early release scheme as an example. The scheme would release folks who had served 40% of their sentence rather than 50%. The Government nobly made a commitment to survivors that they would do everything possible to exclude domestic abusers from being released early under the SDS40 scheme, recognising that it can be super-destabilising for survivors, who need to prepare for when their abuser is back in society, their community and their neighbourhood.

Unfortunately, we know many domestic abusers were released early under the SDS40 scheme. That happened because the only way someone can be excluded from, or included in, an early release scheme is on the basis of the offence they have committed—something the Justice Secretary has confirmed—and not on the basis of anything else we might know about their behaviour. The problem is there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law. We therefore cannot properly exclude those people from an early release scheme, if that is something we are committing to those survivors.

Instead, we know domestic abusers are often convicted of actual bodily harm, assault or battery. Those offences were criminalised by an Act written in 1861—the Offences against the Person Act—that was not written with domestic abuse in mind. As a result, so many domestic abusers are falling through the cracks, and so many victims and survivors do not get the justice or recognition they deserve.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, a Justice Committee colleague, on securing this debate. Victims of domestic violence are often women. Does he believe we would likely give domestic violence more attention if it were classified as domestic abuse? Does he think that might make a difference in giving more attention to domestic violence cases?

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank my Justice Committee colleague for his intervention. Of course, domestic violence is a form of domestic abuse, but we must remember that domestic abuse covers so many different kinds of activity, including emotional abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. It is critical that we recognise them all, because all too often there is disproportionate recognition of, say, physical violence, but some of the more hidden forms of abuse are just as damaging to victims and survivors.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this incredibly important issue.

I am the MP for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and Women’s Aid Staffordshire is based in my constituency. I have raised these statistics before, but we have seen a 361% increase in referrals to its sexual violence service in recent years, and an 851% increase in referrals to its specialist counselling services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are facing a national crisis?

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing those statistics. More than a national crisis, this is a national emergency, and Women’s Aid has rightly declared it so. That is why it is now more important than ever that our legal framework properly recognises domestic abuse in law.

I have described how our current legislation is leaving survivors without the respect and the protection they deserve. For example, many abusers qualify for early release when the Government’s intention is that they should not. I have raised this a number of times in this House and beyond, including on the Justice Committee. Ross Gribbin, a director general at the Ministry of Justice, confirmed that the only way of closing this loophole is through primary legislation that this House must debate and vote on.

That leads us to think about the solutions to patching up this legal loophole. The solution must be to create a specific offence of domestic abuse in law. I have proposed a very specific way of doing it, in consultation with a number of stakeholders, and that is to create a series of domestic abuse aggravated offences in law. In the same way that we have racially and religiously aggravated ABH, GBH, assault and so on, we would have a domestic abuse equivalent.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a powerful speech on a subject that I know matters to so many people in this House.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to consider not just aggravated offences but sentencing? Killed Women is campaigning to close the sentencing gap. Perpetrators who murder women at home receive shorter sentences than those who murder women on the street. Having domestic abuse aggravated offences would end that injustice when it comes to sentencing.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The law is already going some way to achieve that. Domestic abuse is already an aggravating factor in sentencing at the back end, but it is not an aggravating factor at the front end in terms of the offence for which people can be convicted. We know there is a precedent for making domestic abuse an aggravating factor. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced a number of aggravating factors, and it was extended to include racially and religiously aggravated offences. We ought to amend that legislation to include domestic abuse.

However, this is about far more than being able to include or exclude domestic abusers from early release schemes. This is also about data. I asked the Ministry of Justice a very simple written parliamentary question just before Christmas: how many domestic abusers are currently in prison and what is their reoffending rate? The response was:

“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number of domestic abusers in prison or their reoffending rate. This is because these crimes are recorded under the specific offences for which they are prosecuted”.

In other words, we do not know how many domestic abusers there are because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in law. Instead, they are convicted of, for example, offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This is a national scandal. We should know how many domestic abusers there are in prison.

The Government have a powerful ambition, which I fully support, to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, but how can we possibly know whether we are achieving it if we do not know how many domestic abusers are in prison at any given time? More than that, if we are serious about reducing reoffending—I dedicated my career before coming into this place to doing exactly that kind of work—how can we know what kind of interventions are the most successful if we have no way of measuring that because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in law?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently and movingly about his personal experiences. There is a recognised link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Links Group that train veterinary professionals to recognise when the cases they are seeing may be indicators of abuse or domestic abuse, which ties in exactly with what he is saying. If there is no specific offence of domestic abuse, it is really hard to signpost and give guidance to everyone in the community on how to proceed, so that people are identified and helped at an early stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I completely agree. We know that there are links between domestic abuse and animal abuse. We also know that there are links between domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, for example—this is a link that I have experienced the hard way. Again, our legislation and the data we are collecting are not helping us to make that link in the way that we could, so that we could figure out which interventions are best at busting these social ills.

There are more reasons why a specific offence of domestic abuse is so critical. Let us take Clare’s law, which is the scheme that allows individuals, mostly women, to request to see information about the offending histories of their partners. If they qualify for the scheme, they get to see things like the charges that individual has faced or the offences they have been convicted of. It would be very easy for an abusive partner to explain away a conviction or a charge for assault or battery as, say, a brawl with a stranger in a pub, but would they be able to explain away domestic abuse-aggravated assault in the same way? No.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech and for his courage and leadership on this matter. He asks about the ways in which the perpetrators of domestic abuse might hide their crimes. In my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, I have heard too many examples of women suffering abuse who are not finding a way to cut through to the authorities. Does he agree that, too often, cuts to victim support and an inaccessibility of legal aid are preventing the victims of domestic abuse from starting the process that might ultimately lead to charges for the kinds of aggravated offences that he is so rightly calling for?

[Josh Babarinde]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is critical at a time like now, when we have heard about the scale of the national emergency of domestic abuse, that victim support organisations are adequately funded. I have met representatives of a number of organisations, including Victim Support, that in light of cuts to police and crime commissioner core funding and the national insurance contribution increase are facing a 7% real-terms funding cut. We should be funding these organisations more, not less, at this time to support constituents such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned.

There might be some challenges to my proposal. A challenge that was put to me was, “Josh, might this not lead to the very sentencing inflation that the Government are trying to avoid now to ensure that our prisons do not fill up so quickly?” My response to that is twofold. First, domestic abuse, as we have explored in this debate, is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. It already carries a greater sentence. I am proposing that we enhance the front end, as I said earlier, not just the back end.

My second response to that challenge is that the Crime and Policing Bill that the Government put before this House very recently—Second Reading was last week—creates a number of brand new offences. They are offences that I completely agree with and commend the Government for, including assault of a shop worker and a dedicated offence of spiking. These are the right things to do, but if we can do that for those crimes, surely we can do it for the crime of domestic abuse.

I remember in the Crime and Policing Bill debate several Members, particularly on the Government side, praised the trade unions for their campaigning to get the offence of assault against a shop worker over the line. I agree that great campaigning by trade unions helped to achieve that, but the survivors and victims of domestic abusers do not have such a union. We in this House are their union, which is why we must campaign for a dedicated offence of domestic abuse to protect them.

I am pleased and proud that so many have rallied around this proposal to create a specific set of domestic abuse offences in the law. Women’s Aid, ManKind Initiative, Refuge, Victim Support and many more charities and support organisations in this space believe that this needs to be done. I am really grateful to many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, who are sitting around me now, for backing this proposal, but also to those across this House; I am particularly thankful to Members on the Government Benches who have privately reached out to me to express their support for these proposals, and I know a number of them have expressed that support to their Front Benchers as well. I am grateful to lots of our media outlets for getting behind this and for platforming the campaign, in particular the team at “Good Morning Britain”, which helped me launch this campaign and the Bill I am holding in my hand to make this proposed offence closer to a reality.

I am also thankful for the many warm and constructive conversations I have had with Ministers, including the Minister for victims the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the Minister for safeguarding the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) who I met a couple of weeks ago, and the Minister for prisons Lord Timpson, but also for the exchanges I have had with the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State for Justice in this Chamber. I appreciate that constructiveness, but I am really keen now for more than warm words: I am keen for action.

Victims and survivors need and deserve the recognition that the creation of a brand new specific offence of domestic abuse in law would create and I stand ready to work with anyone in this Chamber and beyond to make it a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Josh Babarinde]

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I would like to think that all in this House believe in equality under the law, in sentencing matters and otherwise, but it is clear that two-tier justice has existed in our country, having been governed by two-tier Tories who thought they could get away with illegal No. 10 parties while the rest of us were told to stay at home; two-tier Tories such as the shadow Justice Secretary, who unlawfully approved a development for his donor; and two-tier Tories who have pummelled our prisons and crashed our courts, leaving victims to pay the price. Can the Minister tell us how he will reform sentencing in England and Wales to protect the victims and survivors so let down by the Conservatives?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to underline the importance of equality before the law. He gives me the opportunity to give a plug to the independent review of sentencing being conducted by David Gauke with an independent panel, which will address the issues that he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The independent sentencing review and the Justice Secretary have been taking inspiration from Texas when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. She might be aware that Texas has a dedicated set of domestic abuse aggravated offences to help protect and respect survivors. Will she support me and Liberal Democrat colleagues in introducing proposals to the Crime and Policing Bill in order to make similar changes to the law in England and Wales?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have not yet seen the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, which may be on their way, but I will look at them carefully. He will know that the picture is complex. Even jurisdictions with a catch-all domestic abuse offence face issues ensuring that it keeps up with the type of behaviour that they are trying to stamp out, and that other offences do not fall off, so there are technical issues in how such law works in practice. I would be happy to have further such conversations with him. I know this matter is of great interest to him and to Members across the House.