Victims and Courts Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the interests of time, I will focus only on new clause 2, which stands in my name, though I also support new clauses 1, 10 and 11, and I very much welcome Government new clause 14. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for originally tabling new clause 2. His subsequent elevation to the shadow Cabinet means that he has had to withdraw his name.

On 21 May 2024, I introduced the Children (Parental Imprisonment) Bill—with immaculate timing, as it turned out, as the general election was called the next day. I was delighted that despite the lateness of the hour I managed to have a quick word with somebody from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and a commitment to identify and support such children made it into the Labour election manifesto. I would rather the commitment in the manifesto had not quite been framed in the way it was, which was about breaking the cycle of reoffending. That is certainly one factor, but to focus solely on it risks adding to the stigma and shame that is often felt by children in this situation. However, the important thing was that the commitment was there.

At the time, we did not know how many children had a parent in prison, as most figures were based on out-of-date research or unreliable estimates, but we saw the publication of an official estimate 13 days after Labour were elected. I know that we were quick off the mark as a new Government, but that work was the result of lots of lobbying and campaigning that we had managed to get the previous Government to agree to. They set up something called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data project. Through that, we now know that around 190,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment each year—a huge number—but that is still only a ballpark figure. It does not tell us where in the country these children are, who is looking after them, whether they are getting support, what trauma they are going through and, in far too many cases, how long they have been coping completely on their own.

My Bill called on the Government to set up a statutory mechanism so that at the point when an adult is sentenced to imprisonment, efforts are made to find out whether they have any children at home, and if so, whether those children are being taken care of. That is what new clause 2 also seeks to achieve. I have to say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply, because it rather misses the point of what we are trying to do with this new clause. It has nothing to do with making a judgment about who has parental responsibility or not. The new clause says that the court should look at whether the offender has a dependent child, parental responsibility or a child living in their household. It talks about

“responsibility for or contact with”,

so there is no legal decision that needs to be made as to whether that parent is the sole carer or responsible for the child; it is about whether there is a child in the picture.

I very much believe that the Minister is passionate about this issue, and I know she has met representatives of the excellent charity Children Heard and Seen. I know she wants to act, but 16 months on from the general election, there are still no timelines for when identification and support will be brought forward for these invisible children. I want to make it very clear that this is about the welfare of children; it is not about prisoners. There is important work to be done on the rehabilitation of prisoners, and we are fortunate to have an excellent Prisons Minister who totally gets that. Research has shown that maintaining family ties for prisoners is very much part of that rehabilitation, but that is not what we are talking about today. I am concerned with the welfare of the children and specific child-focused support for those with a family member in prison, regardless of whether they have contact with that parent or not. We should not conflate the two, and I am concerned that the MOJ does so, which is in part because its responsibilities and funding streams are all focused on prisons and prisoners, whereas in the Department for Education there is a risk that these children get lost in the mix among other children who are suffering adverse childhood experiences.

In their responses to me, Ministers have highlighted the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” multi-agency working statutory guidance, published under the last Government in 2023. This guidance says that prisons need arrangements in place that take prisoners’ children’s needs into account. It recommends that on the first night of a prisoner’s sentence, they are to be

“supported to make suitable care arrangements for any dependent children”,

with the involvement of children’s social care services where needed. It advises the Prison Service to ask all prisoners during their custody screening whether they have caring responsibilities for children under the age of 18.

The inclusion of that in the guidance was positive, but it does not address the fact that some prisoners deliberately avoid revealing that they have children at home. Children Heard and Seen, the charity I mentioned, reports that some parents are scared of their children being taken away by social services, so much so that they do not tell anyone about their children. Furthermore, the prisoner in question might not have caring responsibilities. They might not even any longer have contact with the child. They might have been convicted of domestic violence against the child’s mother, or convicted of sexual abuse or offences against the child themselves, but their imprisonment is still important in terms of the trauma, stigma and shame that the child will be going through. I have heard of so many cases where children of sex offenders have had their homes targeted. They have been driven out of where they live, they have been humiliated at school, and they have had to move town and change their names because of what their imprisoned parent—usually the father—has done.

The Government’s “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance for schools and colleges, which was published in September, rightly notes that children with family members in prison are at a higher

“risk of poor outcomes including poverty, stigma, isolation and poor mental health.”

It signposts to the National Information Centre on Children of Offenders as a source of support for school staff helping children with a parent in prison, but the guidance has not been properly maintained for years. Many of the resources it redirects to no longer work, but families and professionals are still being referred there. On the MOJ side, the Government published a multidisciplinary training offer tender for professionals on the impact of parental imprisonment, but this tender was taken down and the Department will not clarify why or when it will go back up. In the meantime, children are still being left without support.

Given that all prisoners have contacts with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, there is a missed opportunity for early identification of such children. This new clause would not necessarily pick up all of them, but it would be a really good step forward. New clause 2 would go further than current guidance by instructing courts to determine whether prisoners have children, to ensure they are protected. This could include using official data and working more closely with councils or local authorities, as well as speaking to the offender directly about how a child will be looked after. It could also involve working with schools.

The new clause would present another opportunity for prisoners, before they enter the prison estate, to report that there are children at home. The more opportunities that prisoners are given to do that, the more likely they are to tell officials. I was particularly struck by one of the accounts I heard, in which a woman had been in prison for about four months before revealing—she was having a counselling session or something—that she had children of school age who were left behind at home by themselves. The new clause could also bring forward a structure and process for having those conversations to reassure prisoners that informing the authorities about any child at home is the right thing to do for their children. Statutory guidance is non-binding official advice and cannot carry the force of the law, but the new clause would instruct the relevant agencies to go further in their legal duty to protect children. As I have said, it will not catch all children, but it would be a major step forward. Will the Minister say in her response how, if we are not going to do it this way, we are going to do it?

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I wish to speak to my new clause 12. Each year hundreds of families get a knock on the door from the police who must deliver the worst news that a family can ever hear: the news that one of their closest relatives has been murdered. However, about 80 families each year receive the news that a family member has been murdered while abroad. That can be via a police officer, but the news often comes from a newspaper, or from a journalist who has found out and has reached out to the family directly. In many cases when British citizens are murdered abroad their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for their loved one, all while facing the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system, and they do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.

This is where new clause 12 come in. It seeks to add an appendix to the victims code so that this group of bereaved families, who currently fall through the cracks in our system, will no longer do so. The principle underpinning this Bill is clear: victims deserve to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. They deserve information, support and the opportunity to be heard. These are not privileges; they are fundamental rights. Yet there is a cruel anomaly: if a British citizen is murdered on British soil, their family receives structured statutory support through victim liaison officers, aid, court procedures and counselling services, but if the same British citizen is murdered abroad—while on holiday, working away or studying in another country—their family is so often left to navigate an overwhelming maze of foreign bureaucracy, often in a language they do not speak, with inconsistent and inadequate information from the Government, who should be standing behind them.

Ruth’s sister Faye was killed in 2019 while in Nigeria, where she was working for a non-governmental organisation. She was shot alongside her boyfriend in a double homicide. Ruth and her family were left to deal with an overwhelming number of agencies without proper support to understand who had responsibility for what, with limited communication and poor casework consistency from the British authorities. Vital information, such as the arrest and subsequent death of a suspect in custody, which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew about, took years to reach Ruth and her family. They have still not obtained a full and accurate account of what occurred on the night of Faye’s murder.

Alison and Paul’s son Danny was murdered in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22. Alison and Paul have explained how navigating the lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in a foreign language, while having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. They have described being in a state of turmoil and trauma, and are uncertain how they managed to endure the circumstances. They have outlined how the stress took a significant toll on both them and their daughter.

Theresa’s husband Stephen was killed in a violent attack by a gang while on holiday in Spain in 2009. His two teenage sons sustained permanent injuries in the attack. Stephen’s body was repatriated to the UK and was held by the coroner in a mortuary for eight years before the inquest was held. The inquest concluded with a verdict of unlawful killing, at which time the body was released to his wife and children—eight years after his death. Stephen’s family received no support from the UK for repatriation, travel and understanding the trial in a foreign country and in a foreign language. Stephen’s wife, Theresa, recounted how she and her family had been living through a nightmare—not only of having to navigate the complex judicial system in Spain, but of feeling retraumatised by the lack of support they received.

Andrew’s son was murdered abroad when he was 18 years old. He says that, despite the FCDO having a duty to care for UK citizens, the family received minimal support. The FCDO provided poor and inconsistent communication, leaving the family without clear updates at critical stages. The family was forced to navigate a foreign judicial system with no help in understanding procedures, local laws or rights, which added to their distress and confusion. They received no structured aftercare or follow-up support, despite the psychological impact of such cases.

These horrible incidents are not isolated. They show a broken system that fails British families at their most vulnerable moments. New clause 12 aims to address this by adding an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British citizens murdered abroad. It states that the appendix must provide specific guidance explaining how families affected by murders abroad can access support, including clear information about foreign justice processes, which are often complex and distressing for bereaved families, in unfamiliar legal systems. This can include dedicated liaison officers, translation services and guidance on how to deal with foreign authorities. I have spoken to far too many families who were pointed to Google Translate for death certificates and descriptions of judicial processes in foreign languages. That is simply not good enough in our country. Under the new clause, families would also be entitled to emotional and practical support, including specialist bereavement counselling. Some police services across the country do this really well, but others do not do it at all.

Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems, and it does not place unrealistic expectations on the FCDO. What it does is establish as a baseline a statutory framework that ensures bereaved families have access to the same quality of support and information here at home as any other victim of homicide would receive. The Murdered Abroad campaign is made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a really powerful call for change. They are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for the same structured statutory support that families would receive if tragedy strikes on British soil. The families who suffer these specific horrors should not be forgotten because the crime goes beyond our shores; a British life lost is a British life no matter where in the world it happens. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional but a duty, and new clause 12 provides a way to fulfil that duty. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have supported it, and I ask everybody to vote for it this evening.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I will speak to Government new clause 14. It means that rapists will no longer have access to children conceived by their crime. It puts the right of survivors above the rights of criminals. It protects mummies and their precious babies. It is not okay that it took so long for the law to change—to keep up with common sense—but to get this change the Government fought to get us on these Benches and into government, bringing with us our real-life experience and that of our community, supported by Ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, determined to tackle violence against women and girls.

Victims and Courts Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the progress that has been made on this Bill. It is right that we are taking steps to rebuild trust in a system that for too long has left victims feeling invisible and unheard. The measures to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings are welcome. No family should be denied the chance to see justice simply because an offender refuses to face what they have done. The protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are long overdue.

I will speak specifically about Lords amendments 5 and 6, and about my constituent Katie Brett. Katie’s little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire. The sheer horror of that crime is beyond words. The pain her family lives with every single day is unimaginable to most of us, yet after enduring the traumatic trial and the devastation of their loss, Katie and her family were faced with another injustice: they had 28 days to challenge the sentence that they believed did not reflect the severity of the crime. What is worse, they were not even told that they had this right.

For the family of a victim, the trial of the perpetrator is always traumatising, but in such a case—Sasha’s family heard the brutal details of her murder for the first time at the trial—most of us would not be emotionally ready to fight another fight and to understand the complex legal processes within 28 days of hearing the sentence. That is 28 days to grieve, 28 days to understand the complex legal system and 28 days to find the strength to fight once more. This is not a meaningful right; this is a barrier.

Katie has shown extraordinary courage in turning her grief into action. Through her campaign for Sasha’s law, she is asking for something perfectly reasonable: more time for victims’ families to seek a review of sentences that they believe are unduly lenient. The Government are absolutely right to be looking at ways to improve communications with victims’ families to ensure that they know their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but I must make this point to the Minister: 28 days is not enough, even if people are informed of their right to appeal. The period of 28 days is how long someone has to return a T-shirt.

The families deserve longer to consider whether they wish to appeal. I understand the Government’s concern that an end date must still be placed on this longer deadline, which is why Lords amendments 5 and 6 cannot be supported, but I urge them to listen to Katie and the many other families who have suffered at the hands of the status quo, and to ensure that the issue is revisited as the Bill continues its progress.

Offenders are afforded multiple opportunities to appeal, and they are given time, process and support. However, victims’ families are given just one chance, with very limited time for it. This cannot be right. It does not reflect the values that we say our justice system is built on and the values that the Labour Government were elected to put into action. If we are serious about putting victims at the heart of the justice system, we must ensure that their rights are real.

The Bill takes important steps forward, but it must not be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of doing better for Katie and Sasha, and for every family forced to navigate grief and injustice at the same time. Let us make sure that our justice system delivers not just outcomes, but humanity, fairness and the time that victims need to truly seek justice.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I will speak to Lord’s amendment 2, which requires the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to the families of British nationals who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. This is not a new argument in this Chamber. I tabled amendments on Report to make precisely this case, I secured an Adjournment debate last year, and I have raised questions with the Minister several times. I thank her for the work she has done with me and others on this topic.

It is also important to thank the charity Murdered Abroad, and specifically Eve Henderson who has been working on this issue for a long time, as well as the late Baroness Newlove who, in her time as Victims’ Commissioner, worked with Murdered Abroad and me to ensure that the amendments tabled to the Bill were workable in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner.

Murdered Abroad is a campaign made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a distinct call for change. Families who are part of Murdered Abroad all have one thing in common: a family member of theirs, a British citizen, was murdered while they were outside the UK. Their calls ask for one simple thing: equal treatment. They are asking for the structured statutory support that any family would receive if tragedy struck on British soil, because a British life lost is a British life, no matter where in the world that loss occurs.

Each year around 80 families receive the news that one of their loved ones has been murdered abroad. Sometimes that is via a police officer, but all too often it is from a journalist who has found out the news first and is asking for comment. When tragedy strikes, it sends any family into an unimaginable position, but when it happens outside the UK, families are left with so many other complications they must contend with. They must navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy and often inconsistent support from their own Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.

Matthew was sitting in a bar when two door staff rushed over and grabbed him. They were joined by two more, who threw him down a metal staircase. At the bottom, witnesses saw them kicking and hitting him. A UK post-mortem identified over 20 injuries on Matthew’s body. When his mother called the FCDO, she was told that he died of alcohol consumption. That same morning, newspapers in Greece ran the headline, “Teen Drinks Himself to Death”. Matthew’s mum had to fight tooth and nail to get a family liaison officer. She also had to fight tooth and nail for translation support to get documents in English. They ended up being paid for by Derbyshire police, because the FCDO would not pay for them.

Alison and Paul’s son Danny was killed in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22 years old. They explained how navigating lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in foreign languages, while also having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. All the while, they were dealing with the trauma of their son having been killed. That loaded on to them and their daughter an untold amount of stress at a time when they needed support from our Government. In such circumstances, the Government should be supporting families in any way they can.

Let me be clear about what Lords amendment 2 does and does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems and it does not place unworkable demands on the FCDO. What it does do, however, is establish a statutory baseline, ensuring that bereaved families have access to the support and guidance that any other family of a homicide victim would receive.

Lords amendment 2 inserts an appendix into the victims code which states that families must be provided with specific guidance explaining what support they can access. It explains that they must be given information by the British Government about how the foreign criminal justice process works—not getting involved in that process or interfering with it, but explaining what families can expect. It outlines that they should be given a dedicated family liaison officer to support the family at the worst time. Some police forces do that already, but many do not. We have heard that many police forces will tell families they are not entitled to a family liaison officer. Only immense pressure from families makes those police forces back down and give them the family liaison officer they need. When everything else in the world has gone wrong, it should not be up to these British families to have to push the police to give them the family liaison officer they should be entitled to.

The amendment outlines that the Government must provide translation services for such families. Far too many families tell me that they were told by the Government to use Google Translate to get death certificates translated into English. That is not acceptable—that is not something we can accept ever again. One family told me recently how they found out through Google Translate that their son’s organs had been removed from his body. It is not acceptable that Google Translate told them that. We cannot accept that and the Government need to go further to provide translation services for families.

The Government’s position, set out in a letter to Members on 23 March, is that the amendment would “raise expectations” that cannot be met and that it risks “confusing the legislative framework”. Those arguments are remarkable. We are talking about an appendix to the victims code, laying out what support families can expect from the British Government. The suggestion that setting out in statute what support a bereaved family can expect will somehow undermine the coherence of the entire victims code does not stand up to scrutiny. And it is not just me and the Liberal Democrats saying that. The Victims’ Commissioner must believe that too, because she was pleased that the Lords successfully voted for the amendment. I cannot understand how the amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and confuse the legislative framework, and neither can the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not understand how the Government can think that.

The Minister points to guidance published in January 2026 as evidence of the Government’s commitment. I welcome that guidance, but guidance is guidance. Guidance is not the law. Guidance can be ignored. It has no real enforcement mechanism. If the Government genuinely believe that families deserve support, we must ask the question: why do they not say so in statute?

Last month, I met families from across the country whose loved ones were murdered abroad. Among that group were families who lost loved ones this year, after the new guidance had come into force. The guidance has not protected them. They have fallen through exactly the same gaps that were in the system before the guidance. The reason is clear: guidance is not statutory; it is a guide. It can be ignored and it too often is. What we need is a statutory appendix to the victims code setting out what support victims will receive, and how the Victims’ Commissioner and her team can support it. There is a lack of consistency. Some families are given a family liaison officer and some are told they cannot receive one. That is the problem we are looking at and we must do better.

I will ask one question of the Minister about transparency in the needs assessment carried out by the Victim Support homicide service. What criteria are used to decide on a family’s needs following homicide abroad? Neither the Victims’ Commissioner nor Murdered Abroad charity members are able to find out what results are coming through and what criteria are being used. That is why families so often feel that there is a lack of consistency and accountability.