Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Dr Andrew Murrison

† Blundell, Mrs Elsie (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)

† Brash, Mr Jonathan (Hartlepool) (Lab)

† Brewer, Alex (North East Hampshire) (LD)

† Davies-Jones, Alex (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

† Dixon, Samantha (Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household)

Fleet, Natalie (Bolsover) (Lab)

† Jameson, Sally (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Jones, Ruth (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Mullan, Dr Kieran (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Osborne, Tristan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Rankin, Jack (Windsor) (Con)

† Thomas, Bradley (Bromsgrove) (Con)

† Thompson, Adam (Erewash) (Lab)

† Voaden, Caroline (South Devon) (LD)

† Wood, Mike (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

Kevin Candy, Rob Cope, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Suky Bhaker, CEO, Suzy Lamplugh Trust

Andrea Simon, Executive Director, End Violence Against Women (EVAW) Coalition

Farah Nazeer, CEO, Women’s Aid

Glenn Youens, Justice for Victims

Paula Hudgell OBE, Justice for Victims

Mark Brooks OBE, Chair, ManKind Initiative

Kim Thornden-Edwards, Chief Probation Officer, HM Prison and Probation Service

Chris Jennings, Lead policy responsibility for the Victim Contact Scheme, HM Prison and Probation Service

Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice

Public Bill Committee

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Victims and Courts Bill

14:00:00

Good afternoon. The air conditioning is doing its usual thing, so if anybody feels the need to strip off, please do so within reason. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? Looking around the table, I see that they do not. Examination of Witnesses Suky Bhaker, Andrea Simon and Farah Nazeer gave evidence.

14:01:00

Q Good afternoon, folks, and welcome. We will now hear oral evidence from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Women’s Aid. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? Farah Nazeer: Good afternoon. My name is Farah Nazeer, the chief executive officer of Women’s Aid. Suky Bhaker: Hi, I am Suky Bhaker, the chief executive of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Andrea Simon: I am Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition.

Thank you. We will hear from the shadow Minister first.

Q55 I will start by asking about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not know whether you are familiar with this scenario, but it allows anybody—including victims and the public—the opportunity to appeal against a sentence that they consider to be unduly lenient. The Government’s Bill proposes to give the Government more time to consider an application to the scheme. We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision? Suky Bhaker: Fundamentally, the challenge with the unduly lenient sentence scheme is that victims are not aware of it. Although increasing the timeframe would be beneficial, and increasing the timeframe for Attorneys General when it comes to reviewing the applications certainly would be, we need to address the underlying issues. We need to get this on a par with offenders’ rights. Offenders are made aware of their right to appeal by counsel immediately, and it is often the witness care unit that informs victims. However, a lot of victims do not fall under that scheme, so would never know that they were eligible. That is what leads them to apply quite late. There are also exceptional circumstances where offenders are able to apply outside of the 28 days. That needs to apply for victims as well, so that there is parity for victims and offenders. Andrea Simon: Although we are pleased to see that there are provisions around extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme time limit to 28 days in the Bill, we still think it is too short. Our members advocate that it should be extended further to six weeks for the Attorney General, and the 14 days to apply to the Court of Appeal should be extended as well. There definitely needs to be more time. Getting advice from a criminal barrister is also quite important in these cases. Anecdotally, we have heard from member organisations that there is not enough time for a barrister to look over sentencing reasons. This can sometimes result in judges failing to apply, for example, the dangerous criteria to a sentence, so we think it would make a significant difference if that time was extended. Farah Nazeer: I do not have a significant amount to add. Suffice it to say that victims—particularly of the abuses we are talking about, including sexual and domestic abuse—are deeply traumatised when they come out of that process, and need sufficient time to make a decision. They also need the right kinds of advice, and to know where to go for that advice. The pathways are often completely unclear and often victims are battling many other factors—ill health, trauma, managing children and all sorts of things. As colleagues have said, absolutely yes, but how about that wraparound support to enable victims to do that in the first place? Doing it is just not possible, even if the provision is there, if you do not have the support to do it. We have often sought to support victims to apply, and they are just not ready at all in that first month. It is too traumatic—everything is just a fog, a haze. It takes time for that haze and that fog to clear, for your mind to be able to still and for you to think, “Actually, I’m willing to go round this a second time.” Then the right support has to come into place—not just the legal support, but the emotional and trauma support, knowing that there is somewhere to place your children and knowing that the children will have support through the process. All that is equally important if a victim is to be able to claim justice.

Q I want to ask about victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements. I have spoken to victims of crime who have been told that they have to change their victim statements, perhaps if they are making personal remarks about the offender. We have introduced an amendment that would minimise the restrictions that can be placed on what a victim can say as part of that process. First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say? Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is very much a crime of impact. At Suzy Lamplugh Trust, we predominantly work with victims of stalking and harassment and, as I say, it is a crime of impact, so the victim personal statement is paramount in terms of explaining the effects of the crime, particularly because a lot of them are psychological effects; it is not physical behaviours that we are seeing. We would argue that it is absolutely paramount that victims should be able to take that opportunity and to have the power to voice exactly what that experience has been for them. They are often left powerless within a system, and this is their one opportunity to be able to convey the impact. Having said that, a lot of victims of stalking choose not to make such a statement because they choose for that information not to be shared with the perpetrator; often, perpetrators receive a sense of gratification in court on hearing about the impact. For us, there has to be a balance—perhaps in allowing victims to produce a statement but it not being available to perpetrators. Farah Nazeer: I guess that something underlying this is that barristers or solicitors will often advise people to remove things irrespective, because of the way the courts will respond to it. That speaks to a wider and more problematic culture within the court system. I do not think that you can really look at one without looking at the other.

Q I want to ask about the measures introduced by the Government to compel defendants to appear at sentencing hearings. We have tabled an amendment to suggest that when that takes place—when the judge is making a decision about that—the judge should have to consult with victims and their families about the approach to take: not to let victims and families dictate what happens, but to ensure that they are at the heart of that decision making. Do you think that victims and families would value the opportunity to at least make it clear to the court what their views on the matter are? Again, I start with Suky. Suky Bhaker: You need to take into account the risks for the victims. Some victims would very much like and want the opportunity for the offender to be there, but for other victims of stalking that occasion is an opportunity for the offender to have contact again with them. I guess that there would be concerns from victim survivors about the potential behaviours, or how that perpetrator might play out in a court setting. Stalking is very much about communication, so putting the victim and the offender in the same room actually fulfils the gratification of the offender on some occasions. However, we absolutely recognise that there is a sense of justice for other victims and that they very much want that offender to be there. You need to take the victim’s view into account. Farah Nazeer: I have nothing more to add to that; it is the same across all the crimes that we work with.

Q I now turn to something more clearly focused on the specialist areas in which you work, which is parental responsibility. The Bill introduces a measure that means that if someone is convicted of a child sexual offence related to children for whom they have parental responsibility and they are sentenced to four years or more in prison, an order would be put in place or they would lose their parental responsibility. There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not. Suky Bhaker: We believe it should be extended to any child. Someone who presents a risk to their own children certainly presents a risk to other children. In fact, we would go further and say that it should be extended to include other forms of violence against women and girls as well as offences such as attempted murder. Andrea Simon: I echo that. We definitely agree in principle with the aims to limit the parental responsibility of men convicted of a child sexual offence. That restriction should certainly be expanded to include serious sexual offending against any child and should not be limited to the individual’s own child. There is a lack of clarity in the proposals about what would happen if a stepchild was abused, for example, so we want to see those loopholes and inconsistencies closed. Farah Nazeer: I agree. I would add that we think it should be extended further, given how long these things can take for those going through trial, those on bail, those awaiting trial or those being investigated—that is the reality of the vast majority of certainly domestic abuse cases. The consequences of ignoring that are dire. We have a report coming out next week that illustrates the impact on children in terms of harm and death when it comes to making these quite frankly unsafe contact arrangements.

Q Finally, one welcome measure in the Bill flips around the concept of where offenders can go and where victims are protected from seeing them, because it should be the offenders that we restrict. We should restrict their mobility so that victims can know that as long as they are not in certain places they will not run into offenders. Your organisations have probably called for that in the past. I am interested in your perspective on how important that will be for victims. Suky, would you like to start? Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider. Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital. Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement. Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. Can I take you back to the restriction of parental responsibility? Farah, you mentioned the impact that issues around parental responsibility are having, particularly on domestic abuse victims and children. Our measure in the Bill is quite tight. We have kept it tight because this is a novel approach, so it is restricted to the criminal court element, rather than the family court element. You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight. Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences. It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm. It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.

Q Thank you. That is really important. I want to take you on to the victim helpline and the victim contact scheme. Suky, the Bill will for the first time ever bring victims of stalking and harassment into the victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence. What difference will that make to victims and survivors? Could you outline the importance to victims of being able to access timely communication? Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is about fixation and obsession, so we are often looking at repeat offences and breaches. Receiving timely information about what is happening to the offender through the helpline and the victim contact scheme is essential, because it is a safety mechanism—it is a risk-assessing tool that lets the victim know how they can keep themselves safe—so it is really pivotal that the scope is increased. Perpetrators of stalking get sentences of about 14 months on average, and many fall under one year, so it is really important that the scheme covers them. Of course, that does not address the systemic issue of whether that is the right sentencing, but it is at least a mechanism whereby victims can receive that information so that they can carry out safety planning and risk management.

Q Do any of you want to comment on the importance of the victim notification scheme? Andrea Simon: Although we think it is a step in the right direction—we recognise that the Government have good intentions to extend the victim contact scheme—we think, on the eligibility and scope, that not all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls will be covered. We are not entirely reassured by how viable the helpline will be for many victims. With the helpline, in particular, the onus is on the victim to get in touch and make contact. The responsibility is not on, say, the probation system to inform victims of what is happening. We believe the correct reading of article 56b of the Istanbul convention, which talks about measures of protection, is that the state should actively inform victims when a perpetrator is to be released. People should not have to proactively reach out in order to get that information through a helpline, which we know will be utilised by some, but not in every case. We also have concerns when it comes to survivor participation and licence conditions for perpetrators, because some survivors only have access to the helpline and potentially do not have the same level of entitlement as those under the victim contact scheme. We would like some clarity about how, when incorrect information is held or there are changes in circumstances, victim-survivors will be able to provide that information and how it can be fed through into the management of perpetrators. There is a slight lack of clarity about who will be informed and where that information will go, and I just think we have to be really clear in the public communications about the helpline, and about the victim contact scheme in general, to make sure that the public understand it, are aware of it and know how to take it up. We are also keen to see these measures interact with the sentencing review recommendations and what is forthcoming. Of course, one review recommendation that the Government have taken up is to have the domestic abuse flag as an identifier, which is very welcome, but we would like to see the victim contact scheme essentially extended to everybody, because we know that domestic abuse offences are quite often not flagged up. The flag will help in the future, but not every index offence involves coercive control—for example, it might be criminal damage or some other kind of assault. We are worried about people who will not be able to access the information or access the scheme, so we think it should be extended more widely so that there are not gaps that people can fall through. Farah Nazeer: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I think the helpline is a really strong idea. It is a move in the right direction, but nobody is supported by a helpline when their perpetrator is coming out, so you are having that conversation with the helpline and assuming that the helpline will meet the needs of the expanded victim cohort. Then a victim needs to go to a service. They need regular, routine casework support to support them through the trauma of having somebody come out or maybe come out earlier than expected—all kinds of things. Without the services to support the intentions of the helpline, we will not see that ambition of true victim support realised, so those two things have to work in tandem. Andrea Simon: We would also recommend that advocates have access to the helpline as well. It is very important that, particularly for those supporting some of the most marginalised survivors, they can access information via the helpline. We would like clarity about their inclusion in the scheme.

Q Coming back to parental consent—at the risk of labouring the point—you have all said that you would like that to be extended. Do you think that removing the minimum requirement of a four-year sentence would help to protect more children? Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest. Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.

Q What difference do you think the measures proposed in the Bill will make to victims and survivors, and what might the gaps be? Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome. Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim. Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap. I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve. Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors. The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning. There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them. We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice. The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.

Q I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue? The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough? My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense. Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists. I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors. There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process. Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver. Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well. We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency. I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill. Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen. I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question. On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.

Q Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?

Very briefly, if you would, as we are running out of time. Farah Nazeer: I think it will help. We work with loads of women who are in that setting, and when you are in that setting, you need more than one way to contact someone. It could be an email, a phone call or straight afterwards—there are lots of interventions. Again, these kinds of issues do not afford themselves a silver bullet, so having multiple interventions to ensure that the survivor knows is really important.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for your time this afternoon; we are most grateful. Examination of Witnesses Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell gave evidence.

14:41:00

We are now going to hear oral evidence from Justice for Victims, and we have until 3 pm for this panel. We have Mr Glenn Youens online—can you hear us, Glenn? Would you like to start by introducing yourself? Glenn Youens: My name is Glenn Youens. I am one of the members of Justice for Victims. My four-year-old daughter, Violet-Grace, was killed in a hit-and-run in 2017 by Aidan McAteer in a stolen car. Along with Paula and a few other people, we have set up this group to hopefully give a voice to victims and involve them in this kind of thing. We want to give an actual voice to victims to say how we feel that we have been treated by the justice system.

Thank you very much indeed. Paula? Paula Hudgell: I am Paula Hudgell, and I am part of the group as well. I am the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell, who I am sure a few of you know. He was abused by his birth parents at 41 days old, and he was at death’s door. As a result of his absolutely horrific abuse he lost both his legs, along with other injuries.

Q I am Kieran. Just for transparency, as with some of the other witnesses this morning, I want to say that we have had the opportunity to meet previously and discuss some of these issues. I want to begin by asking you about victim impact statements—or victim personal statements, as they are technically known. We have heard that people do not always get the chance to say what they want in their statements, and that they are told that they have to alter or edit them. Have either of you experienced that, and could you perhaps share that experience? As you are not here physically, I will direct things to you, Glenn, so that you know when it is your opportunity to speak. Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that. There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience. Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement. Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could. That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly. Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.

Q You mentioned the sentencing hearings, Paula. I want to move on to questions about the new measures to compel people to attend their sentencing hearing. First of all, we tabled an amendment to say that victims should be consulted as part of the process—that it should not just be left to a judge and that, while victims might not have the final say, the judge should be extremely mindful of what the victims’ views are. May we start with you, Paula, with your views? Paula Hudgell: Yes, we absolutely agree. We feel that the victims should be asked about the sentencing hearings, but we also appreciate that in some cases—although you want to see the perpetrators and you want to be there to see them sentenced—some of the perpetrators really do not behave, and they can actually cause more harm to the victims and their families by being there. I know it says it is down to the judges, but the victims and their families really should be consulted on how they want to proceed. Glenn Youens: I would say the same as Paula: it really should be down to the families. For judges, it is another case, another part of their job, but the families are the ones living that reality. If they want to see the perpetrators in court, they should be able to; if they do not want to, they should be able to put that forward. I do not think that anyone can make that decision apart from families. It is important that they are given the option. It should not just be what the judge thinks; there needs to be a conversation with them, letting them put their point across properly. Some people might want to see them; some people might not. It is really important that the families, the victims, are considered properly, and that it is not just, “This is what the judge thinks.” It needs to be a conversation with the victims.

Q There was a discussion earlier this morning about the extent to which force might be used to compel someone to attend. We have had the opportunity to speak to other members of the group, who have suggested that even if someone was restrained, or gagged, and making a lot of noise, they would still want them there, and other people would not want them there. Do you think that is a choice that some victims should be encouraged to make and that, if they are willing to tolerate that disruption, that should be something that we listen to? Paula Hudgell: Yes. As long as it is what the victims themselves or their families actually want, then yes, I think they should be compelled to be there. Obviously, it is slightly different, but with our VPS in a parole hearing they refused to listen to it. I do not agree with that, because you cannot see how that person reacts. It should not be down to their rights; it should be down to a discussion with victims as to whether they want it. Yes, I agree with forcing people. Glenn Youens: I think it is down to the families. In our case, Aidan McAteer and Dean Brennan asked if they could not come to court; they wanted to do it by video link. And the judge said, “No, you have to be there. You have to attend.” For us, that was what we wanted. At the end of the day, these criminals chose to do what they did; they chose to be there. Among the victims, nobody chose to be there. The victims should be looked after and made to feel that if that is what they want, then that is what we will do, because they are the ones who have been pushed into this. A lot of people do not have experience in court and do not have experience of the criminal side of stuff; they have been dragged into it. The least the courts can do is to make them feel as comfortable as possible. If that means the criminal being there and acting up, shouting up, doing what they want—if they still want to see the criminal’s face when they receive proper justice, the criminal should be made to attend. Whether that they should be restrained or had time added on to their sentence, they should be made to do it. What the victims’ families feel should be done for them.

Q I have a final question about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As you may be aware, victims and anyone else really have 28 days to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. In the Bill, the Government have chosen to extend the time available to the Government to decide on an appeal, but they have not given more time to victims and their families. We have tabled an amendment to say that victims and families should be given more time to make an appeal. Paula Hudgell: It is very difficult when you have been through a trial or a sentencing. Your emotions are everywhere. It is so draining—it just takes over your whole life. A lot of the time, the information is not given that you can actually appeal a sentence. Twenty-eight days is not long enough. People are going through a bereavement. As one of our group pointed out, “You have 28 days to take a T-shirt back to the shop—28 days to make a decision over that!” You may not find out until the last minute. It is very, very difficult. Also, a lot of the time you do not know the process, unless you are from a legal background. Sometimes you are not told and that information does not filter through. Yes, it should be a lot longer, because your emotions are all over the place when you are in that situation. Glenn Youens: As Paula said, and as Katie said in our group—“Twenty-eight days? You get longer to decide if you like an item of clothing or not.” Becky asked the CPS about how we appealed the sentence, and we were actually advised on the day not to appeal it, because it was felt that if we did appeal it, the criminal could get less time in prison. That was our first experience with it. After that, we were planning Violet’s funeral; we had to go from there and plan our daughter’s funeral, and then we had 28 days to try and appeal the sentence. Your head was not in the right place. We did not open post for about four or five months after that. We did not answer the phone to people, because we were trying to put our life back together. But then to realise that, as you say, you have 28 days to appeal it—it is not enough time for people like us and other victims. Their first thing is trying to put their lives back together again. Then, when you are strong enough to realise, “I can go through this court case—I can go through this again,” to be told, “It’s too late now.”—I just do not think that is acceptable for families. Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to go to the sentencing of somebody who has killed your loved one, it is really hard to express how you feel in the next few days, weeks or months. I was off work for seven months before I returned to work—it was seven months before I felt like I could go back to any kind of normality. Yet you are only given 28 days to decide whether you want to go through that court case again, and also to decide whether that is worth doing when there is a chance that he might get a lesser sentence than the already insulting sentence he has been given. That needs looking at. It needs to be done properly, and the families need to be consulted, because I am pretty confident that most families you will speak to will agree that 28 days is not long enough to do anything in that situation.

Glenn, thank you very much. We are going to have to move on.

Q Thank you both for coming today. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking to you both previously a few times, so in the interests of time I will allow other Committee members to ask questions.

I am grateful to you, Minister.

Q What will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme? Do you think that the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims? Paula Hudgell: That is a difficult one, because I do not really know about it—sorry. Glenn Youens: I do not think that we know enough about that side of it, but I think anybody who has been affected by a crime is a victim.

That was nice, short and pithy, if I may say so; I wish some of my colleagues were as succinct. There are no further questions, so thank you both very much indeed, Glenn and Paula. I know how difficult this must be for you, and I very much appreciate your giving your time today. What you have said will be very important in the Committee’s deliberations. Examination of Witness Mark Brooks gave evidence.

14:57:00

We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record? Mark Brooks: My name is Mark Brooks. I am chair of the trustees of the ManKind Initiative charity. We are a specialist by-and-for service for male victims of domestic abuse, and we work with colleagues across the sexual violence sector and related sectors.

Q It is really welcome that you are here. There is an understandable focus on women and girls, but these issues do not just affect women and girls, so it is great to have your representation. I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach? Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.

Q You mentioned children, and I want to ask you about the parental responsibility measures in the Bill. Under the Government’s proposed measure, if an offender is sent to prison for four years or more for a sexual offence against a child for whom they have parental responsibility, they will have their parental responsibility removed. Under our amendment, an offender would lose parental responsibility if they were guilty of an offence against any children, not just their own. Do you have a view about which is the preferable approach? Mark Brooks: For it to act as a deterrent, we think it should apply in all cases. We want far-reaching consequences for anyone who commits those crimes, so we think it should be extended.

Q Lastly, the victim contact scheme and the helpline will be made available to a wider group of victims. Do you welcome that? What difference do you think it will make? Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.

Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important. In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that? Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that. Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place. Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.

Q Do you think the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims? Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children. On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.

Q Do you see any gaps in the Bill, or areas where you would like it to go further? Mark Brooks: It is not so much in the Bill, and the Minister knows our position on this, but there continues to be an issue with how male victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and other crimes are seen by society and, importantly, within the justice system. We know that the present and the previous Victims’ Commissioners support the position that male victims of domestic abuse should not be classed as victims of violence against a woman or a girl. A son, as covered by the Victims and Courts Bill, has been characterised, classed and defined by successive Governments as a victim of violence against a girl, even though he is obviously a boy. The same issue applies to male victims of domestic abuse. Successive Governments have officially classed them as being victims of violence against a woman. We are asking that “violence against women and girls” be changed to include male victims. When the Bill is enacted, any male victim covered by it should no longer be classed as a victim of violence against a woman or a girl. That has to change; it is quite Orwellian, aside from anything else, as it is clearly incorrect. We therefore need to get more male victims recognised in their own right. They would then have more access, more understanding and better support to be able to come forward and benefit from the measures in the Bill. This is a wider political issue. Just to reiterate, we want to keep the violence against women and girls strategy and definition, but we want a parallel view for male victims.

Q Thank you, Mark, for coming here today. I want to draw your attention to the provisions on compelling offenders to attend their sentencing. First, I am genuinely quite interested in your specific perspective on that. Secondly, we have heard evidence today that the use of force, if it were to become disproportionate, risks making a spectacle of the offender, drawing attention away from the victim. Do you have any thoughts on that? Mark Brooks: We believe it is right that a perpetrator, or somebody who has been sentenced, should be forced to be present at court, including at sentencing. It is important that victims not only see that justice is being done in terms of sentencing and the court experience, but feel that it is being done. Seeing the person being convicted in front of them, with their family and the wider community, is absolutely essential, so we support the measures on that in the Bill. In terms of it being a spectacle, the bottom line is that we must act in the interest of the victim, the person who has had the crime committed against them. They must be the priority, so we are in favour of the measures put forward by the Government.

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. It is important that we do not forget the plight of men and boys who are affected by violent or sexual crime. We need to make sure there are clear pathways for those men to secure justice and support. You have made it clear that you welcome the helpline. How do you think we can make sure that the helpline and the victim contact scheme reach all eligible victims, including men from marginalised, disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds? How do you think we could do that? Mark Brooks: I work in wider policy around men’s health and I have been helping the Government on the men’s health strategy call for evidence, which is out now. In terms of language, I often see literature in which men are not visually present, so it is important that men in all their shapes, sizes and guises are visible. Also, there needs to be more outreach, often targeting where men go, not where you think they should go. Leaving things in libraries and GP surgeries, for example, will not reach men. We need far better promotion online and through community groups, barbers and sports clubs—Facebook is also really important for men—basically reaching out to where men go. There is a huge growth in community-based support charities for men, which have grown exponentially in the last five years—things like Men’s Sheds, Andy’s Man Club, Talk Club and so forth. Some of them are in the room next door, giving a presentation about the men’s health strategy, so use those. The justice system and the people within it can be smarter in reaching out to non-statutory organisations.

Q As the official Opposition, we have tabled an amendment to increase the force with which the justice system can compel the convicted to come to their sentencing hearings. We are particularly keen to make sure there is a duty to consult the victim or their family, where the victim is deceased. Is that something you would support? Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.

Q Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences? Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.

Q As a quick follow-up, what if it was a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child? Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.

Mr Brooks, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to be with us this afternoon. We are coming to the penultimate panel, and it is quite likely that the final panel will be punctuated. If so, since the Minister will be on the Front Bench for the business to come in the Chamber, I do not propose to call her back—I hope that is satisfactory. Hopefully we will get everybody in and the two remaining panels will not be interrupted, but I am expecting a vote shortly before the hour, so it is quite possible that they will be. Examination of Witnesses Kim Thornden-Edwards and Chris Jennings gave evidence.

15:16:00

Q We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. We have until 3.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves? Kim Thornden-Edwards: My name is Kim Thornden-Edwards, and I am the chief probation officer in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Chris Jennings: My name is Chris Jennings. I am an area executive director in HMPPS, with operational responsibility for prisons and probation in the south-west and what we call south-central. I also have a national victims policy team sitting under my command—that is really why I am here today, rather than the first part of my job.

Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister. Forgive me, but I want to understand your capacity to give evidence as civil servants. Would I be correct in saying that, if you were asked to comment on something that is not Government policy, you are restrained in giving a view, or is that a misunderstanding from my side? Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.

Q Would I also be correct in saying, from looking at your areas of expertise, that you do not have any particular expertise on issues such as physical restraint, the moving of prisoners and using force? Chris Jennings: I have operational responsibility for 15 prisons, so I have some expertise, but I have never been a prison officer and do not have personal experience in that way.

Q Thank you. On the issue of restraint and the use of force, would you accept that the prison service is experienced and very capable when it comes to using force in certain circumstances to manage prisoners and offenders? Chris Jennings: Yes, I would say we are skilled in that.

Q If I were to tell you, and it is true, that the US judicial system has a specific legal power to allow people to be restrained and gagged as part of court proceedings—they have the training, or whatever it might be, to make that a possibility—is there anything to make you believe that we would be incapable of replicating that, even if you might disagree on the policy of it? Chris Jennings: With the appropriate training and resources, I guess it would be possible.

Q I will move on to talk about the expansion of the victim contact scheme. Are there resource implications for the service in extending it, and what are your initial views on how capable you will be of meeting those expanded resource requirements? Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive. Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.

Q To follow up on the previous question, there are long-standing concerns about staffing levels in the Probation Service. As the Bill will bring more victims under the auspices of the victim contact scheme, more victims might use it. You sound pretty confident that you will be able to manage that, but if you are already facing staffing challenges, how do you think that will look if a lot more victims suddenly want to use that scheme and helpline? Chris Jennings: We have staffing challenges in different ways in the Probation Service. Victim liaison officers are a particular group of staff that we recruit through a particular route. It is not the same route that we recruit probation officers through, and that is not the same route that we recruit unpaid work supervisors through. There are different role types within the service, and some of them are under more pressure than others. VLOs are not one of the areas where we are under most pressure, despite your description being absolutely true for some of the other areas. There is also a geographic spread of where we are under pressure operationally; it is not the same everywhere. Some places are very well resourced and some are less well resourced. Those combinations lead us to a place where we do not think that resourcing should be the thing that holds us back from making a success of this. Of course, we have to pay close attention to it, because if the numbers go up more than we anticipate, we will need to make sure that we resource that adequately, but we are not hugely worried about it at the moment. Kim Thornden-Edwards: The victim contact scheme is a discrete service, so we do not transfer staff across or expect people to do a multiple brief on it. It is a discrete service that we recruit to separately. Our recruitment of victim liaison officers has been on an upward trajectory over the last 10 months. The banding and grading, and therefore the salary, of victim contact officers also increased last year, so we anticipate that there will be further uptake in terms of recruitment. Across the Probation Service, most grades saw an increase over the last year, so we are generally on an upward trajectory for staffing. You may be familiar with the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that we will look to recruit a further 1,300 probation officer staff during this financial year. We anticipate continued significant growth of probation areas over the period of the spending review.

Q Are you confident that you have the resources and capacity to give the officers involved in the victim contact scheme the training they require in domestic abuse, abuse and traumatic sexual violence and their particular effects on the victims they will deal with through this helpline? Chris Jennings: Yes. We are very used to dealing with the impacts of all those sorts of crimes in our world. It is the bread and butter of what we do. We will need to make sure that we give people the appropriate skills and training and do not throw them in at the deep end, but we are well used to doing that and we have the skills to do it. I have no reason not to be confident that we can make that work. Kim Thornden-Edwards: We are also building on a service that is delivering good outcomes currently. In 2024, so very recently, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, which provides our external scrutiny, found our statutory victim work to be outstanding for three of our regional inspections. We also had an inspection in 2023 of general victim services that found the services to be good. We are building on a good level of service delivery currently and victim liaison officers who are doing a good job. We are very concerned to ensure that their training remains relevant and pertinent to the specific issues that the victims who use our service are often involved in. There is dedicated training for domestic abuse. We are also concerned, as the service, and particularly the helpline, expands and extends, to ensure that those who deliver the helpline will be involved in the most appropriate training, including domestic abuse and a trauma-informed approach. We will build in those training requirements at every juncture and for every member of staff involved in the scheme.

Q I have two questions. First, is it correct to say that your officers in court settings are not trained to gag prisoners or to engage in restraint of prisoners to present them before the court? Would it require wholesale retraining of officers in the system to engage in that change of behaviour? My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim? Chris Jennings: Maybe I should pick up the first question. Depending on how a perpetrator appears before the court—whether they are beaming in from prison via video link or attending in person at court—there are different responsibilities in terms of who undertakes the potential restraint of the prisoner. If we deliver somebody to court, court officers take custody of that person and look after them in the dock. I am less able to speak about the skills of the court staff, because it was many years ago that I worked in the court service and I do not feel up to date. If you are in prison and beaming in via video link, I guess—to an earlier question—it would be possible to train prison officers who are already skilled in some forms of control and restraint in a different way. My instinct would be, although I am not perfectly qualified, that for court staff that would be quite a leap. Kim Thornden-Edwards: On your second question about a switch from exclusion zones to restriction zones, we are currently working through the finer detail of that policy change and its impact and implications. We will take stock and determine what policy change is required to enable staff to make the change, what practice and operational guidance and instructions will be required, and what training element will be required, should that be necessary. We will be working through all those potential implications to this change. Our staff are very well versed in exclusion zones and understanding those. I am confident that they will be able to understand the change in emphasis and what some of the implications are, and will be able to bring the necessary degree of professionalism, integrity and foresight to those arrangements. Chris Jennings: Our relationship with the police will be key, too. We work closely in partnership with them on these sorts of things. That will be required during this change, too, to maintain those close operational relationships on the frontline.

Q I have already declared my interests but, for the purpose of the panel, I am a member of the Prison Officers’ Association and a former officer at rank of SO, and I am trained in all the relevant uses of force. I want to come back to the point about compelling attendance at sentencing hearings. The Government’s Bill states that a relevant officer may, “for the purpose of delivering the offender to the courtroom, use reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate.” That is in relation to the existing use of force policy framework and the relevant Prison Service orders that apply to it. Do you agree that, when you look at the use of force framework, the words “necessary”, “proportionate” and “reasonable” relate to the whole spectrum of use of force, from the very lowest level, such as a guiding hold, right to the top level, and therefore the word “restraint” in the amendment tabled by the official Opposition does not detail what existing restraint would be used that is not already covered in the current policy framework? My second question is this. I have never heard or seen gagging in any Prison Service policy, so from your operational experience, what implement would you suggest would be used for gagging and how would it be applied? Chris Jennings: In reverse order, that is well beyond my area of expertise, because, as you rightly identify, that is not something that is in use in the service at the moment. Perhaps, in some unfortunate hostage situations, other prisoners may deploy such techniques, but not our staff, so I am not qualified to offer a perspective on what sort of equipment may or may not be appropriate. On your first question, again, I am not an expert on use of force—I have not done the jobs you have done to get to the role I am in now—but I think that the description you gave of the policy is accurate. That way that you described it is what it means at every level; that would be my interpretation.

Q Thank you both for coming before the Committee. You were both quite upbeat about the ability of the Probation Service to deal with the changes, which is great, but when I have talked to probation officers in Wales, they have said that they find their caseload extremely challenging and there are issues with covering the workload they have already. You have talked about geography and how different areas have different abilities. How are you going to manage the measures in the Bill in order that you can deliver the victim contact scheme and victims helpline, but also ensure that victims feel that they are at the centre of the Bill? Chris Jennings: I was the director in Wales for four and a half years, until 18 months ago, so I know working in Wales quite well. It is one of the better staffed areas, despite colleagues’ perspectives to you being right; there will be some carrying heavy workloads, I am sure. The distinction is between the probation officer caseload and what we ask VLOs to do. They are not the same thing. As Kim described, they are ringfenced activities. There is obviously communication between the two sets of staff, but they are not the same thing. The overall probation caseload in some areas is definitely something that we are more worried about, but not as it pertains particularly to the VLOs. That is why we are perhaps reasonably upbeat about it. It is not one of the areas that we are under most pressure on, so I think we will be able to absorb it. There will be some national things, such as the helpline and ensuring that we resource that on a national basis. My national team have a key role to play in providing the training, support and guidance to VLOs out there. Switching my hat back to my other day job, operationally, between me and my regional probation directors, we will have to ensure that we are paying full attention to implementing the Bill well, given how crucial it is to confidence in the justice system and making sure that we are providing the support that victims deserve. I do feel confident about our ability to do that. Kim Thornden-Edwards: I certainly endorse that. Again, it is about the discrete element of the victim liaison officers. In terms of general staffing, I absolutely acknowledge what you are saying. The Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that there are capacity issues in the Probation Service, and workloads are currently too high. We have a comprehensive plan to mitigate that. Part of that is around growth. The Lord Chancellor announced £700 million of additional funds for probation by the end of the spending review period, so we will be able to look at growth with that funding. We are also looking at ways to improve our processes and use of technology. Those are things that our probation staff on the frontline are saying to us are real hindrances to their ability to do the best job every day, which they absolutely want to do. They are time hoovers, too. The time that staff want to spend with people on probation and on licence, to protect the public and effect the changes that we need to see in their behaviour, is being eaten up by bad tech and poor processes. Alongside growth, there is absolutely a commitment to make those changes as we go forward.

Thank you very much indeed. What you have said will be very useful in the Committee’s deliberations. Examination of Witness Alex Davies-Jones gave evidence.

15:33:00

Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself? Alex Davies-Jones: I am Alex Davies-Jones, the MP for Pontypridd and the Minister with responsibility for victims and tackling violence against women and girls in the Ministry of Justice.

Q I will start by asking you to talk about the context through which the MOJ looks at what it can learn from international examples. For example, can you confirm that, in other elements of justice policy, you have looked at Texas to learn from what the United States does and have brought that over here? Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.

Q Great. What is your understanding of the US legal framework when it comes to the use of force, including, for example, restraining or gagging defendants in court? Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.

Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders? Alex Davies-Jones: I would not want to speak for them. You heard their evidence today.

Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area? Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.

Q So can we agree that there is not anything in principle that would stop the Government instigating such a measure as is proposed in our amendment? Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.

Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why— Alex Davies-Jones: In the same way that anything can be done, but it is not as simple as that.

Q Fine. Great. Thank you for your agreement that it can be done. Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it? Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.

Q Okay, but taking you back to the question, what is your understanding of what the Law Commission currently says are its proposals for changes to the ULS? Alex Davies-Jones: It is looking at a broad range of proposals around the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral? Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration. With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.

Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says. Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.

Q Finally, you will have heard again the evidence that the witnesses gave in relation to changes to the personal impact statements. I know you are passionate about victims’ issues, and I am sure you will have been as affected as all of us by hearing those stories. Is there any particular reason why you would not support ensuring on a statutory basis that people can say what they want to say on impact statements, with the very minor exclusions that you might have to have in a courtroom in terms of language and so on? That is what our amendment does. Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement. I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.

Q I just point out that the statement is used post conviction, so it would not influence the jury—it is for the judge. Do you accept that our amendment, which emphasises that it is for the judge to distinguish between remarks that would or would not be rightfully taken into account in sentencing, will address your concerns about the wider use and impact of the statement? Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.

Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.

Q I would like to talk about the measures to change parental responsibility. Could you tell us why the provision in the Bill applies only to people who have been convicted of offences against their own children and not serious sexual offences against other children? Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to clarify the Government’s thinking behind why we have kept this measure quite tight. It is important to say at the outset that there are other mechanisms to remove parental responsibility from offenders and perpetrators, and those mechanisms will still remain, such as the family court process. What this measure does is quite novel: it removes parental responsibility at the point of conviction in the criminal courts, and it is an untested measure in doing so. It is important that we can see the impact this will have on victims, survivors and, first and foremost, children. It is important to stress that perpetrators will be able to appeal this through the family courts, and they will be able to apply for legal aid through the system as a result of this. Therefore we feel that, at this point in time, it is important to keep such a novel approach quite tight. That is why we have chosen to restrict it to offenders who have been committed of any sexual offence against their own children and been sentenced to four years or more. We are not saying that we would not be open to expanding it in the future, but, as I think we heard quite clearly throughout the evidence sessions today, we must consider the impact this could have on the family court system as it currently stands. The family court is under immense pressure. Sadly, another element of the criminal justice system that we inherited from the previous Government is the immense pressure from the backlog. You also heard about the issues that currently stand within the family court, and how many victims and survivors, particularly victims of domestic abuse, feel that it retraumatises them. I would not want to put any other victims through that process, and that is why the Government have chosen to target this measure, as a starting point, at that specific cohort. We feel it is a novel approach; it has never been done this way, and so we have chosen to be quite specific with it.

Q I think you have answered my follow-up question, which was whether you think that if somebody has committed a serious sexual offence against a child, they should not have parental responsibility for any child. Alex Davies-Jones: There is a mechanism available to remove parental responsibility via that route, currently through the family courts. I am aware that that would require the other parent to take the perpetrating parent to the family court, and I have been made aware that it is not easy to do that, but that route is available. That is why we have chosen to keep this measure quite tight at present.

Q One more question on that: why did you settle on four years? Alex Davies-Jones: Because there are sadly quite a lot of sex offenders in this country, so extending the measure to any sex offender could bring waves of people into scope. We are not saying that that is not appropriate, but this is a novel approach and those perpetrators can have parental responsibility stripped through other means. I am very cautious about putting extra strain on the family courts, given the issues that they face. At present, we want to keep it to any sexual offence where the perpetrator gets four years or more in prison and it is against their own child, in order to keep that child safe from the perpetrator.

Q If the four years is reduced on appeal, would that measure still stand? Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to come back to you to clarify that point, but I am happy to do so.

Q I thank the Minister for listening to my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who was killed by a stranger when she was nine years old. He did not attend his sentence hearing. You listened to her and acted. Another part of her ask, which is in the Bill but not spelled out so much, is for sanctions if the offender refuses to turn up to the sentence hearing. Can you say a bit more about what that would look like? What mechanisms—they are not currently in the Bill—can be used to compel them? The point that my constituent made is that, for someone whose sentence is four years or even 10, a few extra years would be compelling, but if it is life imprisonment, that would essentially be meaningless. Alex Davies-Jones: Thank you for that question. We have built on the previous Government’s measure to compel perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings. The previous measure was merely an extra two years on their prison sentence. As you have stated, and as victims have told us, for someone serving a whole-life order or life imprisonment, an extra two years on their sentence is not really an incentive to come to court. We listened to the Pratt-Korbels and other families who have been through this horrific situation, and have done something quite novel. For the first time ever in this Bill, judges will be given powers to issue sanctions on perpetrators once they are in prison. We have not listed those sanctions on the face of the Bill because we do not want to be prescriptive. A whole range of measures is available, and we feel that listing them in the Bill would be too restrictive. By not doing so, we enable judges to use every tool at their disposal to issue sanctions in prison. They include, for example, limitations on access to a gym, to work programmes or to television. We are looking at visit restrictions, and salaries can be taken away if the offender is in a work programme. All that can be looked at in the round; those are all available to a judge as part of a sanctions programme. We want perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings in person. You heard how important it is to victims and survivors to have them there in person to hear justice being done. We have looked at all the practical ways in which that can be done. We have worked with stakeholders, including the judiciary and prison governors, and we felt that this is the best course of action.

Q Minister, do you agree that violent offences can be as serious as sexual ones? Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.

Q I have a constituent whom I met a few months ago. Forgive me—you may have heard me mention this on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. My constituent is probably in a unique situation. She is a serving detective. Her ex-partner, who was a detective, is serving a sentence in excess of 10 years for having raped her, and he continues to enjoy indirect parental access rights. My constituent is excessively concerned that the continuation of access rights in an indirect form—usually in the form of a letter that often conveys coercive messaging and veiled threats to her—is hindering not just her welfare, but that of their children. In addition, under the current arrangement, as she and I understand it, if she were to take a large life decision, she would still have to consult her ex-partner, because of the continued parental access rights and responsibility that he enjoys while serving his prison sentence. Do you agree that, if someone commits a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child, their parental access responsibility should be restricted? Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action. In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.

Q Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. We have had an awful lot of questions this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about individuals who are avoiding judgment and avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. I am a new Member, but I understand that the measures in the Bill about asking offenders to attend their sentencing were part of a previous Bill, before the general election. In what ways are the measures in this Bill stronger than the measures in the previous Bill? Alex Davies-Jones: To repeat my answer to Anneliese, the measures in the previous Government’s Bill, which fell before the general election, would have only added an extra two years on to the sentence of a perpetrator who failed to attend their sentencing hearing. The measure in this Bill goes significantly further. For the first time ever, judges will have the ability to sanction perpetrators in prison who fail to attend their sentencing hearing or are disruptive while in the courtroom. If the perpetrator does attend the sentencing hearing, but proceeds to disrupt it, the judge will be able to apply the sanctions. That is a measure in the Bill. We are also providing prison officers with the ability to conduct reasonable force to get the perpetrator to attend the sentencing hearing. That is a measure in the Bill. Our Bill is markedly different, and that is because we have listened to victims and survivors about what they wanted and felt was appropriate to ensure that there was culpability and accountability.

I call Adam Thompson—let us be quick.

Q We have heard a number of times today how this Bill can work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill in several areas. Could you comment on how the two Bills will work together to tackle antisocial behaviour? Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful for that question. It is important to note that the criminal justice system is a system: it only works with every element of it slotting together. Therefore, the Bill does work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House. There are a number of measures in that Bill around respect orders, giving police the power to seize off-road bikes without a warrant, and new powers in this Bill, working in conjunction with the Victims’ Commissioner, on a duty to collaborate involving different agencies, for example. All these fit together, and it is important that we look at this holistically. There were a number of measures that were raised today, and a number of witnesses raised measures that are not in this Bill. I stress to Committee members that a lot of work is happening behind the scenes. I am happy to discuss the work that is being done on measures raised as not necessarily being in this Bill, because we have got a number of reviews taking place in the MOJ at the moment. You will all be aware of the recently published sentencing review, and there is a courts review being conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. All this needs to fit together holistically; it cannot be done in isolation. There will future legislation coming forward as well, so it is important not to pin everything down in every Bill just because we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to fit and be rightly considered and reviewed before we do so.

Q I want to follow up on parental responsibility. I know we have talked about this a lot, but I think it is really important. To follow up on your point about appeals through the family court, have you looked into alternatives to that, such as appeals through a different court or no appeals at all? Alex Davies-Jones: I suppose that could be considered, but the family court is currently the route that is available to someone to appeal. By preventing an appeal, you would get into a whole swathe of issues, and you could be in a very difficult situation if there was no route to appeal. We are aware of the issues in the family court and, as I have just said, it is important to not take this Bill in isolation. A lot of work is being done in the Ministry of Justice to look at how we improve the family court, not least through the work we are doing on pathfinder courts and ensuring that the voice of the child is centred in proceedings considering children. It is very difficult, but I do not envisage any mechanism where you could introduce a measure such as this and not have the right to appeal. Given that the family court is the most appropriate route for that, and where they hear those proceedings, it would not be practical to create a different mechanism. I do not see it fitting and being realistic in any other way.

Thank you very much, Minister; brilliantly timed. That brings us to the end of today’s session with seconds to spare, I think. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)

15:56:00

Written evidence reported to the House

VCB01 Kathleen Dunmore, Jason Webb

VCB02 CILEX (The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives)

VCB03 Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service)

VCB04 Prison Reform Trust