Automated Enforcement Technology: Evidence

Justice – in the House of Commons at on 17 March 2026.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Peter Lamb Peter Lamb Labour, Crawley

What assessment he has made of the potential merits of allowing greater use of evidence from automated enforcement technology in trials.

Photo of Sarah Sackman Sarah Sackman The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

It is the prosecution and the defence who decide what evidence to put forward in a criminal trial, including deciding whether to put forward evidence from automated enforcement technology. Once that evidence has been put forward, the magistrates and the judge have a duty to ensure that only admissible evidence is presented to a jury.

Photo of Peter Lamb Peter Lamb Labour, Crawley

The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?

Photo of Sarah Sackman Sarah Sackman The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.

Photo of Edward Leigh Edward Leigh Father of the House of Commons

The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of Charlotte Nichols last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?

Minister

Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.

Father of the House

The title Father of the House is given to the MP with the longest unbroken service in the House of Commons.

The most important duty of the Father of the House is to preside over the election of a new speaker should that office be vacant at the beginning of a Parliament.

A minister is never considered the Father of the House, even if that minister is more senior than any other MP.