Alex Davies-Jones gave evidence.

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.

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.Q

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.

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 Q 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.

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 behaviourQ ?

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.)

Adjourned till Thursday 19 June at half-past Eleven o’clock.

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