Update on the Victims and Prisoners Bill

I first led the campaign for a Victims Bill more than a decade ago now, working cross-party to enshrine victims’ rights in law, even drafting a Bill to set the standard. In 2015, the Government made a commitment to bring forward a Victims Law, “putting the key entitlements of the Victims' Code in primary legislation”. Nine years on from this commitment, we are finally close to seeing a Victims’ Bill delivered. 

The journey over the past decade has been far from smooth, with years of inaction, long consultations, multiple Ministerial role changes, and an unfortunate decision to reframe the legislation as a ‘Victims and Prisoners’ Bill, allocating significantly more resources to the latter than the former.    

Despite these many barriers, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on what this Bill will soon achieve, while also remaining clear on where it does not go far enough.

Although Government has refused to place the Victims’ Code on the face of the legislation, this Bill has come leaps and bounds in providing accountability for victims. From when the Bill was first proposed, we were clear that the language used was too weak, leaving the onus on victims to claim their rights. After significant lobbying, Government agreed to strengthen the principles in the Bill, making clear that victims require their rights within the Victims’ Code, rather than simply saying they should receive them. 

Again through significant lobbying, there is now a requirement for Government to consult the [national] Victims’ Commissioner when preparing or revising the Victims’ Code, creating greater accountability and recognising the value of the independence of that role.  

While enforcement and accountability are important, what victims simply want is to be informed of their rights and for these to be delivered. The Bill creates a duty on justice agencies to promote the Victims’ Code to victims, but failed to mandate any kind of training for those working in justice agencies to actually understand these rights. After much cross-party work, I am delighted that a Clause on training – which I first drafted ten years ago – has been voted in as part of the Bill.

One of the key campaigns we have led for this Bill, in collaboration with an inspiring group of victims and survivors, is ‘Open Justice for All’. The primary aim of this campaign was to ensure access to transcripts of court proceedings for victims, who are currently charged hundreds, thousands, or even tens-of-thousands of pounds to receive a transcript of a trial in which they are the victim.

The campaign received significant media attention and support from MPs and members of the Lords, however failed to secure the necessary support to be voted into the Bill. 

Despite this, the campaign has made significant progress, including pushing Government to commit to changes in the Criminal Justice Bill, changing CPS guidance to stop victims being dissuaded from attending court after giving evidence, awareness raising among the judiciary, and changes to the language used in letters sent to victims.  This is by no means the end of the campaign, and we will continue to work to secure victims’ access to information and to make the justice system more transparent. 

Working closely with Tracey Hanson of the Josh Hanson Trust, we have for years been calling for changes to the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, which allows anyone to request certain sentences be appealed for being too low. Many victims and family members – like Tracey – are not informed of the scheme by justice agencies, and even when they are, are given a strict 28-day timeframe within which to make an application. Offenders are able to appeal their sentence outside of this timeframe in certain circumstances, but this same entitlement is not provided to victims.

After significant work the amendment was pushed to a vote in the Lords, and in an incredibly frustrating turn of events received 222 votes against an opposition of 222 votes. This means that the Amendment did not pass, and we will continue to work with Government to address the necessary changes, including in the revision of the Victims’ Code – which Government have committed to making clearer in this regard. 

After years of campaigning on the subject, in October 2023 the Government introduced a Clause to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to clarify that third party material requests made by police must be necessary and proportionate.  

We called on the Government to go further, especially with regards to counselling and therapy notes, through the introduction of a specific regime that will ensure any requests for therapy records are only made in limited circumstances and when approved by a judge. I first identified this as part of the 2019 London Rape Review, in which I called on the CPS to only request therapy notes to show the impact of the crime on victims, and not for any other purpose. I also called for the provision of free independent legal advice for victims of rape and sexual offences, allowing them to seek advice and challenge requests where appropriate.  

In April 2024 the Government conceded and accepted an amendment which requires the police to be satisfied that a victim’s counselling records are likely to add ‘substantial probative value’ to their investigation before a request can be made. It will also mandate that police must begin with an assumption that counselling notes are not relevant to an investigation, unless proved otherwise. Unfortunately, the amendment on Independent Legal Advice was not accepted. I will continue to call for this to be introduced nationwide to ensure legislation and guidance on victims' privacy rights is adhered to and will closely follow the introduction of this service in London as committed to by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan if re-elected. I also wish to see stronger protections for other third-party material, including education, social care and mental health records in both criminal and family court.  

My heartfelt thanks go out to Rape Crisis England and Wales, End Violence Against Women Coalition, the Centre for Women’s Justice, and Rights of Women for taking this campaign on and obtaining this excellent result which will help to ensure survivors of sexual violence are no longer forced to choose between therapy and justice.   

Government’s introduction of ‘Jade’s Law’ into the Bill, which removes parental responsibility for parents convicted of murdering their partner, was a significant positive step following years of campaigning from myself and others. While hugely positive, this failed to seize the opportunity to address the injustices faced by child victims who are sexually abused by a parent. Unfortunately, even though these child victims have been harmed directly by their parent, their abuser maintains parental responsibility and the burden falls on the victim and their safe parent or carer to apply to family court for protections.  

Despite an amendment being backed by the family of Jade Ward, who the original clause was named after, and receiving cross-party support from peers, the vote was lost by just 10. While Government have promised concessions in future legislation, it does not go far enough.  

Victims in the Family Courts face severe injustices, with the Court enabling perpetrators to continue their abuse. While I continue to call for an overhaul of this system, we have worked on specific amendments to better protect victims.   

One crucial amendment put forward was to prohibit unregulated experts from undertaking psychological assessments of victims, including children, in family court. The term 'psychologist’ is not a protected title meaning ‘experts’ who are unregulated are able to undertake these assessments in family court, even when they would be unable to do so in the NHS. Through our work, we shone a light on these assessments, and how they can lead to unsafe contact decisions and sometimes a transfer of residency to parents accused of domestic or sexual abuse, particularly in cases involving experts of so-called ‘parental alienation’. Through this work we have repeatedly called on the President of the Family Division and Lord Chancellor to address this.  

Unfortunately, Government did not accept the amendment, but conceded that “something needs to be done” on the issue, and the Family Procedure Rules committee will be tasked to address it. We will continue to watch progress closely.  

A further amendment would have disapplied the presumption of parental involvement in cases of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child sexual abuse. Sadly, Government have failed to seize this legislative opportunity to better safeguard children who are at risk of harm. Their response was disappointing, saying they were looking to “strike the right balance between the benefits a child receives from the involvement of both parents and preventing harm to the child”. They have had four years to do this since the Harm Panel Report first demonstrated that the balance is currently not being struck to prevent harm to children. With no legislative vehicle now available to address this, children will remain at risk in the family courts.

One of the first tasks I worked on in 2018 with the Mayor of London was his Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, where I led an extensive survivor consultation, hearing from victims that abusers were using their immigration status, and a threat of deportation or having children removed, to keep them trapped in violence and coerce and silence them. This led to a series of roundtables I convened to discuss access to safe reporting routes, and following this I recommended a ‘firewall’ to the Mayor, the Met police, the Home Office, and London Councils.  

The Mayor and I called for national legislative change in this area, and I was delighted that this was taken forward through the Latin American Women’s Rights Service (LAWRS) “Step Up Migrant Women” campaign. I am grateful that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner (DAC) continued to champion this and take this forward for this Bill. On Tuesday it was announced that the Lords had voted in favour of an amendment to the Bill to incorporate a Firewall, and we now await the response in the Commons when the Bill returns there shortly. A huge thanks to LAWRS and the DAC team for their work on this amendment and this brilliant result. 

For victims and family members, going through the Parole Board process can be a hugely traumatic experience, forcing them to relive the original offence and the impact it has on them. While victims and families welcome having a voice in the process through being able to submit an impact statement, many feel trapped and unable to move on, with their offender repeatedly coming up for parole even when it's clear the circumstances haven't changed.   

Our amendment in the Victims and Prisoners Bill, due to be debated on 13th May, aims to give the Parole Board the discretion to set the time period until a prisoner can reapply for Parole, meaning that families will be spared being repeatedly dragged into the process when it's clear nothing has changed. The current process considers the needs of the offender more than the bereaved, and urgent change is needed.  

Having spearheaded the campaign for a Victims’ Law, I still believe this Victims and Prisoners Bill could have provided a more fundamental shift to strengthen victims’ rights to justice and support.  

Nevertheless, the Bill leaves the Lords considerably stronger than when it entered. I am immensely grateful for the amendments driven forward by victim organisations and supportive peers; and most of all to my outstanding team, who have worked tirelessly to help lobby for these crucial changes.

When the Bill heads back to the Commons, I will continue to work alongside MPs to ensure the wins in the Lords are kept in the Bill. Following this, we will work closely with the Ministry of Justice and our partners to revise the Victims’ Code and ensure agencies comply with their duties. 

- Claire Waxman OBE, London's Victims' Commissioner