Victims and Prisoners Bill

· "It got to the point it was so bad I never left my flat for five weeks. When I eventually went out… somebody had to be with me because otherwise I couldn’t go out of the door. Every time I went out I had this verbal abuse. It was just awful. I had to move to no fault of my own. And I moved 10 miles away. I still cannot go into town unless I have somebody with me, because I’m just frightened I may bump into those people again… Even now I don’t go out, the minute it starts getting dusk I do not go out even though I don’t live there any more."

· The impact of ASB can result in victims changing their behaviour, routines, lifestyle, relationships and even place of living. Given the seriousness of ASB, the support needs of victims and the profound affect that victimisation can have we recommend that the definition of victim be broadened to include victims of persistent anti-social behaviour.

Victims’ Rights

· The current state of victims’ rights in England and Wales is inadequate, and falls far short of what victims need and are promised. At present, rights for victims are outlined in the Victims Code, which "sets out the services and a minimum standard for these services that must be provided to victims of crime". The document sets out 12 key rights, with a number of other rights following from these headings.

· The Victims’ Code is a vital document, and an important means of holding criminal justice and other statutory agencies to account for the level of service provided to victims. However, it has three main drawbacks. Firstly, it is not enforced, which means that rights that exist on paper often are not put into force in reality. There is a wealth of evidence that victims are not receiving their rights. VS’s Victim of the System report found that as many as six in ten victims do not receive their rights. Secondly, many of the rights under the Victims’ Code are not currently monitored by the agencies responsible for delivering them. Finally, a number of the rights are heavily qualified with language such as "where possible", "if the court allows" or "if this is not possible, the police will tell you why".

· We welcome steps in the Bill that we believe will help address some of these issues in a number of ways. Compelling agencies to collect information is an important step in the right direction. We have found that criminal justice agencies do not currently monitor compliance with the Victims’ Code, often due to a lack of national formal compliance frameworks, or because collecting the data is not prioritised. Requiring in primary legislation, backed up by robust regulations and metrics, that agencies collect this information is important; through this, agencies can be held to account to improve compliance, and improvements can be driven.

· However, these obligations to collect information will lead to improvements for victims only if the requirements to do so are comprehensive and robust. The metrics set to collect information on Victims Code compliance will be established outside of primary legislation, however we urge the government to commit during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensuring all rights within the Victims’ Code are monitored and reported on by all agencies with responsibilities under the Code. This could also be written into the face of the Bill. We also encourage the Government to share and consult on the data proposed for monitoring compliance whilst the Bill is progressing through Parliament to ensure Parliamentarians are well informed in their scrutiny of measures to improve compliance. Only monitoring certain rights will be the wrong approach; for victims’ rights to mean anything, compliance must be monitored by criminal justice agencies. We understand that it might take longer for some data to be collected and therefore require a longer deadline within the regulations, but this should not prevent their inclusion.

· Despite some welcome measures, we firmly believe that the Bill can and must be stronger when it comes to the enforceability of victims’ rights. Put simply, victims’ rights must be enforceable; as it stands, they are not.

· If the Bill is to truly provide victims with rights, the legislation must be strengthened to make the rights enforceable. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Justice Committee stated that the "draft Bill needs to do more to increase the oversight and enforcement of that compliance" and that "as drafted, the Bill fails to adequately address the issue of agencies’ non-compliance with the Code-we are concerned by this given that it is one of the principal reasons for the Bill". This vital issue must be addressed.

· We believe that effective enforcement of the Victims Code can be achieved at a systemic level that holds criminal justice agencies to account, rather than on an individual basis. One way that this can be done is by setting a minimum compliance threshold that must be met, with consequences for the criminal justice agency if this threshold is not met.

· Without a system of enforcement in place it cannot truly be said that victims have rights, and we strongly urge the committee to consider how effective enforcement with the Victims Code can be achieved.

Scope of the Bill

· We are very concerned that the Bill has been expanded to include Part 3 – Prisoners, as we strongly believe that this legislation should be a Victims Bill, not a Victims and Prisoners Bill. This is the expectation that has been set for victims. The 2022 Queen’s Speech set out a "Draft Victims Bill"; the 2021 consultation on the legislation promised "a landmark ‘Victims’ Law’"; in 2022 a draft Victims Bill was published; and in response to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, the government continued to refer to the legislation as a Victims Bill. It is clear that victims of crime have been assured that the government is bringing forward a Victims Bill, not a Victims and Prisoners Bill.

· Our concerns with expanding the Bill to include Parole reforms are twofold. Firstly, we are concerned that these measures will pull the focus away from victims’ measures during the passage and implementation of this legislation. Government, criminal justice agencies and Parliamentarians will inevitably spend time and focus on Part 3 of the Bill; time and focus that we believe is best spent on strengthening the measures related to victims, and subsequently putting them into force.

· Secondly, we believe that combining the two policy areas contradicts the government’s commitment to "put victims’ interests firmly at the heart of the justice system".

· We strongly believe that the Victims and Prisoners Bill should return to its original form as a Victims Bill, focusing on improving the treatment and experiences of victims and survivors. If the government is to bring forward these measures relating to prisoners, we strongly urge them to find a different legislative vehicle to do so.

Access to independent services

· It is imperative that all victims have access to vital support services that are fully independent of the police and statutory services.

· We are seeing a worrying trend of victims’ services that have been delivered by independent victim organisations being axed, and replaced with in-house support services delivered by the police. We are seriously concerned that victims ma y refrain from seeking support if this is not available from a trusted independent service. This is backed up by evidence from a YouGov poll, which found that 82% of adults in England and Wales who have been victims of crime in the last 2 years said it was important for victims of crime to receive help and support from a victim service that is separate and independent from the police, with 51% saying it was very important. The YouGov poll also showed that 43% of all adults in England and Wales said, if they were a victim of crime, they would not be likely to seek support from a victim service, for emotional and practical support following the crime, if they knew that it was provided by the police and not by an independent service.

· We strongly urge action is taken by government to ensure victims  are able to  access services that are independent of the police and statutory services. The government must a lso ensure that they are monitoring and understanding trends in victims’ services being taken in-house to the police.

· In particular, Clause 15 of the Bill and accompanying guidance must stipulate that Independent Sexual Violence Advocates (ISVAs) and Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) be independent of the police and criminal justice system. Setting out the independence of IDVAs and ISVAs from the police was a recommendation of the Justice Committee during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and is essential .

Families bereaved by homicide

· Victim Support is proud to have set up and grown the national Homicide Service, funded by the Ministry of Justice, which supports families bereaved by murder and manslaughter. We were pleased to see the Bill include those bereaved by homicide in the definition of a victim, amending their omission from the draft B ill.

· We believe t here are two main issues impacting the bereaved that we believe the Bill can address.

· Firstly, rights for bereaved families are in need of strengthening. We believe that the Victims’ Code should give bereaved family members the right to expenses to attend court ; currently Right 10 only provides victims with the right to claim expenses if they give evidence. Crucially, this right should also apply to victims of homicide abroad. At present, VS’s Homicide Service cover travel expenses for criminal proceedings abroad for those within scope of the service. However we would like to see policy reflect this, and provide this to families as a right. Family members bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad should also have the right to the translation of court and coroner documents ; again while in practice VS ensure that those supported by the Homicide Service are able to have documents translated, this is not a formal right and should be .

· Secondly, the issue of parental responsibility in cases of domestic homicide is having a serious impact on children bereaved by homicide and those family members caring for them, also likely to be bereaved. Many domestic homicides sadly involve children, many of whom will have lost one parent to a homicide that was committed by the other/ step parent . Alongside the severe trauma of losing a parent, these children and young people and their families are left navigating an unclear custody pathway. In many cases, even after a successful prosecution, the perpetrator continues to have parental responsibility; exercising control over decisions such as which school they attend and accessing healthcare including emergency services.

· We commend the Jade’s Law campaign and believe there is strong merit in the proposal to automatically suspend parental responsibility in these cases, and place the onus on the perpetrator to attain parental responsibility. The current situation is in serious need of reform and is having a detrimental impact of children and young people and their guardians. They deserve better. We are aware that this is a complex area of law, and we strong urge the government to consider in detail and consult on reforms that can address this important issue.

Access to therapy for sexual violence survivors

· The issue of access to pre-trial therapy has long been an issue within the CJS , with many victims facing serious barriers to accessing pre-trial therapy or being advised not to undertake it. This is due to concerns among CJS agencies that it can impact the prosecution and may lead to allegations of coaching, and also the fact that therapy notes are routinely accessed by the police, prosecution and defence.

· This means that many victims are not accessing the psychological support the y need at the time when they need it, and those that are accessing therapy face their notes being accessed by the police and the defence, and even being used against them to undermine their case.

· As such, we strongly support the work of Rape Crisis, the Centre for Women’s Justice and the End Violence Against Women coalition to keep counselling confidential, and to introduce a new model that includes: any request for access to therapy notes to be first considered by a judge, and only post charge ; and victim ’s being given access to specialist legal advice.

Safe reporting mechanisms for migrant victims of domestic abuse

· We are concerned that victims with insecure immigration status face serious barriers to accessing support and reporting to the police. In particular, concerns about their information will be passed on to I mm igration E nforcement can prevent victims from reporting to the police. Imkaan has found that over 90% of domestic abuse victims with insecure immigration status have had abusers use this to prevent them from reporting to the police.

· We believe that without a firewall between the police and Immigration Enforcement, victims will be denied access to safety, support and justice. As such, we support calls for an end of data sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement for these victims, and a firewall between the two.

Sentencing

· A criminal trial can be a confusing and traumatic time for victims, regardless of the outcome. Many victims will never have been inside a court building before, let alone have experience of a criminal trial, and it can be an intimidating and unknown environment. This continues to be true after the conclusion of the trial, and too often when a sentence is imposed, it is not clear to victims why the decision was reached or what it means in practice.

· We believe that victims in Crown Court cases should have the right to access a free transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks. We believe that this can provide clarity, transparency and potentially some form of closure to victims, as well as help to build confidence in and understanding of the process. This has been recommended by the Justice Committee in their report on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Victims Bill, and in the independent Lammy Review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System.

· Additionally, victims are not currently financially supported to attend sentencing and to read out their Victim Personal Statement. The Victims’ Code provides victims with the right to claim certain expenses, such as travel costs, if they attend court to give evidence. However this does not extend to attending court for the sentencing or to give a VPS. As such, we recommend that the Code extends the right to claim expenses for travel, childcare, loss of earnings, refreshments and meals to victims to attend sentencing hearings.

Duty to Collaborate

· We welcome the government’s focus on improving the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse (DA), sexual violence (SV) and serious violence. We hope that greater join-up in the commissioning of these services will lead to more consistent support for victims and help address gaps in services. However, there are three main points we would like to raise about Clause 12 of the Bill.

· Firstly, we support the calls for a requirement for a Joint Strategic Needs Assessments between duty holders, and a Duty to Fund on national government. It is vital that it in addition to improvements in the collaboration of commissioning, the necessary funding is also provided by central government for services to fully meet the needs of victims. This is vital to ensuring that gaps are identified and addressed, and this must include services for both adults and children and young people.

· Secondly, while the focus on support services for victims of DA, SV and serious violence is welcome, support services for victims outside of these crime types are not included within the duty to collaborate. It is vital that this duty is reconciled with the obligation on PCCs to commission support services for victims and crime, and that evaluation is undertaken to assess the impact of the duty to collaborate on the commissioning and provision of support services for victims that fall out of scope.

· Finally, as set out in our evidence above, we believe that victims should be able to access support services that are independent of the police and statutory services, and we believe the duty to collaborate should reflect that.

Powers of the Victims Commissioner (VC)

· The role of the VC is a vital one as the statutory post that champions the interest of victims. We are dismayed and concerned that the post has been vacant since September 2022, and that such an important piece of legislation for victims is being taken through Parliament without a VC in post.

· Despite the importance of the role, the VC has lacked the powers of other relatively similar Commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse or Children’s Commissioner. We welcome the new powers for the VC in this Bill, such as requiring departments and agencies responding to recommendations directed at them within 56 days. However, we believe that the powers must be further strengthened to include a duty on relevant agencies to co-operate with the VC. This would provide parity with the powers of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and require relevant agencies (including CJS agencies) to comply with requests from the VC and better enable to the VC to carry out the Commissioner’s functions. Section 15 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 can be a template for this; this enables the DAC to request that certain public bodies co-operate with them and that they body has to comply with the request if it is reasonably practicable for them to do so.

Restorative Justice

· Restorative justice (RJ) is an approach that involves bringing together victims and offenders to help victims find answers and explain how they have been impacted. Research shows that many people find RJ helps then to move on with their lives after experiencing crime. It can give victims a voice and support their ability to cope and recover. RJ is a voluntary process that will only take place with the permission of participants.

· Right 3 of the Victims’ Code gives victims the right to receive information about RJ from the police or Youth Offending Team. However, as with many Victims’ Code rights this often does not happen in practice; ONS data shows that only five percent of victims recall receiving information about RJ. This issue is compounded by a lack of strategic direction on RJ. RJ provision varies considerably across the country, and criminal justice agencies are not always held to account on whether they offer RJ services.

· Strategic oversight is needed to widen victims’ access to Restorative Justice. We believe that providing for a national action plan in legislation will help provide direction and oversight, and improve access, awareness, capacity and evidence of the use of RJ across England and Wales. Without this action plan provided for in legislation, we are concerned that a lack of strategic leadership on RJ will persist, and victims will continue to lack access to these services.

June 2023.