In my time as an MP, I have worked with too many victims and survivors who have been utterly let down by the criminal justice system. Their cases compel me to use this Bill as a vehicle to deliver long overdue changes for them. In the past year alone, I have had two survivors from Rotherham contact me to say that their abuser has been moved to an open prison and is therefore eligible for day release without their notification. That is despite the fact that both victims were signed up to the victim contact scheme and should have been able to provide evidence to the Parole Board in advance of the decisions being made.
7.45 pm
The thought of an offender being back in the community is deeply traumatising for victims. Notifying them of that is vital, as is consultation. However, the system is clearly dysfunctional. Amendments 48 and 49 would legally require the Parole Board to consult the victim or victims of the case not only on moves to open prisons, but release decisions more generally. No one should have to face reliving their trauma, as my constituents have. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the issue in the Public Bill Committee, and I hope that the Government will continue to work with me to address this failing.
The Bill makes several changes regarding procedures in courts, but sadly I do not believe they will improve the experience of victims and survivors. A key barrier to justice that they face is their lack of access to special measures when giving evidence. Those measures should be included, whether that is, for example, a live link, or giving evidence in private or via a pre-recorded method. However, their delivery is inconsistent, with the onus being on the court to offer provision if the judge believes it will improve the quality of evidence from a witness. New clause 22 would require the court to inform an eligible witness of all the options available to them and put in place the measures that best suit them.
I am also concerned about the ease of access by others to counselling or mental health records when victims and survivors give evidence. This issue was highlighted to me by a former constituent. She was told by the police not to seek counselling until the trial was over in case the defence used the records against her. The trial took 18 months, and those were the most difficult 18 months of her life. She said:
“I had nowhere to turn. I needed to see a psychologist for support. I was utterly traumatised.”
New clause 25 would restrict evidence or questioning about mental health or counselling records relating to a complainant or witness unless a defined threshold was met. It would require the judge to consider the victims
code, the potential threat to personal dignity and the right to privacy of the complainant or witness before allowing the records to be used in court. Most importantly, it would remove any perceived need for the police to deter victims from receiving mental health support and reassure them that their records are unlikely to be shared.
More than a quarter of child sexual abuse cases did not proceed last year because the victims did not support further action, in many cases because of how upsetting the process is. We must prioritise the wellbeing of victims and survivors and in doing so, help to secure more convictions. I urge the Minister to support new clauses 22 and 25 to create a criminal justice system that puts victims and survivors first, rather than leaving them to feel that they are the ones on trial.
Finally, I will speak briefly to new clause 98, which would create an offence of pet theft. In March, DogLost recorded a 170% increase in dog theft from 2019-20. Pets are more than property; they are part of the family and we place huge emotional value on them. The punishment of this crime must outweigh any potential reward thieves can reap from selling dogs and it must reflect the distress caused to owners.