Victims and Courts Bill: drive for victim-focused reform continues 

Members of the House of Lords continued their detailed scrutiny of the Victims and Courts Bill at Committee stage last week .  

First introduced to the House of Commons in May 2025, the bill introduces a range of criminal justice reforms, including compelling offenders to attend sentencing, restricting parental responsibility for certain sex offenders, and strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers.  

In its current form, Claire Waxman believes the bill does not yet go far enough to deliver meaningful change for victims. Working with House of Lords peers, charities and campaigners, she supported a series of amendments aimed at placing victims’ needs at the centre of the legislation. 

Across two Committee sessions on 9 and 11 February, peers debated several amendments backed by the Victims’ Commissioner. While discussions were constructive, the government ultimately declined to adopt the proposed changes -though some will be considered further. The question remains as to whether this was a missed opportunity to improve victims’ experience of the justice system.  

Extending Jade’s Law 

With the backing of the Victims’ Commissioner, Lord Meston pressed for Jade’s Law to be extended to also cover attempted murder, as currently the law only applies when a parent kills a co-parent. Survivors of attempted murder must still battle offenders in court to protect their children.  

The government rejected the proposal for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in such cases and did not take the amendment forward, arguing that the surviving parent can apply to the family courts to have parental rights suspended. Campaigners say this leaves a serious loophole. 

Amendment 34 on extending Jade’s Law was tabled by Lord Meston.  

Bereaved families of murder abroad 

Baroness Brinton tabled the Victims’ Commissioner’s amendment calling for bereaved families of murder victims overseas to be included under the Victims’ Code. Peers described the proposal as “common sense”, but the amendment was not progressed, with the government stating the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) should be responsible for these victims. 

Amendment 42 on including victims of murder abroad in the Victim’s Code was tabled by Baroness Brinton. 

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) 

Baroness Brinton also raised concerns about barriers to compensation – especially for survivors of child sexual abuse.  Strict time limits mean many traumatised victims – who may be navigating complex criminal justice processes and/or unaware of their eligibility – struggle to apply in time. The standard time limit for submitting a claim is within two years after the date of the incident – the amendment seeks to increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years.  

The government did not accept the amendment but agreed the Scheme needs reform and stated their intention to decide how best to support all victims by using current resources.   

Amendment 46 on reforming the CICS was tabled by Baroness Brinton.  

Victims of persistent anti-social behaviour (ASB) 

Persistent ASB describes a pattern of behaviour, much of which is criminal in nature. Despite this, victims of persistent ASB do not fall within the remit of the Victims’ Code and are not entitled to statutory support, such as support from specialist victim services. The government declined to expand the definition of “victim” to bring those affected by non-criminal ASB within the Code. 

Baroness Levitt said “We have committed to provide better support and information to victims (of ASB) and have taken significant steps to do so. This includes the measures in this Bill that will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers to hold the agencies that support victims to account. 

“In the proposals for the new Victims’ Code, on which we are currently consulting, we have clarified what victims (of criminal ASB) can expect from the Code and provided information about the case review process.”  

Amendment 47A on including and defining victims of persistent ASB in the Victims’ Code was tabled by Lord Russell.  

Victim unique identifier 

The Victims’ Commissioner’s proposal for a single identifier to track victims across the justice system was acknowledged as valuable, with the government open to considering legislative options to improving data sharing, data quality and unique identifiers.  

Baroness Levitt said “The Government are already working to address these issues through the cross-criminal justice system data improvement programme, jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office. This programme aims to strengthen data sharing across the criminal justice system and is actively exploring how individuals, including victims, can be more reliably recognised across agencies”, and therefore reiterated that legislation was not the “appropriate mechanism” at this stage, ahead of the completion of the programme.

Amendment 47B on introducing a victim unique identifier was tabled by Lord Russell.

Victims of mentally disordered offenders 

Amendments designed to remove barriers preventing victims of offenders detained under the Mental Health Act from accessing post‑conviction information were withdrawn after the government said work would continue to address the issue. 

Ministers responded that victims are entitled to certain information from hospital managers so they can feel safe and prepare for an offender’s release. However, Baroness Levitt emphasised that “we are listening and we want to get it right. We will continue to work with your Lordships and with victims’ groups”.  

Amendments 55, 56 and 57 on addressing the barriers that victims of mentally disordered offenders face were tabled by Lord Ponsonby.  

Restricting parental responsibility for all child sex abuse (CSA) offenders 

We Stand proposal – backed by the Victims’ Commissioner – to restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders sentenced to under four years was not adopted. We Stand is an organisation that supports families affected by child sexual abuse. 

The government said the family court can already consider applications case‑by‑case basis, and the family court “is best placed to consider all the circumstances including what is in the best interests of the child”. However, the Minister, Baroness Levitt acknowledged that Baroness Brinton had raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court and suggested discussing these with her further.  

Amendment 13 on restricting the parental responsibility of all CSA offenders was tabled by Baroness Brinton. 

Improving the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme 

Lord Russell raised changes to allow Crown Court cases to be discontinued and reopened after a successful application under the VRR. While Baroness Levitt recognised the importance of VRR, she expressed that the proposed changes would have “wide-ranging implications for both victims and defendants” and need to be “considered carefully, because discontinuing a case is not simply putting a pause into proceedings.”  

She stated the government’s intention “to consider this proposal further in the context of the wider court reforms and Sir Brian Leveson’s most recent report, with his recommendations for improving efficiency.” 

Amendment 63 on improving the VRR Scheme was tabled by Lord Russell.  

Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme 

The Victims’ Commissioner has called for parity between the rights of victims and offenders, as many victims struggle to meet the strict timeframe to appeal to the scheme, which allows anyone to ask for certain Crown Court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) if they think the sentence is too lenient. In contrast, offenders can appeal their sentence outside of the timeframe in exceptional circumstances. 

Amendments to extend the 28‑day time limit in exceptional cases and require criminal justice agencies to inform victims about the ULS scheme were debated but not taken forward.  

However, Ministers acknowledged these concerns and said they are listening, with Baroness Levitt stating: “We are consistently hearing that this time limit is simply not long enough when victims are processing the outcome of the case, and I am extremely sympathetic to their representations.” 

Amendments 69 and 75 on improving the accessibility of the ULS scheme were tabled by Baroness Brinton.