Skip to content

Victims and Courts Bill

The Victims and Courts Bill aims to improve victims’ experiences within the criminal justice system. However, in its current form, it falls short of delivering meaningful change.

To deliver real change for all victims at every point of their justice journey, from report to post-sentencing, Claire Waxman OBE is calling for: 

The Victims’ Commissioner is also supporting:

The Victims’ Commissioner’s amendments

Victim unique indentifier

Claire Waxman OBE is calling for the introduction of a unique victim identifier to enable victims to be tracked across the criminal justice system. 

The criminal justice system is made up of multiple agencies, each with distinct roles and responsibilities in a victim’s journey. Although these agencies work together, in practice each operates within its own remit and uses separate systems to record and process data.  The data collected typically relates to a criminal case rather than to an individual, making meaningful analysis of victims’ experiences impossible.  

The lack of reliable information about victims shared appropriately between agencies is one of the most significant barriers to improving their experience of the criminal justice system.  Gaps in data, communication, and information sharing across the criminal justice system hinder effective victim support and oversight of agency performance. These systemic weaknesses also contribute to poor risk assessment and limited collaboration, reducing the system’s ability to keep people safe. 

The Victims’ Commissioner’s amendment would allow more effective risk management and improve monitoring of Victims’ Code compliance. It would help to address existing fragmented approach  reduce inefficiencies, support the identification of risk, improve communication, and facilitate greater collaboration across agencies.

Victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to be defined in legislation

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to be defined and included within the remit of the Victims’ Code, granting them access to the entitlements and the support they deserve.

Persistent anti-social behaviour (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. Consequently, despite the often-devasting impact of the offences on every aspect of a victims’ life, they are not entitled to a referral to statutory support.

ASB itself is not a specific criminal offence and, as incidents are often considered in isolation, patterns of offending which would constitute a course of conduct offence are often missed. Instead, it is treated as a misdemeanour, or neighbour dispute, leaving these victims of crime feeling dismissed, unsupported and forgotten by the system. While the Government has pledged to tackle anti-social behaviour, excluding these victims from the Victims’ Code means the harm victims suffer will remain unaddressed.

Defining victims of persistent ASB in legislation would establish a consistent, recognisable standard across agencies and ensure that victims are properly referred to support under the Victims’ Code.

This call was raised during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act by the late Baroness Newlove, the previous Victims’ Commissioner, whose husband Garry Newlove was tragically murdered after ASB in their local community remained unchecked.

Application of the Victims’ Code to victims bereaved by murder abroad

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for bereaved victims of homicide abroad to be brought in scope of the Victims’ Code, ensuring they have access to support.

Every year, British nationals are murdered abroad. On top of the devastating loss of a loved one,  bereaved victims face profound challenges and barriers to accessing support and information. They must navigate an unfamiliar legal system, overcome language barriers, manage complex logistical issues such as repatriating the body, and cope with limited or inconsistent updates on the overseas police investigation. Despite these issues, they are offered no clear guidance during their victim journey, and are not recognised as victims under the Code.  Any support they receive is discretionary, dependent on individual agencies or government bodies, and therefore inconsistent and not guaranteed.

The Victims’ Commissioner has tabled amendment requiring the Secretary of State to add an appendix to the Victims’ Code setting out how it applies to individuals whose close relative was murdered, unlawfully killed, or the victim of infanticide outside the UK. If implemented, this change will ensure these victims are formally recognised so that support is no longer discretionary. It will also strengthen accountability, making it harder for their needs and voices to be dismissed and overlooked.

Extending Jade’s Law

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for Jade’s Law to be extended to ensure that victims of attempted murder, where they share parental responsibility with the offender, no longer have to face the prospect of attending family court to strip the offender of their parental rights.

During the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, Claire Waxman backed reforms, known as Jade’s Law, to ensure that when an offender is convicted of a homicide offence (murder, voluntary manslaughter) against someone with whom they share parental responsibility, that responsibility is automatically suspended.

Inspired by the case of Jade Ward, whose killer retained parental rights from prison, the change was secured through Section 18 of the Act, removing the burden on bereaved families to apply to the family courts.

However, survivors of attempted murder are not included within the scope of Jade’s Law, nor are they included in changes in the Victims and Courts Bill that will restrict parental responsibility where an offender is found guilty of a child sexual offence against any child and has been sentenced to 4 or more years.

Currently, through the guise of parental responsibility, the offender maintains control over the survivor, compounding their trauma and hindering their recovery. In these cases, survivors must seek permission from the person who tried to kill them for basic decisions like changing a child’s school, moving house or going on holiday. If the survivor wants the offender’s parental responsibility to be stripped, the onus is placed on them to apply to the family courts, where proceedings are often lengthy, intrusive, re-traumatising and costly for victims.

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for this gap to be addressed by tabling an amendment extending Jade’s Law to ensure that offenders convicted of the attempted murder of a partner with whom they share parental responsibility have that parental responsibility restricted.

Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for parity between the rights of victims and offenders by ensuring victims are aware of the ULS Scheme, and the timeframe is extended in exceptional circumstances.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme 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. While the Bill in its current form extends the timeframe for the Attorney General’s office to review applications, it does little to benefit victims and does not bring their rights in line with the offender’s.

Many victims struggle to meet the strict 28-day timeframe to appeal to the scheme, whereas offenders are able to appeal their sentence outside of the 28-day timeframe in exceptional circumstances. Unlike offenders, who will be told by their counsel of their rights of appeal, many victims are never informed of the existence of the ULS scheme. The Victims’ Code assigns responsibility for telling victims about the scheme to the Witness Care Units (WCUs), however WCUs will not engage with all victims. Bereaved family members, for example, will not always be informed of the scheme via this route.

Claire Waxman has worked closely with campaigner Tracey Hanson of The Josh Hanson Trust on this issue, after Tracey first raised it with her in 2019. Tracey’s son, Josh, was murdered in 2015. Despite expressing her concerns about the offender’s sentence, she was never informed of the scheme. As a result, she only learned of the scheme on the 28th day after speaking to Claire. Despite submitting her application immediately, it was rejected as out of hours. This experience prompted Tracey to campaign for reforms to extend the 28‑day limit in exceptional cases and to ensure victims are properly notified of their rights.

Victims frequently describe feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system once the trial ends, as if their needs no longer matter. This sense of being forgotten is starkly reflected in the way this scheme currently operates.

The Victims’ Commissioners’ amendments would create a statutory duty on a nominated agency to inform victims of the ULS Scheme and allow for exceptional circumstances under which the timeframe for applications can be extended, ensuring parity in the rights of the victim and offender and increase victims’ awareness of the scheme.

Victims of mentally disordered offenders and post-conviction information

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for amendments that will help address the additional barriers victims of mentally disordered offenders face post-conviction.

There has long been disparity in the rights afforded to victims of mentally disordered offenders’ post-conviction in comparison to other victims. Despite having a right under the Victims’ Code to access information regarding the offender post-conviction, these victims face a number of complex barriers in accessing it and are often left in the dark, with no route to resolution.

Under the Victim Contact Scheme, post-conviction information on mentally disordered offenders is held by hospital managers and clinicians instead of the probation service. As the priority of hospital managers is patient confidentiality, the concerns of victims are frequently side-lined, and requests are often denied and information is withheld. The lack of transparency in the hospital manager’s decision-making process means victims are left not knowing the reasons why information was withheld and they have no route to appeal the decision. These victims are left feeling secondary to the offender and all other victims in the justice system, despite the trauma they have faced.

While the Victims and Courts Bill aims to improve transparency by extending the information made available to victims of mentally disordered offender’s, such as updates on discharge decisions, this is at the hospital manager’s discretion and is not guaranteed.

To ensure these victims receive the post-conviction information they are entitled to the Victims’ Commissioner is tabling amendments that seek to:

  • introduce a requirement for hospital managers to consider victim safety and wellbeing during the decision-making process, ensuring decisions are balanced (Amendment 55 – Parliament.uk);
  • require hospital managers/clinicians to provide written reasons for any decision not to disclose information (Amendment 56 – Parliament.uk);
  • establish an independent appeal route for victims to challenge hospital managers’ decisions (Amendment 57 – Parliament.uk).

Reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS)

The Victims’ Commissioner is calling for change to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to improve the experiences of some of the most vulnerable victims.

Victims often face significant barriers in accessing compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS), particularly in cases involving 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 Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) recommended extending the time limit for child sexual abuse cases and giving claims officers greater discretion, but these proposals were rejected.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), the body who deliver the Scheme, can also refuse or reduce awards where applicants have unspent criminal convictions, a criterion that disproportionately affects victims whose offending is linked to the trauma they experienced. This is often seen in cases involving child sexual abuse and exploitation. IICSA recommended that such cases be assessed on their individual merits rather than rejected automatically, but this recommendation was also rejected.

CICA also has significant shortcomings in how it communicates with victims. While we are aware of work to improve this, many victims continue to contact the Commissioner to express their concerns, describing how their experiences with the Scheme left them feeling re‑traumatised. It is clear that meaningful, holistic reform of the scheme is also needed.

Sarah Champion MP tabled an amendment in the House of Commons to take forward these reforms and called for a new draft of the Scheme. The Victims’ Commissioner now intends to pursue the same amendment.

Amendments the Commissioner is supporting

Discontinuing cases at Crown Court and the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme

The Victims’ Commissioner is supporting campaigner Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott’s calls to extend the period a case can be discontinued in the Crown Court, to bring it in line with the Magistrates Court.  This would mean that the CPS could discontinue a case at the Crown Court with the option to reopen it following a successful Victim Right to Review (VRR), if they conclude that they have made an error stopping the prosecution.  

Restriction of child sex offenders’ parental responsibility

The Victims’ Commissioner is supportive of calls for the restriction of parental responsibility to be extended to child sex offenders sentenced to less than 4 years.

This call is supported by We Stand. They have raised that the current sentencing guidelines of 4 years to trigger the Clause 3 restrictions were taken from the average length of child sex abuse sentences over 10 years ago. However, this does not reflect the risk posed to child from convicted child sex offenders who have been sentenced to less than 4 years, particularly in relation to online offences.