Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I also thank Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing forward the petition, and everyone in my constituency and up and down the country who has supported it. When I was a police officer, I worked in CID and child protection. I know how much we ask of people who report domestic and other types of abuse. Victims and survivors have to talk about deeply personal experiences, provide evidence and answer difficult questions, often all while worrying about what will happen when the person they have reported finds out. That is always a big concern among victims and survivors, and in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour it can be particularly difficult. A person may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them, that everything is their fault and that no one takes on board what they say. Their abuser might try to bring their children into it and say that they will lose them if they go through the court system. The control affects almost every part of the victim’s daily life, including who they see, how they spend their money, where they go and whether they feel able to make decisions, even for themselves. We should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police. It takes an average of about seven years—or it used to when I was policing—for someone even to report something, and as we all know, reporting does not necessarily mean that a person feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure from the perpetrator or other members of society to withdraw their statement. They may spend months, or sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence. By the time the trial date arrives, they have already been through a great deal. That is why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. Currently, a defendant can maintain a not guilty plea throughout that period, then change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. For the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It can be difficult for police officers to accept as well. Victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work or childcare. They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when it happens. A late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases, because they do not have to go through court, but it does not undo what they have been through to get to that stage. Under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally attracts a one-third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial, and that is subject to exceptions. I understand fully the reasons for that approach. An early guilty plea can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence, reduce delays and free up court time. It is important to remember that even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. That matters, and we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience, but we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom. We cannot assume that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse. Defendants have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute, but equally we should be prepared to recognise when perpetrators are using proceedings to exert even more pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process. There is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I am not sure it is always clear that the person sitting in court and listening to the sentence is aware of the implications. Accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important. Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account. I would like the Minister to address three points. First, will the Government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris’s proposals to remove the reduction when a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors, domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors and the judiciary should all be involved in that work, and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions and whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what that would mean for the people giving evidence. Those are questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition. Secondly, how will the Government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are identified and dealt with swiftly? When someone is being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressured to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections. Lastly, will the Minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They deserve the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers that they can understand. This Government have committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, including males, can be victims. People who experience this abuse must be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward. All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system. We need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.