Peers question government stance after rejecting key victim-focused amendments
The House of Lords has urged the government to rethink key elements of the Victims and Courts Bill, intensifying a growing dispute over the scope of proposed criminal justice reforms.
The bill returned to the Lords on 15 April for further scrutiny in the parliamentary process known as “ping pong”, where both Houses attempt to resolve disagreements over amendments. While some changes were accepted, peers raised fresh concerns after ministers rejected a series of victim-focused proposals.
Central to the dispute were amendments designed to improve transparency and support for victims. These included proposals to guarantee free access to court transcripts, extend the victims’ code to cases involving deaths abroad, and require the publication of sentencing remarks online.
However, the government rejected several of these measures, citing concerns over cost, feasibility and legal uncertainty. According to the official amendments list, ministers argued that providing free transcripts would place “undue pressure” on court resources, while proposals relating to victims abroad were deemed “unworkable”.
Peers also clashed with the government over proposals to strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme, including extending time limits for reviews and imposing clearer duties to inform victims of their rights. While the government resisted some changes, it offered alternative amendments allowing courts greater discretion to accept late referrals in the interests of justice.
Despite these disagreements, the Lords did secure some concessions. Members backed changes relating to private prosecutions and rules governing costs payable from central funds, reflecting ongoing concerns about access to justice and financial barriers in criminal proceedings.
The bill itself forms part of a broader package of reforms aimed at reshaping the criminal justice system. Key measures include compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings, restricting parental responsibility for certain sex offenders, and expanding the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner.
However, the latest exchanges highlight a deeper tension between ambition and practicality. Peers have consistently pushed for stronger, more enforceable rights for victims, while the government has taken a more cautious approach, emphasising administrative burdens and system capacity.
The issue of court transcripts has emerged as a particular flashpoint. Advocates argue that access to transcripts is essential for transparency and for helping victims process proceedings, while ministers remain concerned about the operational strain on HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
With unresolved amendments now returned to the House of Commons, the bill enters a critical phase. Further debate will determine whether the government holds its line or concedes ground on measures that peers argue are essential to delivering meaningful support for victims.
The outcome will be closely watched across the legal sector, as it will shape not only the final form of the legislation but also the future balance between efficiency and victim rights within the justice system.