Victims and Prisoners Act 2024

Policy background

Victims of criminal conduct measures

6. In 2019/20, it was estimated that 6.6% of 10-15-year olds and around one in five adults (19.3%) in England and Wales were victims of crime.1 In December 2021, the Government launched a public consultation "Delivering justice for victims: A consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system"2 to inform development of this law. The Government consulted broadly on how to improve what victims can expect from the criminal justice system and how to improve aspects of victim support services. Its aim was to better understand the experiences of victims and harness expertise from frontline practitioners and experts, to ensure that the Act and accompanying measures improve support for victims throughout the criminal justice system. The consultation ran for eight weeks and received over 600 responses.
7. The Government’s response to the consultation set out the legislative and non-legislative measures planned to improve victims’ experiences of the justice system. The Bill at introduction sought to facilitate a more consolidated framework to better support victims through the following legislative measures:
   • placing the overarching principles of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation
   • placing a duty on relevant bodies to promote awareness of the Victims’ Code
   • enhancing oversight of delivery of the Victims’ Code through better data collection and an enhanced role of Police and Crime Commissioners at the local level
   • introducing a duty on Police and Crime Commissioners, local authorities and Integrated Care Boards in England to collaborate locally, to facilitate more holistic and better coordinated victim support services
   • improving consistency of support provided by Independent Sexual Violence Advisors and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors by requiring the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance about these roles, and placing a requirement on those advisors as well as other persons who work with victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system - with the exception of the Judiciary - to have regard to that guidance.
   • updating the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, including a requirement for departments and agencies with a responsibility to meet the requirements under the Victims’ Code to, if named, respond to recommendations made by the Victims’ Commissioner in their published reports.
   • bolstering national oversight through a power to direct joint thematic inspections on victims’ experiences and a requirement for the criminal justice inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner.
   • removing the need to raise a complaint via an MP before it can be escalated to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, where the complaint relates to the complainant’s experiences as a victim of crime.
   • Creates provisions to ensure that the police and other specified law enforcement organisations request information from third parties in respect of victims of criminal conduct only when it is necessary and proportionate and in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry.

8. The draft Victims Bill was published for pre-legislative scrutiny on 25 May 2022. Pre-legislative scrutiny was carried out by the Justice Select Committee and the Government’s response to their report was published on 19 January 2023.

Meaning of a victim

9. Part 1 of the Act relates to victims of crime, in contrast to Part 2 which relates to victims of major incidents. The Act uses the term ‘victim’ although the Government recognises that the term ‘complainant’ may be used to describe a person who has made a criminal allegation to the police, and that some people prefer to identify themselves as a ‘survivor’.
10. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 put in place certain measures for victims of crime. It made clear that a person could still be a victim of crime for the purposes of that Act regardless of whether anyone had been charged with or convicted of an offence.
11. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 also required the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims of criminal conduct (the Victims’ Code). More detail was set out in the Victims’ Code itself about who came under this definition for the purposes of the Code. The Code’s definition recognised that a person can suffer harm that was directly caused by a crime without being the direct subject of that crime, such as families bereaved by homicide. It also made clear that a person could be considered a victim of crime, regardless of whether they had reported it to the police, in order to access support services.
12. The approach that has been taken in relation to the meaning of a victim of crime in this Act reflects that wider definition.

The Victims’ Code

13. Under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (the 2004 Act), the Secretary of State must issue a Code of Practice for services to be provided to victims of criminal conduct by those persons working in the criminal justice system or having some function related to it. The first Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Victims’ Code) came into effect in 2006. It has since been updated several times. The latest Victims’ Code, which was laid before Parliament in November 2020 and came into force on 1 April 2021, sets out 12 overarching services which eligible victims are entitled to receive, and these are referred to as ‘rights’ in the Code.
14. In December 2021, the Government consulted on proposals to place the key principles of the Code in primary legislation and the detail of the Code in regulations and guidance, with the intent of raising the profile of the Victims’ Code.
15. Respondents to the consultation were in favour of these proposals. This Act repeals the Code provisions of the 2004 Act, restates them with amendments and sets out in primary legislation the key principles that must be reflected in the services provided for by the Victims’ Code.
16. The Act also creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations which make further provision about the Victims’ Code, including about matters that the Code must include. The intention is that the regulations will set out a framework for the new Code by reference to the twelve key entitlements from the 2020 Code, to ensure victims continue to receive this level of service from criminal justice agencies, and to enhance Parliamentary oversight of the Code. This approach retains flexibility to review and amend the framework of the Code, to ensure that it stays relevant for victims. It also provides flexibility for further matters to be provided for in the regulations, if and when the Secretary of State deems it necessary.
17. The new Victims’ Code issued under the Act is a statutory code which will set out in detail the services that should be provided to victims of crime. The Code needs to reflect the key principles as set out in the Act and accord with any provision set out in the regulations. The Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of victims under the age of 18 and those with protected characteristics when considering whether to make different provision for different victims within the Code. The Code will explain who is entitled to access services and provide information about how they will be delivered.
18. The current legislation requires a public consultation before any changes can be made to the Victims’ Code and the Act requires a public consultation to be held on any changes made to the Victims’ Code. However, any amendments that the Secretary of State deems to be minor changes, such as clarifications or corrections can be made without a public consultation. The Secretary of State is required to consult with the Victims’ Commissioner and Welsh Ministers for any revisions to the Code, including minor revisions.
19. The Act introduces a duty for Code service providers to provide their services in accordance with the Code unless there is a good reason not to. This makes it clear that compliance with the Victims’ Code is not optional, while allowing operationally justifiable reasons to depart from the Code in individual cases where needed (for example, where a timescale is not met in order to deliver complex and sensitive information appropriately).
20. The Act places a duty on Code service providers to have complaints procedures for non-compliance with their duty to provide services in accordance with the Code, to demonstrate that complaints are taken seriously and that there should be clear avenues to resolve issues within the relevant body when victims do not receive the level of service they are entitled to.

Code awareness and compliance: specified bodies

21. The Act places a duty on specified bodies to promote awareness of the Victims’ Code, and to keep under review their compliance with their duty to provide services in accordance with the Victims’ Code, unless they have a good reason not to do so ("Code compliance").
22. These duties will apply to the following bodies, because they are the most likely to be in contact with the victim throughout their journey and deliver specific Code entitlements:
    "The criminal justice bodies:"
    1. The Chief Officer of police for the police area in question
    2. The Crown Prosecution Service
    3. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
    4. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and its executive agencies (His Majesty’s Prison Service, the Probation Service and the Youth Custody Service); and
    5. Youth Offending Teams.
23. These duties also apply to the following non-territorial police forces:
    • The British Transport Police – with the duty being placed on the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police; and
    • The Ministry of Defence Police – with the duty being placed on the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police

Raising awareness of the Victims’ Code

24. Though specified bodies already had processes in place to inform victims about the Victims’ Code, during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, stakeholders highlighted that more should be done to make victims aware of the Victims’ Code.
25. The Act therefore places a duty on the specified bodies as outlined above, to take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the Victims’ Code among users of the services that they provide and amongst other members of the public.
26. Supporting guidance will underpin the duty and will provide recommendations on how bodies may fulfil this duty. This allows for flexibility for the bodies to choose how they meet this duty, recognising the expertise that these bodies will have in determining the most appropriate method and timing of bringing the Code to the attention of victims and other service users.
27. The effectiveness and implementation of the duty to promote awareness of the Code amongst service users will be overseen by the Code compliance monitoring framework. This will enable appropriate data collection, and local and national governance of compliance with the duty.

Monitoring compliance with the Victims’ Code

28. The Act places an overarching duty on the specified bodies to keep their Code compliance under review. It also places a duty on Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to keep under review the Code compliance of criminal justice bodies in their local police area. This duty will help ensure there is effective and consistent oversight, providing a clear picture of Code compliance for criminal justice bodies to drive up standards of the service for victims.
29. As part of this overarching duty, this Act places a duty on each of the criminal justice bodies to collect prescribed information relating to the provision of services in the police area. This information will include victim feedback, with provision within the Act to facilitate the collection of feedback by a third party, if required.
30. The Act also places a duty on the specified bodies to share information with one another and with PCCs, in order to support them in their duties to keep Code compliance under review. It also requires the criminal justice bodies and PCCs to jointly review the information that has been shared.
31. PCCs will also be required to share specified information collected pertaining to Code compliance with the Secretary of State, together with reports on specified matters in connection with the review of the information, so that the department can build a coherent picture of how the criminal justice system is delivering for victims and witnesses.
32. To bolster oversight of Code compliance, the Act requires the Secretary of State (in practice the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice) and the Attorney General to jointly keep Code compliance under review and publish an annual report on Code compliance having consulted the Victims’ Commissioner.
33. To give confidence that action will be taken where agencies’ Code compliance falls short, the Act provides for the Secretary of State (in practice the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice) and the Attorney General to issue Non-Compliance Notifications to relevant bodies or PCCs where they agree that their Code compliance is unsatisfactory, which must also be published. The Act requires such notifications to only be issued following consultation with the Victims’ Commissioner, who will provide independent scrutiny.
34. The non-territorial police forces do not operate by police area and therefore do not fit within the same governance structure as local police forces. The Act therefore provides a separate process for oversight of Code compliance for the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police. As with the duty on territorial forces, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police are required to keep under review their Code compliance and to collect and share prescribed information relating to the provision of services and will be required to review this information.
35. The mechanism for them to share and review the information differs from territorial forces by involving a separate body in the absence of a PCC (but under the same requirements), namely, the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Defence Police (which in practice will be the Secretary of State for Defence) and the British Transport Police Authority for British Transport Police. The British Transport Police Authority are required to jointly review the information shared with them by The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police and to share information, together with reports in connection with the review of the information, with the Secretary of State. The Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is required to review and share information with the Secretary of State who is required to prepare reports on matters in connection with the review of information. A memorandum of understanding will be used to set out arrangements relating to the sharing of information, where it is anticipated that the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police will review and share the information with the Secretary of State for Defence who will then share information and reports with the Secretary of State for Justice.
36. This will ensure that all police forces (those that operate at a local and national level) have parity of expectations in the service delivered to victims.
37. The Act contains powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the duties placed on the specified bodies. These regulations may prescribe the different information to be collected or shared by them (and the form in which it should be collected and shared or require it to be provided in a form specified in a notice), for the overall purposes of keeping Code compliance under review. It is intended that the information to be collected and shared will include: (i) compliance data relating to the delivery of the different services under the Victims’ Code; and (ii) data relating to the experiences of users of those services, particularly victims’ feedback regarding services received.
38. To ensure transparency at every level, the Secretary of State is required to publish information which enables the public to assess the compliance with the Victims’ Code. PCCs will be required to take reasonable steps to make members of the public in their area aware of how to access this information.
39. The Act also contains a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance in respect of the discharge of the above duties and any person subject to the duties must have regard to the guidance.
40. The Act requires that the Victims’ Commissioner, as well as anyone else the Secretary of State deems appropriate, is consulted on the regulations and statutory guidance underpinning Code compliance and awareness measures.
41. The Act requires the Secretary of State to publish and implement, in consultation with the Victims’ Commissioner, a strategy for providing mandatory training on the contents and application of the Victims’ Code for relevant staff of specified authorities. The strategy must be reviewed and updated every three years.

Victim support services

42. Depending on their varying needs and experiences, victims of crime may require a range of support. Support roles can provide a range of services including providing emotional and practical support to help victims make informed choices, navigating support services, and engaging with the criminal justice system (if they choose to do so). The type and level of support provided by these roles varies from case to case depending on the needs of the individual.
43. In "Delivering justice for victims: A consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system", the Government consulted on how to strengthen victim advocate roles, with a focus on Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs) and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs). The Government subsequently looked into how better join-up can be promoted across agencies, reviewing the standards they operate under, alongside guidance and frameworks. The Government continued to engage with the third sector to understand which victim support roles would benefit from statutory guidance.
44. The Act creates a duty for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles that are specified in regulations. The Act also gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that specify the victim support roles for this purpose. This approach allows for the flexibility to add further roles in the future where there is a sufficient case for statutory guidance. The intention is that these regulations will define the victim support roles for the purpose of requiring statutory guidance to be published, which will set out more information about these roles. It is recognised that the guidance will, in many cases, articulate a range of support provided by a particular role that goes beyond what is described in the definition of that role.
45. Guidance issued will improve clarity and awareness of the functions of the relevant victim support roles and encourage greater consistency across the sector. Guidance will include content on the core functions of the role and the support it provides, appropriate training, and how other individuals and relevant agencies can best work with the roles to holistically support victims. The guidance will reflect the broad nature of the roles and the need to consider support on an individual basis, including how the roles can best support children (persons under the age of 18) and those with protected characteristics.
46. The Act places duties to have regard to this guidance on all person with functions of a public nature relating to victims of crime, or any aspect of the criminal justice system where they are exercising such a function and the guidance is relevant to the exercise of that function (with the exception of the Judiciary so as to preserve judicial independence). This aims to foster greater collaboration and effective working across agencies in order to support victims’ needs.

Confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure agreements

47. To address misuse of confidentiality clauses, which may be referred to as non disclosure agreements or NDAs, the Act provides clarity that NDAs cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they prevent a victim, or someone who reasonably believes they are a victim, from reporting a crime to the police or any other body that investigates or prosecutes crime, nor from cooperating with regulatory bodies. This clarifies the position that exists in common law.
48. To ensure victims can obtain the support they need, the measures in the Act mean NDAs are void to the extent they seek to prevent victims, or those who reasonably believe they are victims, from making disclosures about criminal conduct in order to obtain support from a regulated lawyer, from support services, such as counsellors, advocacy services, or medical professionals, or from their child, parent, or partner. This ensures that victims can make these vital disclosures without fear of legal recourse.
49. To protect wider confidentiality, the Act makes clear that these provisions would not void a confidentiality clause if disclosures were made to those groups for the primary purpose of releasing information into the public domain. For example, a confidentiality clause would not be void if a victim used a lawyer or support service to act as their ‘spokesperson’ to make the information public, rather than for the purpose of seeking support.
50. The Act provides that the Secretary of State may amend the list of permitted persons and purposes by regulations so that this list can be appropriately reviewed and kept up to date in the future.
51. The Act also provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, extend the provisions to cover specific obligations or liabilities in non-disclosure agreements so that they cannot be legally enforced in relation to the permitted disclosures. This ensures that this provision can keep pace with any obligations or liabilities that businesses may include in non-disclosure agreements with victims in order to circumvent this measure.

Restricting parental responsibility when one parent kills the other

52. The Act requires the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order (‘a PSO’) at the point of sentencing in cases where a parent has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent.
53. The prohibited steps order will prevent the offender from exercising parental responsibility in respect of any children they shared with the victim until the family court reviews the order. Parental responsibility refers to all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities, and authority which by law a parent or guardian of a child has in relation to the child and their property. Examples of exercising parental responsibility include protecting and taking care of the child, making school and health decisions, and taking the child abroad. Parental responsibility can also be exercised in a manner that can frustrate the activities of those trying to care for the child, for example in refusing permission for a child to obtain a passport, in how it is exercised to determine the child’s education and where the child goes to school or permission for medical treatment.
54. The Act outlines that the prohibited steps order made by the Crown Court must make clear that the offender cannot take any steps in exercise of their parental responsibility without the consent of the High Court or the family court and that the prohibited steps order must remain in place until it is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.
55. The Act allows for some circumstances where the Crown Court should not make a prohibited steps order. These circumstances are where a prohibited steps order that meets the requirements outlined above is already in place for the offender in question, or where it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. The interests of justice exemption would only be available in circumstances where the offender has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter. An example of this may include a situation where a victim of domestic abuse kills their perpetrator.
56. The Act places a duty on the local authority within whose area the child is ordinarily resident, or in the absence of such local authority, the local authority within whose area the child is present, to make an application to the family court to review the prohibited steps order made by the Crown Court within 14 days starting from the day after the order was made. The Act also requires the local authority to make an application for the family court to subsequently review the prohibited steps order where the affected parent is acquitted on appeal of the murder or voluntary manslaughter which resulted to the making of the prohibited steps order; as with the initial timeline this application must be made within 14 days after the verdict of acquittal was entered. The Act includes a power for the Lord Chancellor to amend either time limit by regulations.
57. The Act includes a power for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to amend, repeal or revoke any provision that is made by existing primary legislation and is consequential on the provision.

Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews

58. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are multi-agency reviews that identify and implement lessons learnt from deaths of those aged 16 or over which have, or appear to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect inflicted by someone to they are related to, in an intimate relationship with or live in the same household as. DHRs are legislated for via the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and in 2016 the Government updated the statutory guidance to clarify a DHR should be commissioned when a person dies by suicide and the circumstances give rise to concern (for example, it emerges that there was coercive or controlling behaviour in the relationship).
59. The Act inserts new section 8A which provides for Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews to replace Domestic Homicide Reviews under section 9 of the 2004 Act in England and Wales. It will bring the circumstances under which a Domestic Abuse Related Death Review is considered in England and Wales in line with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 definition of domestic abuse.
60. The definition of domestic abuse set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 includes controlling or coercive behaviour, emotional abuse and economic abuse. It also clarifies that domestic abuse happens between individuals who are ‘personally connected’ via intimate or family relationships. Providing for a Domestic Abuse Related Death Review to be considered when a death has or appears to have resulted from domestic abuse as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has the intention of ensuring Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews contribute to understanding of domestic abuse, as well as encouraging consistency in decision making for reviews when domestic abuse has been identified. The provision would also prevent reviews from being commissioned when individuals are cohabiting but not personally connected.
61. Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews can be commissioned following a homicide, a victim taking their own life after experiencing domestic abuse or in circumstances that are unexplained but give rise to concern. Providing for Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews aims to better reflect the range of deaths that are within scope of a review and to prevent confusion when conducting reviews into suicides or unexpected deaths. The previous name was problematic for some families bereaved by suicide linked to domestic abuse, particularly in the absence of charges or if the abuse was not disclosed to agencies.
62. The Act makes consequential provision to ensure that Northern Ireland Domestic Homicide Reviews will continue to take place under section 9 of the 2004 Act.

Victim impact statements in the Mental Health Tribunal

63. When the Parole Board is considering the release of an offender from prison, victims enrolled in the Victim Contact Scheme have the opportunity to submit and apply to read out a victim impact statement. In this statement, they can talk about the impact the crime has had on them.
64. To bring greater parity between settings, the Act allows victim impact statements to be made when the Mental Health Tribunal or Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales is considering the discharge of a patient subject to a hospital order with a restriction order (a ‘restricted’ patient), pursuant to sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Act sets out that the Tribunal may have regard to the statements when determining conditions of discharge, and that the statements will not be relevant to any other decision, including the decision to discharge the offender into the community which rightly remains based only on whether the Mental Health Act 1983 criteria for detention continue to be met.
65. To recognise the fact that some victims want to read their statement to decision makers, the Act gives victims a statutory entitlement to apply to read their statement at a hearing, where one is set to take place. It makes clear that this application should be approved unless there are good reasons not to, in line with Parole Board practice.

The role of the Victims’ Commissioner

66. The Secretary of State is required to appoint a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, as set out in section 48 of the 2004 Act. The Commissioner’s functions are set out in section 49 of that Act.
67. The Act amends the 2004 Act to ensure the Victims’ Commissioner is able to undertake these functions as effectively as possible and promote the interests of victims and witnesses across England and Wales. To ensure the ongoing visibility of the Victims’ Commissioner and increase parliamentary and public focus on victims’ experiences, the Act creates a requirement for the Victims’ Commissioner’s annual report to be laid before Parliament.
68. The Act also places a duty on specified relevant criminal justice agencies and Government departments to respond to any recommendations made to them within the Victims’ Commissioner’s reports within 56 days of the report being published. The response will have to set out the actions taken or proposed actions in response to the recommendation, or set out why the agency has not taken, or does not propose to take, action in response to the recommendation. These responses must be published, and a copy sent to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Secretary of State.
69. Additionally, although Police and Crime Commissioners will have oversight of the operation of the Victims’ Code at a local level, the Victims’ Commissioner will retain the existing responsibility to keep under review the overall operation of the Code. To bring this in line with the new Code compliance approach in the Act, the role of the Victims’ Commissioner will be updated to make it clear that their duty to keep under review operation of the Code includes keeping under review the extent to which agencies’ are complying with the duty to provide services in accordance with the Code, unless they have a good reason not do so. It is intended that the Code compliance oversight guidance will contain information regarding mechanisms that will be available to the Victims’ Commissioner, should they choose to utilise them in order to work with Police and Crime Commissioners in their new role.
70. The Act also provides for the Victims’ Commissioner to request that specified public authorities co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purpose of monitoring Code compliance along with a duty for those bodies to comply with that request insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Joint thematic inspections of victims’ issues

71. The criminal justice inspectorates all have a responsibility for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice agencies they oversee. Each inspectorate currently has its high-level functions set out in differing pieces of legislation. This legislation includes provision on how the inspectorates act jointly. This broadly sets out that the inspectors shall act together to prepare a joint inspection programme, setting out what inspections they propose to carry out to effectively discharge their functions. It also states that the Secretary of State (which in practice will usually be the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary), Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct when a joint inspection programme is prepared and what form it should take. It is envisaged that the inspectorates will continue to agree and set out their proposed joint inspection programme in a Joint Business Plan, which typically covers a period of two years.
72. The inspectorates do already work together effectively to undertake joint thematic inspections. However, to ensure that their programme of work regularly includes a focus on victims’ issues, the Act introduces the ability for relevant Ministers to direct joint thematic inspections by criminal justice inspectorates to assess the experiences and treatment of victims throughout the entire criminal justice process. The policy intention behind requiring these joint thematic inspections is to make inspectorates more effective at: identifying key issues in relation to victims across the whole system; understanding the cause of these issues and the best ways to address them; and making recommendations that will ensure improvements in the service provided to victims.
73. This requirement applies to the following inspectorates:
    • HMI Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) (who hold responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of police forces and fire and rescue services), but only to their functions relating to police forces
    • HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) who hold responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office
    • HMI Probation (HMIP) who inspect probation and youth offending services
    • HMI Prisons (HMIP) who inspect prisons and young offender institutions.

74. The Act creates a new power for the Secretary of State (which in practice will usually be the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary), Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General acting jointly, to require any of the above inspectorates to carry out a joint inspection assessing victims’ experiences and treatment and to specify when this should be carried out. The intention is to use the power for the purpose of specifying in which given joint inspection business plan cycle an inspection is to take place.
75. There is no dedicated inspectorate for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). The Public Bodies (Abolition of HM Inspectorate of Courts Administration and the Public Guardian Board) Order of 2012 abolished HM Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA) and set out that any of the four remaining criminal justice inspectorates may inspect any aspect of the Crown Court or Magistrates’ Courts in relation to their criminal jurisdiction, which could have been inspected by HMICA. HMCTS have been assessed since then as part of joint thematic inspections.

Duty on criminal justice inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner

76. While some inspectorates already routinely consult the Victims’ Commissioner, during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, stakeholders drew attention to the lack of a formal consultative role. It is important that the needs of victims are robustly considered within criminal justice inspections. The Act therefore places a duty on criminal justice inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner when developing their work programmes and frameworks.
77. Existing legislation requires inspectorates to consult a variety of stakeholders on inspection frameworks and programmes – such as the other criminal justice inspectorates, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Auditor General for Wales. The Act amends this legislation to include the Victims’ Commissioner alongside the existing mandatory consultees.

Removal of MP filter in relation to victims’ complaints referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

78. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) combines the two statutory roles of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PC) and the Health Service Commissioner for England. The Parliamentary Commissioner can investigate, and make final decisions on, all complaints made against a specified set of Government organisations and UK public organisations.
79. Currently, a complaint falling within the Parliamentary Commissioner’s jurisdiction must be referred to a member of the House of Commons before the Parliamentary Commissioner can investigate the complaint. This can cause delays in the process. The policy aim is to make the complaints process more streamlined for victims who may not want to share their traumatic experiences at multiple stages, and to achieve faster outcomes from the process.
80. The Act removes the need to refer a complaint via a person’s MP and replaces it with a dual access system. Under this process, a complaint relating to the complainant’s experiences as a victim can be made directly to the Parliamentary Commissioner by:
    • The person affected,
    • A person authorised by them (including an MP), or
    • Where they are deceased or otherwise unable to make the complaint or authorise another person to do so, their personal representative or another person (e.g., a family member) the Parliamentary Commissioner assesses as suitable to represent them (section 6(2), Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967).

81. These measures will continue to allow for the affected person’s MP to be kept informed of the results of an investigation or a statement of the Parliamentary Commissioner’s reasons for not conducting an investigation, even if the complaint was not made by the MP on their behalf, but only if the affected person has consented to the report or statement being sent to an MP. Where the Parliamentary Commissioner makes a finding that there has been maladministration or a failure to perform a relevant duty, the Parliamentary Commissioner may lay a special report before Parliament. This is consistent with the Parliamentary Commissioner’s function, which is to assist Parliament in its scrutiny role.
82. Removal of the ‘MP filter’ will only apply to persons whose complaints relate to their experiences as victims of crime, for whom approaching an MP to share a potentially traumatic experience is more likely to be a barrier to making a complaint.

Victim information requests for purposes of a criminal investigation etc.

83. When investigating a crime, the police and other law enforcement authorities can request information about a victim from a third party to support a reasonable line of enquiry. This information is commonly referred to as ‘third party material’ or ‘TPM’ and may include, but is not limited to, any relevant medical, education or social service records.
84. The Government’s End to End Rape Review found that requests for third party material are sometimes unnecessary and disproportionate, and focused on victim credibility. Responses to the ‘Police Requests for Third Party Material Consultation’ (June to August 2022) further corroborated these findings and demonstrated support for legislative clarification. Subsequently, the Government committed to legislate to ensure that any third party material requested by an authorised person is necessary and proportionate to the investigation and to create a code of practice to ensure consistency across requests.
85. These measures in the Act define certain conditions authorised persons (including the police, British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency), the service police and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner (SPCC), must meet before making the victim information request.
86. Under these measures an authorised person, the service police and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, will have a duty to only request information on victims of criminal conduct where it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. These persons must also notify the victim about whom the information is being requested or other relevant person (such as a parent or guardian or appropriate adult) for example in the case of children, missing or vulnerable persons. This includes a written notice detailing what information is being sought, why, and how it will be used. The authorised person will also have a duty to provide clear and detailed information to accompany victim information requests to third parties, unless it would be inappropriate to do so. This must include clear details about the information being sought and the reason why, as well as how the material will be used. The measures also impose a duty to have regard to the accompanying code of practice with the intention of ensuring that police requests for victim information are necessary and proportionate. When considering a request for victims' counselling records (a specific type of TPM of particular sensitivity), an authorised person will only be able to make such a request where the records sought are likely to have substantial probative value to a reasonable line of enquiry being pursued or to be pursued. Additionally, the measures require the code (i) to include a rebuttable presumption that requests for counselling records are not necessary and proportionate for a law enforcement purpose and (ii) to prescribe the steps that must be taken in reaching any decision to rebut that presumption. Lastly, the Secretary of State will be required to review the operation of these additional safeguards applicable to counselling records three years after they come into force.

Third Party Harassment: Victims’ right to data erasure

87. Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation ("UK GDPR") gives a victim the right to request erasure of personal data concerning them where one of the grounds listed in Article 17(1) is met. Whilst this right to erasure gives victims some redress from the harm experienced from malicious allegations, the Act creates a new ground in Article 17(1) of UK GDPR. This will create the right for certain victims, who are the data subject, to request deletion of personal data when (i) an allegation has been made by a person who has been convicted of a "relevant criminal offence" against the data subject, or the person is subject to a stalking protection order made to protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking; and (ii) following an investigation by the data controller, it has been decided that no further action is to be taken in relation to the allegation.
88. The Act sets out relevant offences of stalking and harassment across the UK jurisdictions. The Act provides that additional offences may be added to the list of relevant offences via regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, should it be considered necessary in future.
89. To ensure that where the data controller has an important reason to retain the data, the exemptions within Article 17(3) of the UK GDPR will still apply. This allows the data controller to refuse the request for a limited list of reasons. This includes where processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, which would capture refusal for safeguarding reasons. Data controllers must provide reasons for any refusal and inform data subjects of their right to complain to the Information Commissioners Office.
90. Relevant sectoral guidance, including on child safeguarding, will be updated so data controllers understand how the new ground is intended to work. The Victims’ Code will also be amended so that victims are aware of their rights around data erasure.

Victims of Major Incidents (Appointment of Advocates)

91. The call for Advocates for victims of major incidents arises from the lessons learned from the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster. The investigation and inquests that followed that tragedy were heavily criticised and the families had to fight for many years to establish the truth of what happened on that day.
92. Although important reforms have been made in recent years to support and empower victims of major incidents, the aftermath of a major incident can involve multiple rules and procedures that are unfamiliar to most people. This can be daunting, confusing, and overwhelming.
93. Introducing The Advocates for victims of major incidents has been a long-standing Government commitment which was set out in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The advocates will provide advice and support to victims of a major incident which could include any investigation, inquest and inquiry that follows.
94. The Ministry of Justice consulted on the proposal to establish advocates for victims of major incidents in 2018. A high-level response to this consultation was published alongside a statement from the Government in March 2023 announcing the creation of advocates for major incidents and setting out the intention to place it on a statutory footing. The measures in this Act do this.
95. A number of existing legal disclosure requirements already apply to public authorities, public servants and officials in relation to a variety of proceedings. Public authorities, for example, are under a duty of candour during judicial reviews; during inquiries, the chairperson has powers to compel the production of evidence and documentation; and civil servants are bound by the civil service code which requires them to act honestly and with integrity.
96. Concern has been raised in recent years that the existing requirements have not been sufficient to ensure the desired levels of transparency and candour from such persons in proceedings relating to a number of high-profile incidents (including in particular inquiries relating to the Hillsborough tragedy, Horizon IT systems and the Post Office and Infected Blood).
97. This has resulted in calls for a general duty of candour to be placed upon public authorities, servants and officials (sometimes referred to as the "Hillsborough Law").
98. The measures in this Act require a review to determine the extent to which additional duties of transparency and candour should be imposed on public servants in relation to major incidents.

Infected Blood Compensation Body

99. In the 1970s and 1980s, blood and blood clotting products mainly sourced from the USA and supplied by the NHS were contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis (B and C). Many patients were infected via blood transfusions using contaminated blood; with most incidents of infection occurring with Haemophilia sufferers and those with other bleeding disorders.
100. The Infected Blood Inquiry was announced in September 2017 by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff KC. It was set up to examine the circumstances that led to individuals being given contaminated blood and blood products in the UK, as well as the aftermath. It has been taking evidence since 2018 and its final report was published on 20 May 2024.
101. Sir Robert Francis KC was commissioned in 2021 by the Government to provide independent advice on a framework for compensation, separate to the Infected Blood Inquiry. In March 2022, Sir Robert Francis produced a Compensation Framework Study which provided 19 detailed recommendations. There have been two interim reports from the Inquiry. The first published in July 2022 and the second published in April 2023, which built on the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis’ study.
102. The Government accepted the moral case for compensation and accepted in full the Inquiry’s first interim report recommendation to pay infected people or bereaved partner beneficiaries of existing Infected Blood Support Schemes (IBSS) across the UK (and those who join in the future) an interim payment of £100,000. By the end of October 2022, this interim payment had been provided to existing members. New applicants remain entitled to register with IBSS to receive annual support payments, until those are superseded by a final compensation payment.
103. In response to the second interim report containing the Inquiry’s recommendation on compensation, the Government appointed an Expert Group of legal and clinical experts in January 2024 to advise on a compensation framework, pending delivery of the final Inquiry report.
104. On 30 April 2024, the Government made amendments to Part 3 of the Victims and Prisoners Act to establish the necessary legal framework for delivery of a compensation scheme, including a new delivery body to operate on a UK wide basis. The amendments followed Commons Report Stage, where Parliament voted in Part 3 with the intention of creating a statutory duty to establish a compensation scheme for victims (both infected and affected), as referenced by the Inquiry’s second Interim Report.

The Parole Board and prisoner release

105. The Parole Board was established in 1968 under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It became an independent executive non-departmental public body (NDPB) on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It works to protect the public by risk assessing parole-eligible prisoners to decide whether they can be safely released on licence into the community and to confirm the continued detention of the prisoner where they cannot.
106. Whilst elements such as general risk of re-offending and good behaviour in prison are taken into account by the Board, it is important to stress that the offender’s potential risk of causing serious further harm to the public is the deciding factor in parole decisions. If the Board determines that an offender’s risk cannot be safely managed in the community through licence conditions and supervision by the Probation Service, then they will not be released and will remain in prison pending a further review, which normally occurs every 12 to 24 months.
107. Each year the Parole Board reviews around 26,000 cases. In 2020/21, the Parole Board conducted 23,453 paper considerations and 9,202 oral hearings. Of the total cases concluded in any given year, fewer than one in four prisoners reviewed are judged to meet the statutory test for release. Less than 0.5% of prisoners released by the Parole Board are convicted of a serious further offence within three years of the release decision having been made.
108. The Parole Board’s procedures are governed by the Parole Board Rules, which are made by the Secretary of State for Justice through secondary legislation under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") and subject to the negative procedure.
109. There are several different sentence types that may bring an offender into contact with the Parole Board, making them "parole-eligible" sentences. These sentences are Extended Determinate Sentences, Sentences for Offenders of Particular Concern, Life Sentences and Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). Additionally, all standard determinate sentenced terrorist offenders will go before the Parole Board under section 247A of the 2003 Act, as will standard determinate sentenced offenders who are deemed to be dangerous and are referred to the Board instead of being released automatically under section 244ZB of the 2003 Act.
110. Extended determinate sentences are available for offenders convicted of certain specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences whom the court determines to be "dangerous", and Sentences for Offenders of Particular Concern are available for offenders convicted of certain terrorism offences and the two most serious sexual offences against children. Under these sentences, an offender is considered for release by the Parole Board between the two-thirds and end point of the custodial term. If not released earlier, they are automatically released at the end of their custodial term and serve an extended period (Extended Determinate Sentenced prisoners) or an additional 12-month period (Sentences for Offenders of Particular Concern prisoners) on licence.
111. Life sentences in almost all cases spend a minimum period in custody (a ‘tariff’, set by the court) before consideration for release by the Parole Board. Many offenders remain in prison beyond their tariff, and some may never be released. If an offender is released, they will remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time. There are currently three types of life sentence available to the court: mandatory life sentences must be imposed on anyone convicted of murder; discretionary life sentences apply to a range of offences that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (e.g., manslaughter, rape, and robbery); life sentence for a specified second offence is available for adult offenders who have been convicted of a second specified violent, sexual or terrorism offence.
112. Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences were introduced in 2005 as an indeterminate sentence targeted at serious offenders who did not merit a life sentence. Under the sentence, offenders were given a minimum term that had to be served in full in custody. At the end of the term, they can be released only if the Parole Board is satisfied that they are safe to be released on licence. IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, although not retrospectively, so there are still IPP offenders in custody who are subject to Parole Board release (including both those who are awaiting first release and those who have been recalled).
113. In 2019, the Conservative Party’s Manifesto committed to conducting a Root and Branch review of the Parole system to improve accountability and public safety.
114. In March 2022, the Ministry of Justice published the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System. The review set out a range of reforms to the parole system to increase transparency, improve victims’ experience and improve public safety. The review also proposed several changes that require primary legislation, including refining the statutory release test to make it more prescriptive and introducing a power for the Secretary of State to review release decisions for the most serious offenders. These changes are the subject of this section of the Act, along with changes to the appointment of Parole Board members and the role of the Chair.

The Statutory Release Test

115. The Statutory Release Test is used by the Parole Board when assessing whether it is safe for a prisoner to be released into the community. This test was set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the release of those persons serving discretionary life sentences and was extended to all parole-eligible prisoners via the 2003 Act. It states:
116. "The Parole Board must not give a direction [for release]… unless the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined"
117. The Root and Branch Review set out the Government’s intention to amend this statutory release test to ensure that the focus is on the potential risk posed by an offender when the Board is considering them for release. The review explained that the Government believes it is properly the prerogative and responsibility of Parliament to set out the conditions that help define the level of risk which a prisoner must present in order to keep the public safe, and the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the conditions are met. The Act achieves this by clarifying that the purpose of the release test, which has been subject to varied interpretations in the past (see Legal Background), is to minimise any risk, as far as is reasonably possible, to the safety of the public. To achieve this, the Act sets out a clear list of criteria the Board must take into account when applying the test in order to remove ambiguity.

Top-tier Cohort

117. The Root and Branch review set out the need for a more precautionary approach to releasing offenders, in particular, those who have committed the most serious offences and who may go on to commit another offence that causes serious harm if released. The review identified a need for greater safeguards whenever the Parole Board determines that any of these prisoners is suitable for release. The Review, therefore, proposed the creation of a "top-tier" cohort of prisoners who have committed murder, rape, certain terrorist offences or who have caused or allowed the death of a child. The Review concluded that any decision to release an offender in the top tier should be subject to greater ministerial scrutiny.
118. The Act creates and defines the "top-tier" cohort whose release decisions will be subject to greater scrutiny. The cohort also includes all transferred offenders, service offenders and repatriated offenders who have committed top tier offences and whose release is subject to the parole system of England and Wales. Inchoate offences (preparatory or anticipatory versions of the top-tier offences) are not included in the top tier list.

Secretary of State’s powers

119. The Act creates powers to enable the Secretary of State, if they so decide, to review any case in which the Parole Board has decided to release a top tier prisoner and refer it to the High Court for a second check.
120. If the Parole Board determines that a top tier prisoner presents no more than a minimal risk of committing a serious offence on release and is, therefore, eligible for release, it must notify the Secretary of State of its decision.
121. The measures will provide that, where the Board have directed the release of a prisoner who has committed a top-tier offence, the Secretary of State may direct the Board to refer the case to the High Court to retake the decision. The Secretary of State may only refer a case if they consider that the release of the offender would likely undermine public confidence in the parole system and that the High Court might find that the release test has not been met. The Secretary of State may direct such a referral without first asking the Board to reconsider, or set aside, its decision.
122. On referral at the Secretary of State’s request, the Secretary of State is not required to give effect to the Parole Board direction for release until the High Court has determined whether to uphold the direction or to quash it. The High Court is required to apply the same release test as the Parole Board and to make a decision as to level of risk the prisoner may pose to public safety if released. The High Court must not release the prisoner unless satisfied that their imprisonment is no longer necessary for public protection: i.e., that the prisoner presents no more than minimal risk of committing an offence that would cause serious harm if released on licence.

Interpretive provision relating to the release legislation

123. The Act also contains two measures which will guide interpretation of the new parole measures, as well as Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 Act ("the 1997 Act"), Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the 2003 Act, section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ("LASPO"), and all secondary legislation made under these provisions (‘the release legislation’). These provisions span the full legislative framework in England and Wales relating to release, licences, supervision, and recall of indeterminate and determinate sentenced offenders.
124. The measures disapply section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") so that if incompatibilities do arise with the new parole measures, or any of the other release measures, courts (and others) will not be under the obligation to interpret the provisions compatibility "so far as it is possible to do so". The purpose of this is to avoid courts adopting a strained section 3 interpretation, which ultimately disregards the policy intentions of the release regime. The measures also provide that, where a court is considering a challenge relating to a relevant Convention right, in relation to application of any of the release legislation, the court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from the offender.

Parole Board membership

125. The Parole Board is an independent statutory body that exercises its role by convening panels of Parole Board members to make a detailed assessment of a parole-eligible prisoner’s risk to the public and their suitability for release. Parole Board members are public appointees, appointed by the Secretary of State. These members are either judicial (serving or retired judges), specialist (with psychologist or psychiatric qualifications), or independent (with significant experience of the criminal justice system).
126. The Root and Branch Review of the Parole System set out the Government’s intention to increase the number of independent Parole Board members with law enforcement experience, such as former police officers and for these members to sit on panels for ‘top-tier’ offenders. This is intended to bring a different perspective on offending and offenders from those with first-hand experience of assessing risk to the public, adding to the collective knowledge and experience of the Board.
127. To ensure that law enforcement experience is embedded within the Parole Board, the Act requires the Board to include among its members those with law enforcement experience: those with experience in the prevention, detection, and investigation of offences.
128. The Act also gives the Secretary of State the power, through the Parole Board Rules, to prescribe that particular classes of cases be dealt with by members of a particular description. This power will be used, in the first instance, to require any panel considering a top tier case to include at least one member with law enforcement experience. Knowing that those parole decisions are being made by those with different insight into offenders’ behaviour will help to strengthen public confidence in the Parole Board.

Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences for public protection

129. The Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence is an indeterminate sentence where courts set a minimum term (tariff) commensurate with the offending which has to be served in prison. At the end of the tariff, and at least every two years after, the Secretary of State must refer the case to the Parole Board who either release if the statutory test is met, or confirm the further detention. If released, the offender is subject to a life licence. At the end of the qualifying period (currently 10 years) the Parole Board can direct the Secretary of State to order that the licence is to cease to have effect, and end the IPP sentence.
130. Opposition to the IPP sentence has come from families of IPP prisoners, prison reform groups and parliamentarians, particularly in the House of Lords. Successive governments have resisted significant legislative reform on the grounds of public protection, the main concern being that releasing offenders who have been too dangerous for release by the Parole Board presents a real risk of further serious offending.
131. The HMPPS IPP Action Plan, published in April 2023, has provided intensive help for IPP offenders to reduce their risk and work towards Parole Board release. These efforts have resulted in a significant fall in the IPP prison population who have never been released. The Justice Select Committee (JSC) published their report on the IPP Sentence on 28 September 2022 following a year long inquiry. One of the recommendations was that the point of eligibility for licence termination should be brought forward to five years following first release. The Government and Parole Board’s official response was published on 9 February 2023. These amendments adopt one of the JSC’s recommendations.
132. The measure in this Act will reduce the current licence termination qualifying period from 10 years to three years. Where the licence is not terminated by the Parole Board the licence will be automatically terminated where there is a further two year period in the community without being recalled to prison (the ‘good behaviour period’). Re-release from recall will reset the automatic period. This is based on data that shows that recalls to prison primarily occur in the first three years after release, and reduce from year four onwards. If recalled to prison and subsequently released, the new two year "good behaviour" period provides offenders with an opportunity to demonstrate two years without recall to prison, and qualify for automatic termination of their licence. The measures also require the Government to publish an annual report on progress on reducing the IPP population. This includes how many licences have been ended, steps to improve sentence progression and how they are supporting certain cohorts of offenders.

Adding controlling or coercive behaviour to MAPPA

133. Sections 325 to 327B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("CJA 2003") provide for the establishment of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) across England and Wales. These arrangements require the Police, Probation and Prison Services (which jointly constitute the MAPPA responsible authority in the police force areas in England and Wales) to work together with other agencies to assess and manage the risks posed by violent, sexual, and terrorist offenders living in the community in order to protect the public. Offenders who meet the criteria set out in sections 325 to 327 of the CJA 2003 will be subject to management under the MAPPA process.
134. Under current arrangements, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour can be managed under the discretionary power in section 325(2)(b) of the CJA 2003 which allows for management of other offenders who are assessed to pose a risk to the public.
135. On 20 February 2023, in a written statement the then Home Secretary undertook to add the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to the list of offences to result in an offender being automatically managed under MAPPA.1 2 MAPPA enable more intensive management and targeting of the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders.

Home Detention Curfew

136. Home Detention Curfew enables eligible, suitable offenders to be released early from prison, in order to have a transition period after leaving custody and beginning supervision in the community on licence. During this transition period, they are subject to restrictions that limit their movements and activity but can begin reintegrating into the community sooner.
137. Offenders must be subject to an electronically monitored curfew at their home address. They may also be subject to electronic monitoring of their location beyond the home address where this is considered necessary, and fitted with alcohol monitoring tags if this is something that played a role in their offending history.
138. Certain offenders are statutorily excluded from HDC, including registered sex offenders and terrorist offenders while others are, as a matter of policy, presumed to be unsuitable for the scheme in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Offenders presumed to be unsuitable for release on HDC include those serving a sentence for cruelty to children and homicide and certain offences often related to Domestic Abuse. The current list is set out in the HDC Policy Framework (Home Detention Curfew Guidance, MOJ, 28 March 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-detention-curfew ).
139. When HDC was introduced, the sentencing framework provided for short- and long-term sentences under provisions set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act"). Those serving less than four years were treated as short-term prisoners and were subject to automatic release at the halfway point of the sentence. Those serving four years, or more, were treated as long-term prisoners, subject to discretionary release from the halfway point and automatic release from the two-thirds point.
140. There is no longer a statutory distinction between short-term and long-term sentences, and it is no longer necessary to exclude individuals from being considered for HDC solely due to sentence length. The provisions of this Act, if enacted, extend HDC to offenders serving Standard Determinate Sentences of four years or over. Release on HDC will remain subject to risk assessment and certain violent or sexual offenders will remain excluded or presumed unsuitable due to the nature of the offence. Offenders who have not complied with the HDC curfew conditions in the past two years will be excluded from the scheme, replacing the previous lifetime ban on offenders who had previously failed to comply with their curfew.
141. Finally, the provisions if enacted, will repeal the ban on access to HDC for those individuals who have had an "at risk" return. An "at risk" return was where prisoners could be returned) to prison after committing a further imprisonable offence between release from custody and the end of their sentence. Prison sentences have not included an "at risk" period since the relevant provisions were repealed in 2012. Sentenced prisoners are now released on licence under probation supervision and liable to recall to prison right up to the sentence end date

Restriction on marriage for whole life order prisoners

142. Currently, prisoners have a legal right to enter into marriage in the place of their detention, according to the Marriage Act 1983. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 provided for same sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, followed by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. In December 2019, civil partnerships were extended to opposite sex couples, as Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 amended the 2004 Act.
143. Marriage and civil partnerships in prison are relatively infrequent. In 2022, around 60 prisoners applied to marry in prison, out of a total prison population of approximately 80,000.
144. Under current operational policy, as set out in PSI 14/2016 (Marriage of Prisoners and Civil Partnership Registration), where a prisoner wants to marry or enter into a civil partnership in a prison, he or she is required to obtain a statement of authority from the prison governor which states that there is no objection to the prison being named as the place at which the marriage or civil partnership will take place. The statement by the responsible authority is not required if the prisoner is getting married or entering a civil partnership outside the prison.
145. The measures in the Act prohibits prisoners who are serving a whole life order from marrying or forming a civil partnership. For prisoners who have been sentenced to a whole life order, it is considered that it would undermine confidence in the Criminal Justice System for them to be allowed to marry. This sentence is the single most severe punishment in UK criminal law and means that the offender must spend the rest of their life in prison. Whole life orders are reserved for those who have committed the most serious crimes, for example serial or child murders that involved a substantial degree of premeditation or sexual or sadistic conduct.
146. The Act provides that the Secretary of State may grant permission for a prisoner serving a whole life order to marry only where they consider such permission is justified on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances.