Courts and Tribunals Bill — Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales (CTB30)

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Victims’ Commissioner for England and
Wales (CTB30)
Role as Commissioner
1. As Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales1 2, I welcome the opportunity to provide
evidence to the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee. Following my oral evidence session
on Wednesday 25 March 2026, this submission expands upon points raised by myself and
survivors that attended the Committee session and covers other aspects of the bill that I
was unable to raise.
2. My remit i s set out in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 3.

Summary

3. Victims bear the brunt of the court backlogs, with well documented and often devastating
consequences. 4 The Committee heard this directly from victims after my evidence
session. Their experiences must remain central to justice reform.
4. The Crown Court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, yet another record high5, with some
listed as far ahead as 20306. A letter to the Criminal Bar Association by the DPP highlighted
that victim attrition has risen by over 5% in the last 5 years and almost one-third of
contested prosecutions now fail for ‘victim reasons’7.
5. The pursuit of justice has become an endurance test, and victims cannot be expected to
carry trauma for years while waiting for trial.
6. Government estimates suggest the backlog could reach 200,000 by 2035 8 without
intervention. The Government asserts that s tructural reform is therefore necessary now,
to prevent further deterioration. The system is at breaking point, and my position is that
something must be done to better deliver timely justice.
7. The Government’s proposals draw on Sir Brian Leveson’s analysis, which concluded that
efficiency measures alone would not meaningfully reduce pressure on the Crown Court.
8. Many victims I have spoken to, when given a binary choice, would prefer a judge‑only trial
over waiting years for a jury trial. Victims who attended the Committee session have also

1 Claire Waxman takes office as Victims’ Commissioner - Victims Commissioner
2 What we do - Victims Commissioner
3 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, 2004 (Chapter 3). Accessed at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/part/3/chapter/3/crossheading/commissioner -for-victims-
and-witnesses
4 Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice
system - Victims Commissioner
5 Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK
6 Victims facing ‘inhumane’ delays for justice as courts crisis mean dozens of trials listed for 2030 | The
Independent
7 Monday Message 16.02.26 - Criminal Bar Association.
8 Modernising Justice: Criminal Courts Reform | Ministry of Justice

written in support of the reforms 9. However, I recognise that v ictims are not a
homogenous group, and views differ.
9. Thorough scrutiny is essential to ensure these measures deliver meaningful change and
maintain access to justice for all.
10. This response sets out my welcome for aspects of the Bill, highlights concerns and
potential risks, and identifies steps government must take, both alongside and ahead of
implementation, to improve victims’ experiences, strengthen delivery of the Victims’
Code, and prioritise procedural justice.
CLAUSES 1-7 (LEVESON REFORMS)
11. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am clear that action is needed to prevent future victims from
facing years of delay.
12. I broadly support removing the defendant’s right to elect jury trial for either‑way offences
(clauses 1 –2) and removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates’ Court
(clause 7).
13. Over 4,000 cases proceed to the Crown Court solely because the defendant elected jury
trial10, creating avoidable pressure and potentially increasing the likelihood of victim
withdrawal during delays (see Para 4).
14. I am aware of concerns that defendants may exploit the right to elect in cases where
Crown Court delays, which can increase uncertainty and distress, can make victim
withdrawal more likely.11 Prolonged delays can also diminish the quality of evidence, with
time impacting memory and recall, ultimately undermining the prosecution’s case12.
15. Mode of trial decisions should rest with the judiciary, ensuring Crown Court resources are
reserved for cases requiring them.
16. . I welcome the removal of the automatic right of appeal due to the distress this causes
victims. As the Magistrates’ Court is not a court of record, unmeritorious appeals trigger
a full rehearing, prolonging proceedings and retraumatising victims . Recording
proceedings would prevent this and could potentially enable victims access to transcripts,
which is currently impossible.
17. I support calls for victims to receive transcripts free of charge, in line with recent Crown
Court reforms13, and back the aims of the Open Justice For All14 campaign.
18. Judicial reasoning requirements are welcome and will improve transparency and victim
understanding.
19. However, judges must receive guidance on how to provide reasons sensitively, particularly
in cases concluding with an acquittal, where victims commonly internalise blame.

9 Open Letter on Justice Reform and Delay — Make Yourself Heard
10 committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16995/pdf/
11 committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16995/pdf/
12 OVC-Crown-Court-backlog-report-10.03.25.pdf
13 Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims - GOV.UK
14 OPEN JUSTICE FOR ALL

Concerns around these reforms
Impact on the Magistrates Court
20. Currently the majority of the criminal court’s workload is in the Magistrates Court ( over
90%).15 At the end of December 2025, there were 379,437 cases outstanding in the
Magistrates Court 16 compared with 80,203 cases outstanding in the Crown Court. Both
figures represent record highs.
21. Although the workload and outstanding case load is higher in the Magistrates Court, cases
generally take less time, with the average time from charge to completion being 56 days17,
quicker than the Crown Court average duration from charge to completion of 181 days18.
22. These averages include guilty pleas which will be dealt with more swiftly , so i t is
noteworthy that the time from receipt to completion for a ‘not guilty’ plea in the Crown
Court is 410 days .19 Unfortunately we have no comparable figure for the Magistrates
Court as this data is not published but generally trials dealt with in the lower court are
more timely.
23. Recent years have seen measures introduced to increase the Magistrates sentencing
powers20 and the courts have coped with the increasing workload however, any reform
which will increase the workload of the lower courts must be accompanied by investment
so that they are able to meet the demand. This must include recruitment of more
Magistrates. I will be seeking assurances from government about this.
24. I will also be urging government to ensure that efficiency measures address case
management, listing practices and seek to reduce the numbers of ineffective trials in the
Magistrates Courts. Recent statistics suggest that trial ineffectiveness remains high in both
the Magistrates and Crown Courts, with 22% and 26% of listed trials needing to be
rescheduled. Reasons for ineffective trials in the Magistrates Court include over-listing
(23%) and the defence not being ready (10%) both of which could be addressed by
administrative and case management measures.
Disproportionate impacts on certain groups
25. Several VAWG organisations have raised concerns about potential disproportionate
impacts on specific groups, particularly Black and minoritised women. 21
26. I share concerns about disproportionality.
27. Victims of VAWG and other interpersonal crimes are frequently criminalised. This is not
acceptable and is an area that government state they are actively seeking to address 22.
The system must get better at earlier identification, diversion, and trauma -informed
responses for this cohort to prevent these cases entering the court process.

15 Right to Trial by Jury - Hansard - UK Parliament
16 Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.7
19 Ibid.7
20 Increased sentencing powers for magistrates to address prisons crisis - GOV.UK
21 VAWG-sector-letter-on-juries-16-March-2026-2.pdf
22 Women’s Justice Board report - GOV.UK

28. It is important that the p otential impact of these reforms on certain groups of victims,
particularly women, from a Black and minoritised background are properly considered .
Juries are typically more representative of local communities than the judiciary or
Magistracy, and this diversity matters.
29. As of April 2025, only 1 3% of magistrates and 12% of the judiciary were from an ethnic
minority background 23. Strengthening recruitment so benches better reflect the
communities they serve is essential.
30. Previous reviews indicate significant discrepancies in conviction rates based on race in
the Magistrates Court 24 and Crown Court compared with no significant differences in
conviction rates in jury trials 25. There are also discrepancies in judicial sentencing based
on ethnicity, with black and eth nic minority offenders more likely to receive a custodial
sentence26. Such disproportionality of decision making and a lack of diversity raises
concerns for both defendants and victims and risks deepening mistrust among groups
already less confident in the justice system.
31. Concerns have also been raised about the robustness of the Government’s equalities
impact assessment 27, particularly in light of the findings of the Lammy Review 28 and a
stated lack of data which prevents proper consideration of disproportionality.
32. I welcome the announcement of a full independent review and will seek assurances on
how government will monitor disproportionality, improve data collection, promote
judicial diversity, and ensure impacts on women, working ‑class people and ethnic
minorities are properly understood.
33. Although there is ongoing work across the MoJ and Home Office to strengthen data
collection, significant limitations remain. For example, data disaggregated by crime type
is not published for the Magistrates’ Court, meaning workload and outcomes cannot be
fully assessed. Additionally, it is vital data is collected around protected characteristics of
defendants and victims.
Judicial training and accountability
34. Victims and advocates report inconsistent understanding of trauma, abuse and
vulnerability within the judiciary.
35. There are also broader concerns about limited mechanisms for judicial accountability.
36. Training must be strengthened across the judiciary and magistracy, including on
intersectionality and trauma. It is also critical that training improves understanding of the

23 Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and current post -holders - 2024 Statistics -
GOV.UK
24 The Lammy Review
25 How the jury system really works | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales
26 Ethnic Inequalities in Sentencing: Evidence from the Crown Court in England and Wales | The British Journal
of Criminology | Oxford Academic
27 Equalities_statement.pdf
28 The Lammy Review

dynamics of abuse, particularly coercive and controlling behaviour and stalking, to ensure
these are properly recognised in court.
37. Greater transparency is needed, including through recorded proceedings and judicial
reasoning.
Disruption in the system whilst the measures are implemented
38. These reforms coincide with significant policing changes, including the abolition of PCCs.
Government must ensure victims are supported through the transition and agencies are
adequately resourced to meet their Victims’ Code obligations.
Delay in implementation - opportunities to improve victim experience.
39. As implementation is unlikely before 2028, the intervening period should be used to assess
the impact of investment and efficiency measures. These will take time to deliver results,
and improving an already overstretched system cannot happen quickly. If ba cklogs are
reduced, the case for structural reform may need to be reconsidered, but this can only be
judged over time and is a matter for government.
40. There are good examples of innovative practice in the courts, but this learning is not
consistently shared as Courts and the judiciary often work in silos. Effective practice should
be shared wherever possible.
41. I am also keen to see the impact of the National Listing Framework, as we know that over-
listing greatly contributes to the ineffective trial rates.
42. Procedural justice remains critical in supporting victims and maintaining engagement. This
does not require legislative change but a change in culture and practice.
The broader criminal justice reform programme lacks clarity on how impacts on victims
will be assessed and mitigated.
43. The way victims are supported through the system is not working. Dissatisfaction is high29
and with good reason 30, the disjointed nature of the system means that victims
experiences are impacted by poor joint working and information sharing amongst
agencies and often a lack of clarity about which agency is responsible for providing
information.
44. Witness Care Units are under ‑resourced and lack access to key information, while the
policing white paper 31 provides no detail on future victim support.
45. Victim support services are vital to sustaining engagement with the justice process but
face acute funding pressures, compounded by uncertainty following the abolition of PCCs.
Government must urgently set out a sustainable funding and commissioning model and
deliver on its VAWG Strategy commitment to a rapid review that secures the long ‑term
viability of specialist support services.

29 Annual Victims' Survey 2024 - Victims Commissioner
30 Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice
system - Victims Commissioner
31 White paper: From local to national: a new model for policing

46. The consultation on the updated Victims’ Code presents an opportunity to improve victim
experience, and I am engaging with Government on this. It is also vital that the monitoring
measures introduced by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 are fully enacted.
47. I will be working with government to ensure that all of these issues are addressed and will
be recommending they take a strategic approach to victims.
Clauses 8-17
Clause 8 Previous sexual history evidence
48. I welcome the higher threshold of “substantive probative value”. However, concerns
remain about the removal of safeguards that prevented evidence being used to attack a
victim’s credibility as outlined in EVAW’s submission to the Committee. These protections
should be made explicit in the Bill.
Clause 9 Compensation claims in proceedings for sexual offences
49. Cross‑examination on CICA applications has been used to imply a financial motive. This
has discouraged victims from applying and caused many to time out. I strongly support
measures preventing this practice.
Clause 10 Evidence about previous false complaints relating to sexual offences
50. I supported the campaigning of Centre for Women's Justice, EVAW , Rape Crisis, IMKAAN
and Rights of Women on reforms preventing non‑prosecuted previous allegations being
used to undermine victims. False allegations are rare, and victims of sexual violence are
often multiply victimised.
51. I am very pleased that government are addressing this damaging practice through
legislation.
52. The wording of subsection 6(a) should be amended to avoid excluding non ‑reported
incidents, which are extremely common as per EVAW’s submission to the Committee.
Clause 11 Evidence of propensity to commit offences involving domestic abuse
53. I welcome enshrining the R v Balazs precedent in legislation. However, wording should be
clarified to explicitly include sexual abuse, ensuring courts recognise the link between
domestic and sexual offending as per EVAW’s submission to the Committee.
Clauses 12 ‘Use of Screens’, 13 ‘Witness to be accompanied while giving evidence ’, 14
‘Exclusion of persons from court’ and 16 ‘Application of special measures to Victim Personal
Statements’
54. I welcome all of these measures which will make the process of giving evidence easier for
victims.

Clause 15 Editing of video recorded cross-examination and re-examination
55. I note that Government are enacting a Law Commission recommendation32 which seeks to
clarify/formalise what is already in the Criminal Practice Directions and Procedure rules.
56. I am aware that the editing of pre-record cross -examination ( s.28) is
already undertaken and can be done to edit out inadmissible evidence, and lengthy
periods of delay.
57. Clarifying current practice is sensible, but victims must be informed when edits are made
and why. I will seek further assurances on how this is handled.
Clause 17 Welfare of the child: repeal of presumption of parental involvement
58. I also welcome Clause 17, which removes the presumption of parental involvement, and I
pay tribute to campaigner Claire Throssell for her extraordinary bravery and determination
in the face of unimaginable grief and pain. This is a vital step towards addre ssing the
challenges victims face in the family court system, and an important acknowledgment
that, for too long, children have been placed in unsafe arrangements with abusers.
59. To deliver real change, this reform must be accompanied by reform in other areas of the
family justice system and a fundamental shift in culture and practice across the system. I
am in favour of wholesale reform via a Family Justice Bill, and I will continue to engage
with government on this.
Recommended additional measures
Automatic entitlement to special measures
60. I would also like to see Government enact the Law Commission’s recommendation33 that
complainants in sexual offence cases be automatically entitled to special measures,
subject to availability and fairness.
61. In addition, I am aware that in Scotland a notification process has been introduced for
certain standard special measures, under which victims are automatically entitled to them
unless there is a good reason for them not to apply. Standard measures include the use of
screens and the provision of remote evidence. Other measures, such as pre ‑recorded
evidence, continue to require an application and judicial approval. I would urge the
Government to consider adopting a similar approach.
62. This would significantly alleviate the administrative burden associated with special
measures applications and reduce court time spent considering them. It would also ensure
that, where ‘non ‑standard’ measures are sought, victims are not required to prove that
the measure would improve the quality of their evidence, thereby shifting the focus away
from procedural hurdles and towards enabling effective participation in the justice
process.

32 Evidence in sexual offences prosecutions: a final report – Law Commission
33 Evidence in sexual offences prosecutions: a final report – Law Commission

Reinstate the Courts Inspectorate
63. I am keen to see improved oversight through reinstating His Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Court Administration to improve oversight, identify inconsistencies, and drive better
practice across the courts . This was a call I have previously made alongside
my predecessor, Baroness Newlove and was recommended by Sir Brian Leveson.
Specialist Rape Courts
64. Victims of rape are particularly impacted by the backlogs and by the criminal justice
system more broadly. The duration between the case being received and completed at
Crown Court is particularly high for rape offences, an average of 429 days compared to an
average of 259 days for all offences34.
65. Specialist rape courts which expedite rape cases and ensure a trauma-informed approach
via training and adaptions to the court environment could help lessen the impact of the
system on victims.
66. I have been calling for specialist rape courts since 2022 and was pleased that the
government made a commitment to this in their Manifest o35 and I would be keen to see
government make good on this commitment.
67. Whilst I would welcome the creation of specialist courts to alleviate the burden of the
system on victims, it would need to be tak en in addition to the other measures
government are proposing.

13 April 2026

34 Calculated mean average -Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK
35 Take back our streets – The Labour Party