Letter from the Victims' Commissioner to the Chair of the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, Sir John Hayes [dated 13 April 2026]

Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales

Office of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales
6th Floor, 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

e: victims.commissioner@victimscommissioner.org.uk

Sent by email.
13 April 2026

Dear Sir John,

I am writing in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Office of the Victims’
Commissioner for England and Wales, on behalf of the Victims’
Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE; Professor Katrin Hohl OBE, Independent
Adviser to the UK Government on Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual
Violence; Dame Vera Baird KC, Chair of the Criminal Cases Review
Commission; and the three victim-survivors who provided evidence to the
Committee on 25 March 2026: Morwenna Loughman, Jade Blue McCrossen
Nethercott and Charlotte Meijer.
The concerns in this letter relate specifically to the two morning evidence
sessions held on Wednesday 25 March 2026, namely the 9.55 am panel
involving the Victims’ Commissioner, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera
Baird, and the subsequent 11.25 am panel involving three victim-survivors:
Morwenna Loughman, Jade Blue McCrossen Nethercott and Charlotte
Meijer.
In the days following the evidence sessions on 25 March, the Office took time
to reflect carefully on what occurred and to understand more fully the
experiences of those involved. The strength of feeling among the victim-
survivors in particular has become clearer and more pronounced as they have
continued to process the events of that morning. The Office has also engaged
with the Committee clerks during this period to understand the appropriate
route for raising these concerns. It is following that reflection, and in light
of those discussions and the continuing concerns expressed by the
witnesses, that this letter is now being submitted to you, the Chair of the
morning’s proceedings.
As a statutory office, the Victims’ Commissioner is required to represent the
interests of victims impartially and without regard to party politics. This letter
is submitted in that context. This letter formally records concerns about the
conduct and handling of those sessions. In particular, it relates to the absence

of any safeguarding measures for the victim-survivors who were present
throughout, the environment created in the room and the impact this had on
their ability to participate safely. Parliament’s own expectations for oral
evidence sessions require that witnesses, especially those with lived
experience of serious violence, are supported to give their best evidence. In
this instance, no trauma-informed preparation, support or debriefing was put
in place, despite the presence of rape survivors, the nature of the subject
matter under discussion, and the foreseeable risks associated with such an
environment
The Office recognises the important role that robust parliamentary scrutiny
plays in shaping legislation and strengthening the justice system. The expert
witnesses who appeared at 9.55am are fully accustomed to such
scrutiny. However, several aspects of the tone and conduct during that
session caused serious concern. Witnesses noted exchanges that were
unnecessarily adversarial, with answers repeatedly interrupted or cut short,
and questioning that at times resembled courtroom cross-examination rather
than a parliamentary evidence session. They also observed visible signs of
frustration among some Members, including gesticulating, audible chatter
while witnesses were speaking, and a demeanour perceived as dismissive or
derisive. It was felt the interventions you made as Chair did not prevent the
tone from escalating or provide reassurance to those present.
These behaviours were inconsistent with the Committee’s own guidance on
oral evidence sessions and out of keeping with the standards ordinarily
expected in parliamentary scrutiny. This was also not in keeping with the other
evidence sessions that day where no other witnesses experienced similar
treatment.
This atmosphere was allowed to develop despite the Committee’s clear
awareness that three victim survivors were present in the room ahead of
giving their own evidence. Although the Victims’ Commissioner reminded
Members during the session (“Can I just remind you that we have victims in
the room?”), no steps were taken to moderate the tone, acknowledge the
sensitivities or introduce any safeguarding adjustment. The absence of any
intervention significantly compounded the distress experienced by those who
were shortly to give their own evidence and raised wider concerns about the
message this may send to victims and survivors across the country.
The consequences were serious. Immediately after the 11.25 am session,
one of the victim-survivors experienced a significant emotional and
psychological reaction, breaking down in the Committee Room itself in full
view of Members. She described the experience as traumatising and
retraumatising, triggering PTSD symptoms associated with
her previous cross-examination in court. Staff from the Commissioner’s Office
supported her from the room.

The two other victim-survivors described entering their own evidence session
in a state of heightened anxiety, fearing that they might be addressed in the
same manner they had just witnessed. Their accounts are set out below.
The Office fully recognises that Members may disagree strongly with
witnesses and that scrutiny will be challenging. However, Parliament’s own
published guidance states that oral evidence sessions are intended to enable
Members to examine witnesses and gather evidence to inform scrutiny of the
Bill. Several witnesses felt that, at points, the tone and style of
questioning departed from this purpose, reducing the clarity and value of the
evidence the Committee was able to receive. This had consequences not only
for the individuals affected, but for the quality of evidence received by the
Committee.
Victim-survivors of serious violence, including rape and domestic abuse, often
follow parliamentary proceedings closely when legislation directly affecting
their access to justice is under consideration. The conduct observed on 25
March risks sending the message that Parliament may not be a safe or
respectful environment for survivors to contribute their experiences.
The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory duty to represent victims’ interests
impartially. She feels she cannot, in good conscience, encourage victim-
survivors to participate in evidence sessions conducted in a manner that may
expose them to retraumatisation or emotional harm.
In light of the seriousness of what occurred, the Office respectfully asks the
Committee to review:
• the conduct of the 9.55 am evidence session;
• the response to clear indications that vulnerable individuals were
present;
• the absence of any safeguarding adjustments once that fact was
known;
• the significant distress experienced by one survivor as a direct
consequence; and
• whether the questioning and room management were consistent with
the Committee’s own published guidance.
The Office also asks the Committee to consider what steps might be taken to
prevent a recurrence, including clearer guidance for Chairs and Members on
handling evidence sessions involving vulnerable witnesses, and ensuring that
all participants can contribute safely and with dignity.
The Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird and Professor Katrin Hohl
endorse this letter because they value Parliament as a place where victims
should be able to contribute safely, confidently and without fear
of retraumatisation. Each respectfully asks the Committee to consider the
issues raised so that future evidence sessions involving vulnerable people

can be conducted in a way that upholds the dignity and wellbeing of
all participants and enables all witnesses to participate fully and safely.
I would be grateful if the Committee could confirm receipt of this letter and
outline the next steps for how these concerns will be considered.
Yours sincerely,

Susannah Hancock
Chief Executive Officer, Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales

Morwenna Loughman“I was shocked, upset and extremely distressed to witness the behaviour
towards Claire, Katrin and Vera yesterday - Claire especially; it crossed the
line into disrespect and pugnaciousness. As a victim-survivor
I immediately felt threatened and attacked, thrust back into fight or flight. His
attitude played a large part in my breaking down, sobbing and struggling to
breathe after questioning.”
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott:
“Yesterday was difficult to watch. There’s a line between scrutiny and cross-
examination – at times, that line was crossed. With victims present and
watching online, that’s not acceptable – it was disrespectful. Claire deserved
better, and I support this being raised.”
Charlotte Meijer:
“Watching him attack Claire made me feel like I was back in court. Not being
given the proper respect to finish your sentence or say what you want to say.
It felt like he was trying to trip her up. In a situation that was already high
stress for me, a victim, to repeat what happened to me, made me feel anxious
for my panel, if he would try and do the same.”