Amendments addressing barriers faced by victims of mentally disordered offenders detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 were withdrawn following assurances that the issue would be considered further. Ministers reiterated that victims are entitled to certain information from hospital managers to assist them in preparing for release decisions.
The Bill’s provisions on restricting parental responsibility for child sexual abuse offenders also prompted debate. A proposal backed by the Commissioner and advanced by Baroness Brinton, supported by the charity We Stand, sought automatic restrictions for offenders sentenced to less than four years. The government resisted the amendment, stating that the family court is best placed to determine such matters on a case-by-case basis, with the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. However, ministers acknowledged concerns raised about perceived shortcomings in family court processes.
Peers also examined reforms to the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme and the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme. Amendments were tabled to allow Crown Court proceedings to be discontinued and reopened following a successful VRR application, and to extend the strict 28-day time limit for ULS referrals in exceptional cases. Although neither set of amendments was adopted, ministers indicated that both issues remain under consideration, particularly in light of wider court reform work and recent recommendations by Sir Brian Leveson.
For family law practitioners, the debates underscore the continuing intersection between criminal justice reform and family proceedings, particularly in cases involving parental responsibility, serious violence and child sexual abuse. As the Bill progresses, attention will remain on whether the government will revisit contested provisions before it completes its passage.
