Recommendation 5

HM Government Rejected

12. The Victims’ Code and Bill are designed to improve the experiences of victims of crime and to help them navigate the criminal justice system. Where somebody is a victim of anti-social behaviour (ASB) which amounts to criminal conduct, they are already defined as a victim under the Bill and have entitlements under the Code. Where somebody suffers from non-criminal ASB, neither the entitlements under the Code (e.g., Right 6: To be provided with information about the investigation and prosecution), nor the Bill measures which seek to strengthen application of the Code, are relevant to them. We therefore do not consider that any changes are necessary. 13. The Government acknowledges the Committee’s points that ASB can have a significant impact on an individual, and will therefore continue to support those suffering from persistent ASB outside of the Bill and Code. Last year, the Government laid out its plan for tackling crime and ASB in the Beating Crime Plan, including a commitment to establish principles for a strong and effective partnership response to ASB, working with PCCs, local authorities and other partners (published in July). We also launched the fourth round of the Safer Streets Fund, investing £50 million in support of 111 projects across England and Wales that are aimed at increasing the safety of public spaces, with a particular focus on addressing neighbourhood crime, ASB and tackling violence against women and girls. Recommendations 6 and 7 Many victims of crime do not pursue a criminal justice response, particularly those most at risk of being victims. We generally welcome the draft Bill’s open definition of victim, subject to our comments in paragraph 10, but it needs to go further. All those who have suffered harm must be able, and have the confidence, to contact services such as the police, and to access their rights as victims. The lack of a firewall between the police and Immigration Enforcement denies safety to victims and witnesses and may allow perpetrators to commit further offences. We call for an immediate end to the sharing of victims’ and witnesses’ data between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall for those groups. We recommend that the draft Bill includes a provision stating that victims’ and witnesses’ data cannot be shared by the police with Immigration Enforcement and that entitlements in the Code will not be restricted on the basis of immigration status. 14. The Government acknowledges the points raised by the Committee. However, the Home Office Review published in December 2021 sets out the reasons why data sharing restrictions for victims and witnesses for immigration purposes are not considered operable by Immigration Enforcement nor policing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Guidance on information sharing with the Home Office provides that the police have discretion on sharing information relating to migrant victims with the Home Office. A person’s immigration status may be relevant to a criminal investigation and could identify the victim as vulnerable to harm and/or assist in taking measure to protect Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Victims Bill: Government Response 7 them from harm. Additionally, the Home Office is setting out a statutory code of practice around data sharing on domestic abuse victims for immigration purposes and developing a Migrant Victim Protocol to provide protection from immigration enforcement action for victims of domestic abuse and other serious crimes. As such, we do not consider that any changes are necessary. Recommendations 8, 10 and 13 As drafted, the Victims Bill does not appear to enshrine the Victims’ Code in law any more than is already provided for. The four overarching principles in the draft Bill are so broad and permissive that it is not clear that they serve any significant legal purpose. The current Code appears to comply with these principles, and it is hard to envisage any future Code not complying with them as a matter of course. We are not convinced that the overarching principles, as drafted, are strong enough to drive the necessary cultural change in the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. The approach taken retains the onus on the victim to claim rights they are often unaware of rather than requiring the relevant agencies to deliver them. As set out, this approach falls short of what is required. As drafted, the Bill fails to adequately address the issue of agencies’ noncompliance with the Code – we are concerned by this given that it is one of the principal reasons for the Bill. We have already recommended strengthening the principles in clause 2; that recommendation, combined with an increase to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we discuss elsewhere in this Report, may go some way to improving levels of compliance with the Code. However, we recommend that the Government gives further consideration