Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 13
13
Accepted in Part
Court backlog delays severely impact victims' mental health and wellbeing, leading to withdrawals.
Conclusion
Written evidence to our inquiry highlighted concerns about the impact on victims, and particularly the serious impact that the backlog can have on victims’ work, family, and mental health and wellbeing.30 Academics from the Justice in COVID–19 for Sexual Abuse and Violence (JiCSAV) project noted that practitioners could provide examples of cases where victims had withdrawn from the prosecution process because of court delays.31 The FDA union told us that RASSO prosecutions took, on average, over two years to come to trial.32 The Rape and Sexual Assault Counselling Centre (RSACC– based in Darlington and County Durham) said in their evidence that many of the people they work with find the court process as traumatic as the crime itself, and issues caused by the backlog only compound this.33
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the Committee's concerns, highlighting existing judicial practices that prioritise serious sexual offence cases and routine data publication. They have also protected and rolled over funding for Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and victim support services, while remaining committed to improving victim support within future Spending Review constraints.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2026 2.2 The volume and proportion of trials involving sexual offences that are ineffective is small relative to ineffective trial outcomes in other types of cases. The number of trials involving sexual offences which are ineffective are declining. MoJ agrees that any trial ineffectiveness here is particularly sensitive. MoJ routinely publishes detailed datasets on ineffective trials, including by references to different cohorts of case types as well as by causal reasons behind the ineffectiveness. 2.3 Judicial listing practices already recognise the special status of cases involving serious sexual offences, and judges generally list such trials as fixtures, meaning that hearing dates are more certain. Guidance from the Senior Presiding Judge is that rape and serious sexual offence cases should be listed as fixtures on first listing. This will often require counsel’s availability to be taken into account when dates are fixed, which courts can obtain at Pre-Trial Preparation Hearings where advocates supply dates to which they can commit. 2.4 While listing and case prioritisation is ultimately a matter for the independent judiciary, there is a clear focus on this cohort of especially sensitive cases. MoJ will continue to publish routine data on trial effectiveness as well as supporting the work of the senior judiciary in ensuring that there is priority afforded to this work. 2.5 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: April 2025 2.6 As part of Spending Review Phase 1 allocations, the MoJ protected funding for Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) support services as much as possible in 2025/26, rolling over the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, as well as ringfenced spending on community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse support. These ringfences were originally established following an increase in demand for support during the Covid-19 pandemic and have continued since. 2.7 Beyond this, MoJ remains committed to improving the support available for victims but cannot pre-empt the outcome of Phase 2 of the Spending Review. MoJ works closely with commissioners and providers who receive funding, including Police and Crime Commissioners who receive most of MoJ’s victim support budget to commission local support services. As part of grant monitoring processes, MoJ is regularly engaging with providers to help improve the support offer for victims.