Contribution
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to begin by congratulating the petitioner, Paris Shears, whose petition has now gathered over 105,000 signatures across the UK, which is a great achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Remove sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive cases”, goes on to say:
“I want the Government to introduce legislation so that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour cannot receive a sentencing reduction for a guilty plea entered after initially pleading not guilty. This should be known as Paris’s Law.
Victims of coercive control often wait months or years for trial, reliving trauma while preparing evidence. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive a reduced sentence. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging distress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reductions, as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced”.
I used to be the chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid, the local Women’s Aid service in my constituency, and this is an issue that is deeply important to me. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse that wears down a victim’s self-confidence and freedom over time, leaving the victim exploited and dependent on their abuser.
Paris Shears, the petitioner, has told me of her experience. Her ex-partner was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour, alongside other very serious offences. Paris waited over 500 days for the trial, but her ex-partner changed his plea on the day of the trial. He then received a sentence reduction, and the charge of controlling and coercive behaviour was no longer pursued.
Since that day, Paris has dedicated her time to beginning and growing this petition, as well as telling her story online and through the media. She should be commended for how much time and effort she has selflessly put into it. Many women, and some men, go through situations such as this; sadly, many never leave. Paris should be very proud of herself not only for getting out, but for raising awareness about coercive control. Hopefully, the work that she has achieved with this petition could save other women from these kinds of dangerous situations. What is most important in this debate and discussion is for survivor impact to remain central.
Going through a criminal trial can be a horrific and very difficult experience for victims, who have to relive their trauma in order to get justice. This can be used by abusers as another form of abuse towards the victim. Currently, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 sets out that controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. As under the Sentencing Council guidelines for other offences, guilty pleas can result in a potential sentence reduction. This is in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea.
The principle of reducing a sentence for a guilty plea is long-standing in England and Wales and is now set out in the Sentencing Act. The Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to issue a guilty plea guideline; the most recent such guideline was published in 2017 after a public consultation. A usual reduction is one third for a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of the proceedings, and this goes down to one quarter for guilty pleas issued after the first stage. The maximum reduction is one tenth when the plea is entered on the first day of the trial, and this could be decreased to zero for any pleas entered during the course of the trial.
Courts are incentivised to reduce sentences for guilty pleas in order to encourage defendants who know that they are guilty to plead guilty as early as possible. This can save the court time and money, as well as saving the victims from having to attend court and give evidence. However, it is important to note that Sir Brian Leveson conducted an independent review of the criminal courts that recommended that the maximum reduction be increased to 40% when guilty pleas are made at the earliest opportunity.