High Street Crime 2025-06-03
2025-06-03
TAGS
Response quality
Questions & Answers
Q1
Partial Answer
▸
Context
High street crime is increasing and residents expect strong action, including proportionate sentencing. Short-term prison sentences are being considered for removal.
South Shropshire residents would expect high street crime to be dealt with, and proportionate sentencing and appropriate deterrents. How will removing short-term prison sentences achieve any of that?
The hon. Member should know that 60% of all people who are given a short custodial sentence go on to reoffend within the year, so clearly the system that we have does not work. We cannot simply sit back and keep doing things that we know result in increased reoffending in communities that we all want to protect. We have to look at interventions that will make a difference. Tough community punishment produces better reductions in reoffending than short sentences. We will consult Members across the House as we prepare our Bill in the coming weeks to make sure that we have a strong package of unpaid work and other measures designed to toughen up community punishment.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Did not directly address how removing short-term prison sentences will specifically deter high street crime.
Hedging Language
Response accuracy
Q2
Direct Answer
▸
Context
Ancillary orders, such as bans from shops and high streets, are part of the answer to high street crime. The police need to apply for these orders in court.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that when it comes to sentencing, ancillary orders, including those banning offenders from shops and high streets, are part of the answer? We need the police, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to apply for them, and when an offender appears in court, we need the courts to issue those orders when sentencing.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right that so-called ancillary orders, often referred to as travel bans, bans from seeing football and bans on the ability to go to particular areas, are an important part of the package of measures that the Gauke review has recommended. We have accepted those in principle and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues as we draw up our package of proposals for the upcoming sentencing Bill.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Response accuracy
Q3
Partial Answer
▸
Context
Victims of crime have only 28 days to appeal unduly lenient sentences, while criminals can appeal indefinitely. Campaigners Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims are seeking more time.
Whatever the sentence or offence, victims and families deserve a meaningful and fair route to appeal sentences that are unduly lenient. Twenty-eight days for people who have experienced deep trauma, when criminals get an unlimited time to appeal, is not meaningful or fair. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to campaigners such as Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims why she is not willing to give them more time?
If the shadow Minister ever did any homework, he would know that it is always the Attorney General who has to agree and sign off on unduly lenient sentencing referrals. Our proposals are there to make sure that the Attorney General always has a full 28-day period to consider and make rulings that often help victims. He will also know that the Law Commission is looking at that work.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Did not provide clear reasons for not extending the timeframe; instead defended current arrangements.
Deflection
Response accuracy