Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Automated Enforcement Technology: Evidence

Tuesday 17 March 2026 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial questions addressed rules around admissibility of high-tech evidence.
  • Government committed to reviewing rules related to evidence admissibility.
  • Honourable members discussed experiences and impacts of delays in legal processes.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Peter Lamb Lab Crawley
Policing & Resources Crime & Law Enforcement Environment
Context

Discussion about the use of high-tech evidence, like facial recognition and drones, for crime detection. The questioner highlights that current rules restrict the admissibility of some technologies.

Question

The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?

Answer from Sarah Sackman

We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.

Partly answered

Not addressed: commitment to reviewing specific high-tech evidence rules

How: We Will Keep The Rules Relating To The Admissibility Of Evidence Under Review.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Peter Lamb Lab Crawley
Policing & Resources Crime & Law Enforcement Environment
Context

Discussion about the use of high-tech evidence, like facial recognition and drones, for crime detection. The questioner highlights that current rules restrict the admissibility of some technologies.

Question

The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?

Answer from Sarah Sackman

We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.

Partly answered

Not addressed: commitment to reviewing specific high-tech evidence rules

How: We Will Keep The Rules Relating To The Admissibility Of Evidence Under Review.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Edward Leigh Con Gainsborough
Crime & Law Enforcement Justice & Courts
Context

Discussion about the impact of abolishing jury trials for rape cases. The questioner refers to a previous speech by Charlotte Nichols, who spoke movingly about her experience as a rape victim and delays in the justice system.

Question

The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?

Answer from Sarah Sackman

Might I echo—

Not addressed: commitment to setting up specialist rape courts

How: Might I Echo—

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email