Key Facts

• Clause 9 addresses the admissibility of evidence regarding compensation claims in sexual offence cases.
• Current practices allow courts to admit such evidence only if it has 'substantial probative value' and is related to a matter of 'substantial importance'.
• The amendments aim to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material while allowing genuinely probative evidence.
• Clause 9 creates a high admissibility threshold for compensation claim evidence in sexual offence prosecutions.
• The Law Commission report identified inconsistencies in the treatment of such evidence and its impact on victims.
• Clause 10 clarifies that certain facts do not, by themselves, mean a previous allegation was untrue.
• Clause 10 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill introduces requirements for proper evidential basis before suggesting a complainant has previously fabricated an allegation of sexual offending.
• Factors excluded from being used as sole proof include denial, lack of charge or conviction, delay in reporting, and decision not to pursue prosecution.
• One in two adult survivors of rape have been raped more than once according to Office for National Statistics data.
• Clause 11 allows previous domestic abuse convictions to be admitted as bad character evidence in further cases.
• The clause aims to help courts understand patterns of abusive behavior that may otherwise fall outside narrow offence categories.
• The provision ensures statutory clarity for judges on the admissibility of past domestic abuse offending.
• Clause 12 clarifies and strengthens current provisions on the use of screens in criminal courts.
• It introduces a presumption in favour of providing screens when an intimidated witness requests them.
• The clause ensures protection operates in both directions: preventing the witness from seeing the accused, and shielding the witness from the accused’s gaze.
• Clause 12 stipulates screens must be provided unless contrary to justice.
• The Law Commission's recommendations include automatic entitlement for complainants in sexual offences cases.
• Judges rarely refuse requests for special measures.
• Amendment 70 aims to add a new requirement for witnesses' supporters to be independent.
• The amendment targets cases involving domestic abuse or sexual offences where victims are vulnerable.
• The MP argues that allowing family members, friends, or relatives as supporters could lead to biased evidence.
• The current clause seeks to formalise witness accompaniment from local practices to a statutory basis.
• Clause 13 introduces professional supporter roles as special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
• IDVAs (Independent Domestic Violence Advisers) and ISVAs (Independent Sexual Violence Advisers) are specifically mentioned as examples of trained professionals who can act as supporters.
• The court retains discretion to determine whether a supporter's presence is in the interests of justice.
• Section 25 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 permits exclusion of public from courtrooms but is rarely used.
• Courts often hesitate to exclude the press, fearing it impacts open justice.
• The clause allows accredited members of the press, approved academic researchers, and one supporter for the complainant to remain in court when others are excluded.
• Clause 14 aims to clarify categories of people who may not be excluded from court proceedings.
• The measure seeks to balance witness protection and public transparency in legal proceedings.
• Subsection (4)(b) refers specifically to representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations with accreditation.
• Clause 15 clarifies courts' power to edit pre-recorded cross-examination recordings.
• Section 27 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act is proposed to be amended in new clause 28.
• Vulnerable witnesses may find it distressing to watch their video testimony during court proceedings.
• Clause 15 clarifies the use of pre-recorded evidence for cross-examination.
• Editing of recorded testimony may be required if procedural requirements were not met during recording.
• Sir Brian Leveson’s review highlights issues with malfunctioning or substandard equipment in courts.
• The clause makes it clear in legislation that special measures are available when a victim chooses to read their victim impact statement aloud at sentencing.
• Special measures may include screens, live links or other appropriate measures.
• Clause 16 removes uncertainty and ensures victims can rely on the same support at sentencing as they would during evidence giving.
• New clause 16 introduces a presumption regarding parental relocation in cases of domestic abuse.
• New clause 20 mandates courts to determine allegations of domestic abuse as a preliminary issue before addressing claims of parental alienation.
• New clause 31 provides that a child's reluctance to spend time with an accused abusive parent is presumed reasonable.
• Amendment 14 requires the Government to report on the impact of repealing the presumption of parental responsibility.
• New clause 16 introduces a rebuttal presumption that relocation requests from victims of domestic abuse are reasonable and in the child’s best interests, unless proven otherwise.
• New clause 20 ensures that allegations of domestic abuse must be addressed before considering claims of alienation.
• Since Women’s Aid first reported on the issue in 2004, 67 children have been killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse through contact arrangements.
• The repeal does not give any parent an automatic right to contact.
• Since 2014, approximately 50 children have died while subject to a court order granting contact with a parent.
• Over the same period, more than 450 children died after being placed in care by the courts.
• The Government’s impact assessment acknowledges that the repeal alone is unlikely to materially change outcomes.
• Both Parents Matter and Family Services Foundation argue for maintaining the presumption's neutrality as a protection against inappropriate gatekeeping.
• There are proposals for a targeted amendment to section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 to require courts to set out explicitly how they have applied each element of the welfare checklist.
• The clause could help cases where clear evidence is disregarded due to an overemphasis on a presumption of involvement.
• A constituent described the clause change as enormous relief in October 2025.
• Two independent firms advised against using Family Court due to the 'presumption of involvement' and inconsistent training among judges.
• The current presumption does not give parents an automatic right to contact and prioritizes child safety.
• Removing the presumption may not materially change outcomes, according to the Government's impact assessment.
• There are substantial protections in the current legal framework but they fail occasionally.
• The Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys suggests that failures often stem from risk assessment, information sharing, institutional practice, professional judgment, and resourcing.
• Rebecca Paul declares her involvement as a serving county councillor in Surrey.
• The case of Sara Sharif, where numerous safeguarding failures led to a child's death, is highlighted.
• Paul argues that the loss of children’s lives might not be directly attributed to the parental presumption.
• Judicial performance should be scrutinized internally within the judiciary.
• Child-focused courts will be rolled out nationally over the next three years.
• These courts require upfront production of expert reports and assessments, reducing conflict and speeding up processes.
• The amendment's scope is limited.
• Concerns are raised about systems within the family court beyond parental responsibility.
• Jessica Brown-Fuller has requested similar reports through multiple oral questions.
• Family justice strategy will be forthcoming in July.
• £17 million investment accompanies child-focused courts programme.
• New clause 20 aims to establish a presumption regarding domestic abuse cases but is opposed by the Government.
• Clause 17 removes the presumption which is seen as prioritizing child welfare.
• Clause 18 makes significant reforms to the leadership of tribunals in England and Wales.
• The reforms bring tribunals and their judiciary within the Lady Chief Justice’s leadership responsibilities under the One Judiciary programme.
• Government amendments 72 to 96 are minor, technical changes to ensure coherent delegation structures for tribunals business.
• Clause 18 and Schedule 3 address the leadership of tribunals.
• The Lady Chief Justice will become the president of the courts and tribunals of England and Wales.
• Tribunals are designed to be more accessible, specialist, and less formal compared to traditional courts.
• Amendments cover sections of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• Specific amendments relate to delegation powers for the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals.
• Changes include clarifications on cross-delegation between England/Wales and Scotland/Northern Ireland.
• Repeals provisions in several acts that conflict with current legislation.
• Clause 19 amends Section 15 of the Courts Act 2003.
• Regulations will allow the Lord Chancellor to specify reimbursable expenses for magistrates.
• The move aims to provide flexibility in addressing magistrates' evolving needs.
• The statutory title 'Central Criminal Court' has been on the statute book since 1834.
• The new courts complex at Salisbury Square in the City of London is set to open next year with more than £600 million invested.
• Clause 20 clarifies that the Old Bailey will remain the sole Central Criminal Court designation.
• The clause maintains the historical entitlement for the Lord Mayor and aldermen to sit as judges within the City's Crown court.