Crime and Policing Bill

Committee (11th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 417

417: After Clause 145, insert the following new Clause— “Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert “, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”.(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 22B (Relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 22B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisation(s) the payment(s) should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries,(d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and (f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisation(s) to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired,(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 22A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 22A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 22B, the organisation(s) recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisation(s) for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”.(4) After Schedule 22 (Amendments of the Sentencing Code and related amendments of other legislation), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 22ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation orders1 The following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund.The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”.(5) After Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule— “Schedule 22BRelevant offences for public interest compensation orders1 The following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.”.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 417 I will speak to the associated Amendment 419, both in my name and with named support across the Committee. The purpose of these amendments is to provide a clear and easy-to-use legal basis for those found guilty of sanctions breaches and other similar offences to pay compensation in the public interest to specified victims’ organisations listed in the proposed Schedule 22A and any other similar organisations added to that list through regulations.

There is a clear case for legislative intervention in this area. By way of overview, the existing law provides only a very narrow basis for using the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to compensate victims, and only in straightforward cases. Victims are rarely allocated any share of the sums recovered. Amendments 417 and 419 would empower courts to award compensation for public interest or social purposes, addressing a significant gap in the law by enabling compensation in the more complex cases for which the existing law is ill suited—for example, supporting Ukrainians who are most impacted by breaches of the UK’s targeted sanctions against the Putin regime and its corrupt cronies.

Against that overview, I turn to the main features of the existing law to demonstrate why they do not go far enough. First, compensation orders under the Sentencing Act 2020 are designed to compensate direct victims of criminal conduct. Where a conviction has been secured, the court is empowered to order the offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage arising from the offence in question. The courts have, however, held that these kinds of compensation orders are intended only for clear and simple cases, where there is an obvious direct victim and the amount of compensation can readily and easily be ascertained. Thus, for example, a builder may take a £15,000 deposit to complete building work for a home owner and fraudulently make no attempt to carry out the work. There is a clear victim and a clear loss: the home owner and the £15,000. The compensation order is well suited to handle that sort of case.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I have signed Amendments 417 and 419. The noble Lord has made a powerful, constructive and eloquent case for we should try to tackle the public interest compensation orders and deal with the gap that is left by confiscation orders, compensation orders and forfeiture, which he mentioned in his speech.

I have had an interest in this issue since the time we discussed in this Chamber the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations in 2024; I was grateful to the then Government for the way in which they responded to that. I think there is good will right across the spectrum in your Lordships’ House towards making available seized assets to those who are victims.

In a rather minor way, as long ago as 1982, I moved a Private Member’s Bill in another place called the Victims of Violent Crimes Bill. It was about using the seized assets of people who were plying drugs on the streets of Liverpool. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, who was a police officer and assistant chief constable on Merseyside during that period, will recall how often those gangs were able to play on the needs, the grief and the opportunities of selling drugs on the streets, and then to walk away with the proceeds. As a result, I will not say just of that Bill but of the climate that built up, the Government decided that they would use assets to put back into the community, as a demonstration that crime did not always pay. What the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is trying to do fits very much in that scheme of things.

The Government have taken important steps to address Russia’s war on Ukraine, including by way of imposing sanctions and freezing assets. I join the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in commending the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for all that he has done on this question.

However, despite the issue being raised several times, the Government have not yet really come up with a formula to ensure that the sanctions can be used to provide compensation to victims and survivors. During that debate back in 2024, I asked:

“In addition to the targeted approach of repurposing assets that are, after all, a product of criminal activity—namely, sanctions evasion—what is the Government’s assessment of other ways in which frozen assets could be repurposed?”.—[Official Report, 15/10/24; col. GC 24.]

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested that the Government are still giving that thought. I hope, therefore, that a Committee debate of this kind will perhaps flesh that out. I proposed at the time that the Government should review the approaches taken by the United States and Canada; I wonder if any more work has been done on that.

Recent months have not seen any progress on the issue, just as there seems to have been no progress on the Chelsea Football Club money being used to benefit victims and survivors of Russia’s war. That is an issue that I have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, on the Floor of this House and in correspondence. I wonder again if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is able to tell us any more about that.

Why do we need the proposed change that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has outlined? As it stands, UK courts’ ability to award compensation is overly narrow and does not respond adequately to more complex crimes such as sanctions offences involving large numbers of victims, who have varied connections to their offender’s conduct, but where there is a clear broader impact of the offender’s crime on victims of human rights violations in the UK or beyond.

I shall focus on the case of Russia, and then I have one other example. The Government have imposed sanctions on those most responsible for the horrific crimes that we are all well aware have been committed in Ukraine. As it stands, though, the Government retain the proceeds from those cases without ensuring that they benefit the very people most harmed by the violations, despite the fact that those assets are key to supporting Ukrainians and helping them to rebuild their lives.

The other example that I want to give is one that I referred to in the dinner break business, concerning what happened to the Yazidis at the hands of Daesh. Noble Lords might say, “What’s that got to do with this Bill?” It has everything to do with it, because sanctions were imposed on those working with Daesh—that is, ISIS, Islamic State. We do not know the exact amount of frozen or criminal assets in enforcement cases and, despite being asked about that in the other place in November last year, the Government have been unable to give any clear response.

All that has happened so far is a reference to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation annual review 2024-25. I would like to restate this question and hope to receive a clear answer today. Daesh stands accused of committing genocide against the Yazidis—a word that even the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office has been prepared to use since a finding in a case in Germany, led by Amal Clooney, resulted in a conviction of the crime of genocide. I understand that this was used to submit reports to the UN on the value of the frozen assets of Daesh. However, this was stopped at some point in 2023. Can the Minister say why the Government stopped sending such reports, and commit to ensuring transparency in future reporting?