Statement on the Courts and Tribunals Bill

SafeLives welcomes the government’s commitment to improving the functioning of the justice system and addressing the significant court backlog. Survivors of domestic abuse often face long delays before their cases reach trial, which can prolong trauma and undermine confidence in the justice process. Any reforms must prioritise both timely justice and the safety and trust of survivors. 

Repeal of the presumption of parental involvement

For many years, the presumption of parental involvement has influenced family court decisions in ways that perpetrators could exploit, with contact too often prioritised even when unsafe. We welcomed this monumental change in October 2025 and we are glad to see this commitment carried through. 

Removing this presumption places children’s safety and wellbeing at the centre of decision-making. It ensures that the starting point for the courts is not automatic contact, but what is safest and in the best interests of the child.  

We now want to see a commitment to culture change across the family justice system. Values, beliefs and behaviours need to shift so safety is never compromised for contact. To achieve this, professionals must be equipped with mandatory, trauma-informed domestic abuse training co created with survivors, and clear guidance that looks for reasons a child may not be safe to have contact with a parent.  

Restricting the use of victims’ previous experiences of rape and sexual violence against them in court

We also welcome the strengthened restrictions on introducing evidence or questioning about a victim’s sexual history. This will help prevent harmful myths and misconceptions from influencing the trial process and reduce opportunities for irrelevant and distressing questioning. Too often, victims’ previous disclosures of sexual violence have been used to undermine their credibility rather than focus on the evidence of the case. 

Concerns about proposals for judge-only trials

We have concerns about proposals to remove or restrict jury trials in certain cases and replace them with judge-only trials. While these proposals have been suggested as a way to reduce delays and mitigate the trauma experienced by survivors in court, we have doubts that removing jury trials is the right solution. 

Judge-only trials will concentrate decision-making power to a single individual and could increase the potential for bias. For survivors – particularly those from marginalised communities who already experience additional barriers to justice – this could further erode trust and confidence in the court system. A move away from jury trials may also have unintended consequences for reporting. If survivors feel the process is unfair and unrepresentative, they may be less likely to trust the system and therefore come forward and disclose abuse in the first place. 

Rather than removing jury trials, the government should focus on properly resourcing the justice system to address the court backlog. Investment in court capacity, staffing, and specialist support for victims and witnesses is essential to ensure cases are heard in a timely manner without compromising fairness or public confidence. 

Strengthening special measures for vulnerable witnesses

Finally, we strongly support the strengthened provisions ensuring vulnerable witnesses are offered special measures such as allowing them to give evidence behind screens so they cannot see the defendant, to be accompanied by a supporter for reassurance, or to have intimidating individuals removed from the courtroom can significantly improve survivors’ ability to provide clear and accurate testimony. Extending special measures to cover victim personal statements and similar material is also a positive step that recognises the ongoing vulnerability many survivors face throughout the justice process. 

Whilst we welcome a number of these reforms aimed at improving the treatment of victim-survivors, we urge the government to reconsider proposals to restrict jury trials. Addressing the court backlog should not come at the expense of fairness, trust, or survivor confidence. The priority must instead be sustained investment in a properly resourced justice system that delivers timely, safe, and effective justice for all.