Advanced

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Automated Enforcement Technology: Evidence - 17 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Debate Detail

Contributions from Sarah Sackman, are highlighted with a yellow border.
Lab
Peter Lamb
Crawley
9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of allowing greater use of evidence from automated enforcement technology in trials.
Sarah Sackman
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services
It is the prosecution and the defence who decide what evidence to put forward in a criminal trial, including deciding whether to put forward evidence from automated enforcement technology. Once that evidence has been put forward, the magistrates and the judge have a duty to ensure that only admissible evidence is presented to a jury.
Peter Lamb
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?
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.
Mr Speaker
I call the Father of the House.
Con
Sir Edward Leigh
Gainsborough
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?
Sarah Sackman
Might I echo—
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member’s supplementary is relevant to the main question. [Interruption.] No, I think it is not.

Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.