Why is it so difficult for victims of serious crimes to gain free access to court transcripts detailing their own cases? - Jayne Dowle

Despite a campaign coordinated by Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney, and backed by 31 MPs including Tory backbencher Sir Peter Bottomley and Labour MPs Jess Phillips, Harriet Harman, Stella Creasy and John McDonnell, to remove this ‘barrier to justice’ and enable all victims to request a transcript of sentencing remarks and a judge’s summing up free of charge, there’s yet another legal roadblock.

When the campaign’s potential amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill - proposing that a person who was a victim of a crime, and where that crime is tried in a court where the hearing is recorded - should be entitled to a free transcript, went to the House of Lords on April 24, 187 Tory peers blocked the proposal.

There were a total of 211 votes against the amendment, compared with 82 in favour. Labour peers abstained. We can only ask, why?

I am yet to hear anyone justify why free and open access to court reports is such a bad idea. What does the system have to hide, and who benefits from such secrecy?

Juliana Terlizzi, a victim of rape who has waived her right to anonymity, told reporters that she was quoted £7,500 for a transcript from a 10-day crown court trial that resulted in the man who attacked and drugged her being jailed for 15 years.

A mother from Gloucestershire, quoted £22,000 for a transcript of the rape trial involving her daughter, told the BBC she was ‘shocked’ at the cost; they sought access to the transcription after being advised against attending court.

With distressing cases, especially if the defendant has displayed violent and intimidating behaviour, those affected may choose not to go to court. Arrangements can be made for evidence statements and cross-examination to be carried out remotely, but everything else can happen, it would seem, de facto in camera.

The defendant in the Gloucestershire case was found not guilty. The family wanted to know what was said in court. A reasonable request, you might think?

"She can't function now, she's in such a state,” said the mother, referring to her daughter. “I decided to find out about how much it'd cost to get the court transcript and the quote was £22,000.” Assuming a transcript would be free, and said she was “shocked and horrified" at the figure.

If the words ‘court transcript’ sound like remote legal jargon, consider yourself lucky that you’ve never been a victim of a crime so serious it has gone before a judge.

If you are fortunate enough to have got this far without having to deal with criminal proceedings, well, you never know when a life-changing event could occur that pitches you – or a family member or friend – into a frightening legal maelstrom.

Should the worst happen, the message is, be prepared for a fight, and find some deep pockets. Unless of course, your loved one was a murder victim.

Asked about the issue at PMQs the week before the Lords’ damning vote, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak glibly responded that there was already a “free service” for the families of homicide victims, and that the government was “actively looking” at options to “immediately reduce the costs”.

Terlizzi called this a “slap in the face”, and said Sunak’s comments were “empty words”. In February, victims of rape and serious sexual assault cases in Scotland became the first in the UK to have free access to court transcripts under a year-long pilot scheme.

But in England and Wales, those affected by crimes still face such ruinously steep fees if they want to obtain written records from cases that may have ruined their lives.

Also, the power to grant court records rests with a judge; not only are victims faced with a bill, they may even be refused the request, if the court matters are deemed ‘confidential’ for some reason.

Their family members, or witnesses to the crime, might find that they aren’t even allowed to see court records at all, should the judge deem it so.

Whatever the verdict reached, innocent people are suffering, unable to rebuild on solid ground, forced to move on without the validation that official words can bring.