Victims Commissioner Complains About Distressed Questioning of Sexual Violence Victims

The questioning came in a highly charged evidence session carried out by the public bill committee for the courts and tribunals bill **** about controversial changes to jury trials. Photograph: Chunyip Wong/Getty Images

The questioning came in a highly charged evidence session carried out by the public bill committee for the courts and tribunals bill **** about controversial changes to jury trials. Photograph: Chunyip Wong/Getty Images

Violence against women and girls

Victims of sexual violence distressed by MPs’ ‘pugnacious’ questioning

Exclusive: Victims’ commissioner makes formal complaint after committee session left one attender ‘shocked, upset and extremely distressed’

Alexandra Topping Political correspondent

Tue 21 Apr 2026 15.08 EDT

First published on Tue 21 Apr 2026 12.53 EDT

Share Prefer the Guardian on Google

Victims of rape and sexual violence have told parliamentarians they felt anxious and distressed during a Westminster evidence session, with one stating that witnessing “pugnacious” questioning had resulted in her “breaking down, sobbing and struggling to breathe”.

The victims’ commissioner has made a formal complaint to the chair of an influential group of MPs after a highly charged evidence session carried out by the public bill committee for the courts and tribunals bill **** about controversial changes to jury trials.

Claire Waxman told MPs she could not “in good conscience, encourage victim-survivors to participate in evidence sessions conducted in a manner that may expose them to retraumatisation or emotional harm”. The letter, sent by the victims’ commissioner office chief executive, Susannah Hancock, said that the committee chair, John Hayes, failed to “prevent the tone from escalating” with exchanges becoming “unnecessarily adversarial”.

Other victims’ organisations, including Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid, have also raised concerns after an evidence hearing that included robust questioning and some terse exchanges.

One victim told MPs that she had felt “shocked, upset and extremely distressed” at some of the questioning she heard. Morwenna Loughman wrote in comments published alongside the letter that she felt it had “crossed the line into disrespect and pugnaciousness”.

She added: “As a victim-survivor I immediately felt threatened and attacked, thrust back into fight or flight.” Loughman said the questioning had “played a large part” in her having an emotional breakdown and she was “sobbing and struggling to breathe after questioning”.

Another survivor, Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, said the session had been “difficult to watch” and that the line between scrutiny and cross-examination had, at times, been crossed. A third, Charlotte Meijer, said that the way Waxman had been questioned made her feel “like I was back in court” and said she was anxious the same would happen to her in her later evidence session.

At one point during the evidence, the shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan questioned Waxman about a letter in which 30 organisations representing victims of violence against women and girls (VAWG) urged the justice secretary, David Lammy, to drop plans to significantly reduce the number of jury trials.

Mullan asked the commissioner if she accepted the letter referenced the impact of the limiting of jury trials on victims. Waxman replied that it focused on victims who were also defendants and said he should read the whole letter. Mullan said: “I have read it, and I have just read you a quote. If you do not want to take a common quote at its face value, that is fine.” Waxman responded: “Can I just remind you that we have victims in the room, and I think that is really important?”

Committee chairs took the unusual decision to escalate the letter to the deputy speaker Nusrat Ghani, the Guardian understands. Responding the letter, Ghani, who oversees the chairs of public bill committees, said it was important that MPs had “freedom to question robustly during parliamentary proceedings, particularly when holding public officials to account”. The committee chairs and members had “adopted an appropriate tone for questioning those witnesses and recognised their courage, both in comments on the record and in speaking to them afterwards”, she said.

Mullan said Waxman had sought to “to play down the voice of victims that didn’t agree” with her, adding: “That was disgraceful and I have no regrets for ensuring the House was not misled by a witness. Especially a witness paid a lot of money by the taxpayer to give a voice to all victims.”

He added that he was “of course very sad that our exchanges upset victims who happened to be in the room”, and said he “cared a great deal” about victims. “But as MPs, it is our job to get to the truth of a matter – without fear or favour,” he said.

Rape Crisis also wrote to the chair of the public bill committee. The charity said the “adversarial” tone, repeated interruptions and pressure for narrow answers, “risked replicating some of the very dynamics survivors of rape and sexual abuse” found distressing.

Farah Nazeer, the chief executive of Women’s Aid, said the session had left her “disappointed and angry on behalf of the survivors”, adding that while robust questioning was “absolutely essential” she felt “the questioning felt closer to cross-examination” and victims had not been treated with enough care.

Waxman said parliament had to be “a safe and supportive place” for victims and she had requested a meeting with the deputy speaker. “Having followed parliament’s own processes and seen the concerns raised dismissed, I believe more needs to be done to ensure victims are properly supported, heard and valued,” she said.

Explore more on these topics
- Violence against women and girls
- Rape and sexual assault
- House of Commons
- news

Share Reuse this content

Most viewed

Most viewed

9. 10.