Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 July be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Considered in Grand Committee on 17 September.

Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Relevant documents: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, miscarriages of justice have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. It is no exaggeration to say that such people are in fact victims of the state, so it is right that the state should support those people in rebuilding their lives.

Although miscarriages of justices are, thankfully, rare, they do occur. When they do, it is vital that the criminal justice system learns lessons in order to minimise the risk of them happening again and that we support those people whose lives have been affected. Justice for the wrongly convicted is vital to the Government’s ambition to restore confidence in the criminal justice system as part of their Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government.

With the introduction of this instrument, we are taking action to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice will continue to be appropriately compensated, while keeping in mind the wider financial context. There are two compensation schemes: one relates to convictions in the civilian justice system, while the other relates to convictions by a court martial. Both have caps on the maximum compensation that can be paid for a miscarriage of justice. They have not been changed since their introduction in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

The purpose of this instrument is to increase the maximum amount under both schemes by 30%. This means that where an individual has spent at least 10 years in prison, the maximum amount that they can receive will increase from £1 million to £1.3 million. In all other cases, the maximum amount will increase from £500,000 to £650,000. The Government consider this a substantial increase. Of course, these compensation schemes are just one route by which an individual can receive compensation for a wrongful conviction; for example, applicants can also seek further compensation by bringing civil claims against public bodies if they have been at fault in such a way that it has caused the miscarriage of justice.

I am now going to deal with each scheme in a little more detail. For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice in the civilian criminal justice system, the payment of compensation is governed by Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Applications for compensation under this scheme are determined and the compensation will be paid by the responsible devolved Government.

In practice, this means that the Secretary of State for Justice is responsible for cases in England and Wales, Scottish Ministers are responsible for cases in Scotland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is responsible for cases in Northern Ireland. This reflects the position that miscarriages of justice compensation are a transferred matter. There is a small number of cases in Northern Ireland involving sensitive national security information for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility.

For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice following conviction by a court martial, Section 276 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that applications are determined by, and that the compensation will be paid by, the Secretary of State for Defence. To be clear, compensation payable under this scheme is also subject to the caps.

The proposed instrument will increase the caps that apply to compensation payable by the Secretary of State—that is, eligible England and Wales cases, eligible Northern Ireland national security cases and eligible cases under the Armed Forces Act scheme. It will have no effect on the caps that apply to compensation payable by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice as it has a separate power to amend its caps.

The Government are aware that there are some aspects of the entire compensation scheme that remain controversial. However, the Law Commission is consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals, including compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to receiving its final report and remain committed to ensuring that any changes we make will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. We are laying the instrument now as part of our mission to improve the Government’s response to miscarriages of justice. We believe that it is crucial to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice continue to be appropriately compensated, while being mindful of the Government’s wider financial context. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on her first appearance. I welcome the fact that such an experienced lawyer now holds this position.

I turn now to the substance of the debate; the Minister has explained everything in such lucid detail that I can go straight to the two points that I want to raise, without going into the background. The limit was fixed in 2008 and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, observed, the limit is being raised by only 30% whereas, unfortunately, inflation has been very much higher. We have the privilege of having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here in the Room, and he will no doubt be very pleased to see that the Ministry of Justice is taking such good care of the scarce resources of the country.

When the previous Labour Administration were in power in 2008, they thought that the limits set out then were fair and reasonable and reflected the public position at the time. Is there a reason why we cannot have the same position today and therefore raise the amounts? As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told, there has never been a payment of the maximum amount, and only very few payments of the lesser amount. Is there therefore a real difficulty in being parsimonious—which is no doubt appreciated by His Majesty’s Treasury—in relation to these amounts? Could this be looked at again?

That takes me to my second question. The Ministry of Justice is in the unfortunate position of having a number of instruments and other pieces of legislation where limits are set, and it is very important that these are kept under regular review. There have been occasions when the ministry has failed to do so. Does the ministry now have a proper schedule for reviewing this and making certain that we do not have a very long period of time, such as that which has elapsed since 2008, before this kind of limit is reviewed? It may be that the Minister will want to take some time to investigate this, but I hope that there is a system in place for such limits to be looked at.

Those are my two observations. I again express what a great pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place and dealing with such an important subject.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I take the opportunity that today offers to raise the issue of the test that applicants must pass to qualify for compensation at all. As the Minister said, they are, after all, victims of the state. It is not enough that their conviction has been quashed, particularly when they have spent many years in prison, with the loss of their liberty, their family and their reputation—everything. Yet, having had their convictions quashed on the grounds of a miscarriage at the trial itself, they are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were innocent. But if the original trial had been fair, it goes without saying that they would have been acquitted and not imprisoned, because the Crown would have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty. So, at present, someone who should not have been in prison at all has then to prove that they are innocent by applying a test and standard that is the opposite to that which would have applied if the trial had not been a miscarriage. I invite the Minister to say something about what the Government will do to remedy this lamentable state of affairs.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I shall start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The last time that I was answering questions from the noble and learned Lord, I was in the Court of Appeal and he was the Lord Chief Justice, and I have to say that I rather quake at the sound of his voice. I am very grateful to him and I appreciate the importance of the points that he makes.

As to whether there is a proper schedule relating to reviews of this, I am afraid I am going to repeat what I said in my opening remarks about the fact that the Law Commission is looking at this and it would be unwise of the Government to commit themselves to anything, or indeed to start considering it, until they have seen what kind of a package the Law Commission suggests. If noble Lords will forgive me, that is going to be my answer at this stage.

On why a decision was not made to increase the amount by the rate of inflation, I shall deal with that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in a moment. I am afraid I am going to disappoint him in relation to his first point about the test, as it were, the gateway for eligibility, and say to him again that the Law Commission is looking at it, and I am not going to pre-empt what it is going to say. We are very much looking forward to its report. It has asked for views on compensation for those who have had their convictions quashed. It will be interesting to see what it says. Its initial findings are due in 2026.

On the point about inflation made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I have known each other for a very long time and therefore I am going to make this point in as gentle a way as I can. He made the point that for 17 years, there has been no increase in payments for miscarriages of justice. I think he knows what I am going to say. For 14 of those years, the party opposite was in power, and it did not raise them by any per cent, far less the rate of inflation. We have done so, and we say that it is a substantial increase.

It says in my brief to make the point that we inherited a broken criminal justice system, but because of my great respect for the noble Lord, I am going to put it this way: it is a system that is under great stress. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. The fact is that this Government have to consider our obligation to limit the financial exposure that we take on, certainly before the Law Commission reports. This instrument is an important part of Government’s work to ensure that people are appropriately compensated following a miscarriage of justice, and I commend it to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for the warmth of the welcome I have received this afternoon. Today is literally my second day in the job and therefore I hope that I will be able to do justice to the wide-ranging points that have been made in this extremely important debate.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morris for her opening remarks and for securing this important debate on interpreting services in our courts. I also thank the committee for its report and the invaluable feedback it has provided to the Government and the Ministry of Justice from the interpreters and other stakeholders who spoke to it.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Morris, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have rightly reminded us of the vital importance of interpreters in courts across the board—not just the criminal courts but others, for example tribunals—in ensuring that justice is accessible to all. It is a fundamental tenet of our system that everyone is equal before the law. We are a multicultural society with many people within it, and everybody should be treated in exactly the same way.

So I can assure noble Lords that we are not complacent. We do not take this for granted, which is why the Government are continually working to improve the quality, consistency and accessibility of these services; we will continue to do so while ensuring a smooth transition to the new contracts, which are scheduled to start in October 2026.

Let me turn to the committee’s concerns about the provision of the service. Many noble Lords have spoken on some or all of these issues. I hope to be forgiven if I am not able to reflect every single point that has been made by your Lordships, as that may not be possible in the time given to me today, but this is not intended as a mark of disrespect.

I shall start with the availability of interpreters. The committee rightly raised concerns about reported issues with the service, such as a lack of available interpreters and the risks that this poses to the administration and efficiency of the justice system. I am not going to minimise the day-to-day pressures, particularly in rarer languages; as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, pointed out, I have been practising in the criminal courts for a very long time, and my experience reflects some of the frustrations expressed to the committee on occasion. However, I hope to reassure noble Lords on the overall position.

In 2024, only 0.7% of criminal trials were ineffective due to the absence of an interpreter. That is a very small number, but I do not wish to underplay the effect on a trial of a delay or of it being ineffective. Nevertheless, that was out of 115,000 listed trials and in the context of more than 200,000 booking requests. The on-contract fulfilment rate is currently 97%, with the use of off-contract interpreters closing the gap to 99.3%. The revised primary and secondary supplier structure, which will be introduced as part of the new contracts, will help to reduce off-contract usage. We continue to work with providers to recruit interpreters, particularly in priority and rarer languages.

I move next to the data on interpreting; this was raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst. The committee expressed concerns about the quality of data reports on our interpreting services. We already publish extensive data through the criminal court statistics and the Cabinet Office’s key performance indicators; nevertheless, we accept that users should not have to piece together multiple sources in order to understand what the data shows.

My noble friend Lady Morris said that the data cannot be relied on; the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made a similar point. We are going to include additional guidance in the quarterly statistics, including explanations and signposting to all key data, so that the full picture of performance is accessible in one place. We will also explore the further publication of quality assurance and complaints material after the new contracts are implemented, engaging suppliers and the judiciary on what is proportionate and meaningful.

I make this point: the supplier surveys interpreters regularly. For example, in May 2024, there were 403 responses that had a satisfaction rating of 3.5 out of 5. Of course, that is different from simply anecdotal evidence; it provides data with which to back up conclusions.

I turn to the third area: quality assurance and governance, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shipley and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I make the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have had extremely distinguished legal careers and bring knowledge of the area about which I am not so knowledgeable—the criminal and commercial world—to what is, I hope, my useful experience of the criminal courts.

Our existing quality assurance operation samples interpreter bookings across the Ministry of Justice estate. We are strengthening these arrangements under the new contracts to introduce a more risk-based approach, which will allow for better oversight of the service and ensure that quality assurance is robust and responsive.

The committee recommended that the Government should clearly state the requirements for when and how the Ministry of Justice informs relevant parties of problems with interpreting that might have an impact on the outcome of the case. We collect data about quality failures, but we do not publish them because they are sensitive. While we understand the intent behind this recommendation, the Government must respectfully disagree. As with any matter before the courts, the responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of justice lies with the judiciary. When a quality issue is detected, the ministry informs the court and provides necessary information. Concerns can be and are raised by other parties in attendance, and then it is for the judge to determine the appropriate course of action.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed, as of July 2024, that there were no miscarriages of justice attributed to failures in interpretation, and we have not heard of any since. We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring the highest standards of interpreting in our courts, and we are proud to lead the public sector in quality assurance for language services.

On stakeholder engagement, the committee reported that interpreters and legal professionals do not feel engaged with or represented in discussions with the Government regarding interpreting in the courts. I reassure the committee that we engage with the representative bodies of interpreters through multiple channels, including the language services external stakeholder forum, and we are going to deepen that engagement through targeted outreach to improve awareness of the complaints routes and to gather feedback, which we will act on and report back.

Complaints and feedback were particularly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The committee is concerned that the current complaints data underrepresents the true scale of problems experienced in our courts. We agree with the committee that further engagement is necessary in this area. While legal professionals are clearly aware of the general HMCTS complaints process, we recognise that more can be done to clarify and promote the interpreter-specific complaints pathway. That will form part of what I just referred to as targeted engagement with stakeholders and suppliers to ensure that legal professionals and service users understand how to raise concerns effectively. There will be further improvements in this through the new contracts, including risk-based targeted assessments where the risk is highest and auditing providers’ complaints handling so that concerns are escalated and addressed consistently.

While it is right that complaints can currently be submitted only in English and Welsh, and online translation tools are available, we recognise the need for proactive support. As such, we are in early discussions with our suppliers to explore how complaints can be flagged in the user’s native language and will update the committee on progress as we move further along the procurement process. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all court users, regardless of language or background, can raise concerns and therefore can have confidence in our interpreting services.

Remote interpreting infrastructure was raised by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles and other noble Lords. The committee highlighted the challenges interpreters face when working remotely, particularly due to the limitations in court infrastructure. Many courts and tribunals have means to support remote hearings, including interpretation, and there is dedicated audiovisual equipment that is available in the right situation. I am not going to pretend that all these things always work well, and some of the technology, certainly in some of the courts in which I have appeared and sat in trials, is clunky—if I can use that word. It works, but sometimes perhaps not as smoothly as it might do. Again, that is being worked on.

As an ex-judge, I cannot accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that this decision should be made by the ministry rather than judges. There are some situations in which—I have personal experience of this—allowing remote interpretation literally doubles the length of the hearing. That is not true of all of them, but that is an assessment that only a judge can make on a case-by-case basis.

Many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Mott and Lord Willis of Knaresborough, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—referred to artificial intelligence and innovation. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her great expertise in the field of linguistics. I assure all noble Lords that the Ministry does not dismiss the potential of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it can bring. It is taking a proactive approach to exploring AI’s role in interpreting services, in line with the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. Our new contracts require suppliers to engage with us on developing AI capabilities, to ensure that we remain at the forefront of innovation.

Earlier this year, we ran a proof of concept in eight prisons, providing interpretation and line-by-line transcripts in around 100 languages. The pilot concluded in August and evaluation is under way, with independent academic research from Lancaster University complementing the pilot’s efforts. There was also a 15-month proof of concept at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in November 2021 which tested speech-to-text services for extradition case judgments. The accuracy was 94%, which was considered too low for extended testing.

However, it is right that 2022 discovery work on AI for language services found that uncontrolled use in courts could harm justice outcomes. Therefore, responsible use—looking at the risks as well as the great promise of AI—is at the centre of the Ministry’s approach. Extensive work on AI integration has already begun across the whole of the MoJ, and we will identify whether there are possibilities for this area and update the committee on that.

I turn to the committee’s specific concerns about interpreters. Many noble Lords raised interpreter remuneration. While we respect the sentiment behind the committee’s concerns about the level of remuneration and the calls for minimum pay rates, we do not agree that mandating pay levels is the right approach. We believe that suppliers are best placed to set rates that attract skilled professionals, while we—as the commissioning body—must ensure that these rates are fair and deliver value for money for the public. From June 2023, £2 per hour was added for face-to-face work, and from October 2024 all HMCTS face-to-face bookings have a minimum of two hours—that does not mean you get paid for two hours however long it lasts; you get paid for a minimum of two hours, but if it lasts longer than that, you get paid more.

I turn to extra uplift supply for harder-to-fill assignments. The supplier publishes a rate card—that is the floor—and dynamic pricing increases only pay, not profit. Supplier profit is commercially confidential, so it is not published, but the Ministry does monitor it. What matters most is that the terms we offer, such as a minimum booking duration of two hours, make interpreting assignments more viable and attractive. Our market engagement shows that the rates remain competitive in the public sector. I am pleased to report that the increase in the minimum face-to-face booking duration to two hours, which was introduced in October 2024, has led to improved contract fulfilment rates and a reduction in off-contract requests.

My noble friend Lady Morris raised issues around the rate of pay for cancellation. Again, this is being looked at in relation to the new contracts, and it will be more generous to the interpreters than it has been hitherto. The new contracts will improve their positions.

Qualifications were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Willis of Knaresborough. The majority of our bookings require level 6 interpreters. However, it is right to say that the justice system requires interpreting across a wide range of languages and assignment types, and our qualification framework reflects that diversity. I can confirm that the recommendations from Ann Carlisle’s independent review have been fully accepted and incorporated into the new contract’s specifications and qualifications framework. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said that there is no insistence on level 3 as the minimum level, but I do not think he is right; I think that there is now an insistence on that as a minimum level.

Our position is that a blanket requirement for all interpreters to hold the level 6 qualification for all assignment types simply does not match the Ministry of Justice’s diverse needs. It is unnecessary and impractical. For example, an awful lot of hearings across the justice system are simply setting dates. For that, we need to have the flexibility that a range can give, but the majority of hearings will always be at level 6.

The committee has recommended a single independent register for the justice system. We respect the intent but do not believe that it is either necessary or proportionate. Our register meets the diverse needs of the requirements. The Ministry of Justice register is free. It has clear entry rules and allows removal for poor performance. We are going to strengthen oversight of it through existing mechanisms rather than create a costly new body. Interpreters who do not meet our quality requirements, as I say, can be removed. The NRPSI does not offer us the level of assurance and control that we need.

Interpreter treatment and well-being was spoken to by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Willis of Knaresborough. The committee rightly highlighted the concerns about how interpreters are sometimes perceived and supported in the courtroom. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that, in many ways, the interpreter is the most important person in a courtroom when languages are in play. I want to be clear about this. We agree that interpreters are critical to the proper functioning of our courts and therefore their well-being is a matter that we take seriously. My noble friend Lady Morris spoke eloquently about some of the witnesses, how they did not feel valued or an important part of the system. That must stop; that clearly cannot be right.

That is why we are introducing improved welfare provisions in the new contracts. These include strengthened support and safeguarding guidance for those working on sensitive cases. We want to enhance the professional framework and we want clearer pathways for interpreters to opt out of assignments that may be distressing for them. Juries are frequently told in advance in criminal cases these days that there is a difficult and sensitive case, so that if they really feel that this is something they cannot do for whatever reason, they can let us know. It can only be right that interpreters also have that level of information so that they can make that decision. We are refreshing and recirculating guidance to our stakeholders, including court, tribunal and security staff, so that we can reinforce our expectations about the way in which interpreters will be treated.

Day passes are a nice idea, but they are not really a thing in most courts at the moment. There are issues, particularly in some older parts of the court estate, about how we deal with all kinds of different groups of stakeholders coming into and going out of the court estate, but with good will and an enhanced reminder of the respect that is due to this cohort, I hope that things will greatly improve.

We are also going to explore what case information can be shared with interpreters in advance of their assignments, subject to court or tribunal permissions, so they have a chance to prepare in advance. It is common, certainly in the courts that I have been in recently, for somebody to make a copy of any transcripts that are being used so that they can be provided to the interpreters to help them as they go along. There may be other ways of doing that. To respond to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that is sometimes a good reason for having a transcript—so that you can give it to the interpreter.

In conclusion, we value the committee’s scrutiny and the contributions of the interpreters and stakeholders who support access to justice every day. The principle is clear: language must never be a barrier to justice. We are proud of the progress we have already made but we are determined to deliver further practical improvements through the new contracts. This includes clearer data, higher standards, stronger assurance and a service that treats the interpreters and those who rely on them with the respect they deserve. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I look forward to working with the committee as we implement these changes.

Uncollected Financial Penalties

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Levitt]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with uncollected financial penalties such as fines, costs and confiscation orders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is essential that financial penalties are collected and enforced. His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service uses robust methods to do so, including taking money from an offender’s benefits or salary and seizing and selling goods. Offenders can be sent to prison for non-payment to the court. In 2023-24, HMCTS collected over £671 million in financial penalties. The Government are investing in the replacement of outdated IT systems and are also planning legislative changes which will reform the confiscation order regime.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but in March 2024 there were £4.4 billion-worth of unpaid criminal court fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges, et cetera. Does the Minister agree that steps should be taken urgently to deal with this unacceptable situation, which is grossly unfair on those who pay up and feeds scepticism in the judiciary and society at large about the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that supplementary question. Of the £4.4 billion that she referred to, £2.7 billion is from confiscation orders. Of the £2.7 billion, £1.2 billion is purely interest—interest is paid at 8% on the confiscation order amount. There are legislative changes in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place, but I think it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that, in existing legislation, there are only very limited circumstances where a Crown Court can judicially cancel an order, and it contains no powers to administratively cancel a confiscation order. That means that the confiscation order amount accrues over the years, including the interest. With respect to financial penalties, by which I mean fines, the picture is very different. Over a five-year period, 80% of all fines are collected, and that figure has remained flat over the last few years. While I accept that the overall number is increasing, that gives an unfair picture of the current situation, and the Government are addressing the reasons why that is an unfair reflection of the position.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, this disagreement is deeply disappointing. It does not come close to a constitutional crisis, because the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor are seeking to achieve the same thing. Is the Minister aware that elsewhere in the sentencing guidelines there is wording that reminds judges that there is, in fact, evidence that more black, Asian and other ethnicity offenders receive an immediate custodial sentence than white offenders? Does he agree that if the Sentencing Council would back down and change the wording of the offending part, there would be no need for this legislation?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. There is no doubt that more must be done to address inequality in the justice system, and the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a full review of the sentencing disparity and its causes. We are clear, though, that this is a matter of policy, which is why we are legislating on this. I am glad that the Sentencing Council has decided to delay the guidelines until this legislation has passed.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow the maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Longfield. She is a legend. She has spent decades tirelessly campaigning to improve the experience of children. In her powerful and moving speech she demonstrated her continued determination to fight for the rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Her persuasive expertise will make her a valued Member of your Lordships’ House and I very much look forward to working with her in the future.

Other noble Lords have and will express concern at the effects of the backlog on victims and defendants. What is less well known is that there is a looming recruitment and retention crisis in the judiciary because, as your Lordships have heard, the caseload of Crown Court judges is unsustainable. The recent Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted by Professor Cheryl Thomas, found very high levels of stress and disillusionment in judges, with 35% of them planning to take early retirement. When you add this to those who will retire by virtue of age, 42% of Crown Court judges will be gone by 2029. Of the part-time judges, from whom new judges are appointed, only 22% are planning to apply for a full-time role.

There are things that can be done, and some of them do not need to cost much money. It just requires the system to think about things differently. It has been a tenet of faith over many years that what is needed is judicial case management. Untold hours have been spent by senior judges and others devising Criminal Procedure Rules which set out timetables. But I hate to have to break it to them that they have been wasting much of their time. Most of the parties to a criminal trial have barely heard of the rules, far less read them. The reason: in the Crown Court there are no sticks and precious few carrots. You cannot make the parties comply and there is no incentive for them to do so, because they are paid the same whether they do or do not.

The result is a large number of pointless hearings in court, achieving little other than both increased blood pressure and an increased backlog. I do not have to imagine these problems because, until just before Christmas, I was one of those judges. I used to think constantly, “I’ve got 35 years’ experience as a criminal barrister, 12 of which were as a KC. I never thought that I would sit in hearing after hearing, day after day, saying to counsel, ‘So, you’ve done none of the things you were ordered to do. Okay, let’s set a new timetable, which you and I both know you are not going to comply with either’”.

Crown Court judges are a precious resource. Many of them came to it because they regard it as public service. Yet they cannot get on with the things they ought to be doing, because they are—to be frank—spending a large proportion of their working lives messing around, setting timetables.

I too have reservations about an intermediate court with no jury. My concerns include the impact on diversity and thus on public confidence. Most juries are economically and socially diverse, the judiciary less so. So, my proposal is not an intermediate court but an intermediate judge: the criminal master, who could, for example, be a district judge interested in promotion to the Crown Court. The master could hear all the small routine applications, leaving the judges free to do what they ought to be doing: presiding over jury trials and passing sentence.