Courts and Tribunals Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.

I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

[Warinder Juss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the restriction of jury trials in some cases is just one among a whole range of measures, and that in order to protect really vulnerable victims—for example, rape victims, who will have a jury trial—we need to make the process quicker? That necessarily means that, for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect the most vulnerable.

[Imran Hussain]

These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion.

Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that. Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today.

The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He is making important points about potential overreach of the state. Might I suggest that this is not the end for the Bill and that if there are concerns—people are rightly raising issues—we can progress them in Committee and at subsequent stages to ensure that the Bill is where it needs to be to retain public trust.

[Imran Hussain]

I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

indicated dissent.

[Imran Hussain]

Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time.

The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the hon. Member for those valid points.

The third aspect of the Hillsborough law would make new offences of wilfully failing to discharge the duty to fully assist inquiries, or intentionally or recklessly misleading the public or media. That would be an absolute game changer and would transform the country for the better.

That leads me to the current situation. In the 2024 King’s Speech, the Government pledged to bring forward legislation to enshrine a duty of candour for public servants. They called it the Hillsborough law, and it was what was promised in the manifesto that I, and many Members present, proudly stood on in the 2024 general election. We thought it was the same legislation as the Hillsborough law that was first brought to Parliament by Andy Burnham in 2017 and written by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson, two prominent lawyers who have represented Hillsborough families for decades and continue to work with the Hillsborough law campaign. The Government promised that they would ensure that public officials tell the truth and proactively co-operate with investigations. They also promised parity of legal representation for bereaved families. I, as lead for the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament, and all the campaigners connected with it over the years, were delighted by that commitment, which the Government promised to deliver by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough on 15 April this year.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who the whole House will agree is making an excellent and powerful contribution. I congratulate him on all the hard work that he has done to advance this issue. He is right to set out the essentials of any Bill, including the duty of candour, criminal responsibility, and the criminal sanctions to follow. Does he agree that any attempt to water down the Bill in any way will be rejected and be unacceptable to the House?

[Ian Byrne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point—I agree 100%.

The Government’s promise to deliver that commitment by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough was broken. Instead, they offered a watered-down version of the legislation, stripped of its moral force and legal teeth. Lawyers who drafted the original Bill refused to endorse it, negotiations stalled, and once again the families were let down. It felt a continuation of the betrayal by the state. Although the Paymaster General told me in this place in July that the Government remain “fully committed” to introducing a Hillsborough law, we still have no clarity on when or how those provisions will be enacted. There have been plenty of warm words, but warm words do not deliver justice—action does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The impact of the Crown courts backlog is being felt by domestic abuse victims and small businesses, so we have a real job to do to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why we gripped the crisis by putting in place an extra 110,000 Crown court sitting days—a record number. We understand, however, that we will need fundamental reform to address the backlog, and that is what we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the rehabilitation of people convicted of knife crime offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Halving knife crime is a moral mission for the Government. Every young person caught with a knife is referred to a youth offending team, and Turnaround is very successful in diverting youngsters on the cusp of crime away from offending. Alongside that, the Government will roll out prevention partnerships and Young Futures hubs.

[Imran Hussain]

I welcome the Minister’s answer. Knife crime ruins lives and devastates communities; rightly, those responsible must be held accountable. If we are serious about preventing reoffending, however, we also need structured, credible rehabilitation, the focus of which must be on prevention and diversionary activities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, I have seen how grassroots boxing clubs offer something different—structure, community and hope—that is of particular benefit to young people. I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how boxing can be a key part of successfully rehabilitating offenders.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). Like many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have genuinely agonised over which way to vote on this issue, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me about their own deeply personal experiences. That includes horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final days, but I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas. She said that it was a decision that she thought was absolutely right at the time, yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother with that every single day of her life, and believes that she helped contribute towards her death. Therefore, these are very complex and deeply personal issues. I also respect the more than 1,000 constituents who have contacted me about this issue over the last few weeks.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of two people who I greatly admire: Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey-Thompson. I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances, when we stood against each other in Luton South in the 2010 general election. Well, it did not end well for either of us. Tanni Grey-Thompson, of course, I got to know very well as the sports Minister. They are on different sides of this debate, but I appreciate their contributions, which show that people can productively use their profiles and personalities in order to contribute to debates. However, I am afraid, Esther Rantzen, I do love you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue.

I know that every MP wants to do the right thing on this issue today. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to make the right decision, and this is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions that we know could ease suffering or could cost or save lives. This is one such decision—this is one such vote. If I am making such a choice—making a decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life—I want to be absolutely confident that I am doing so for the right reasons and that the risks and unintended consequences are minimised, and I am afraid that this Bill does not meet that high confidence bar.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will not, out of respect for everybody else who wishes to speak.

At some point in the future, a Bill with different words, stronger safeguards and a more robust impact assessment, perhaps brought forward through a different parliamentary route, might pass that confidence test. This Bill does not. But it may well pass, and I have joined others in arguing and voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders or mental health problems, those who may feel that they are a burden and, of course, the vulnerable, who are exposed to the risk of coercion. I believe that some improvements have been made to the Bill, but not enough. I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the originally intended scope.

Finally, I must mention one area of disappointment, in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate, and that is about the tone of some of the discussions and the somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs, as though such beliefs are not valid in this debate. They absolutely are. Those who express a belief in God and the sanctity of life should be respected, not sneered at. It is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one’s views on assisted dying. Otherwise, this debate has been largely respectful and has indeed shown the House at its best. Again, I would like to thank all my constituents who have contacted me. While I know that some will disagree with the decision and the vote I will cast today, I hope they recognise that I have tried to exercise my judgment carefully and in good faith, as indeed has every colleague in this House.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to underline the importance of equality before the law. He gives me the opportunity to give a plug to the independent review of sentencing being conducted by David Gauke with an independent panel, which will address the issues that he has raised.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a two-tier justice system, it is not the one claimed by the Conservatives, but it is certainly one that was created by them—one where victims of crime are let down by delays, where working-class communities see justice delayed and denied, and where the reality remains that black and ethnic minority defendants are disproportionately sentenced? Does he agree that instead of playing political games with sentencing, we should focus on delivering real justice, ensuring that every decision made in our courts is based on evidence, not culture wars or headlines in right-wing rags?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to contrast the approach of the soundbites from the shadow Justice Secretary with the Justice Secretary’s approach of rolling up her sleeves and getting on with the job of sorting out the mess left in our prisons, Probation Service and courts.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

There needs to be a debate around palliative care. My concern is that we have not had any firm commitments from Government, other than woolly words, about how they are actually going to tackle the issue, and that a royal commission will push it into the long grass.

I say to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is in his place, that the gauntlet has been thrown down. If he wants someone like me to not vote for the Bill moving forward, he needs to do two things: he needs to put firm commitments on palliative care on the table and resolve them within the next one or two years, and then, afterwards, commit to bringing back a Bill like this one in Government time. Without those firm commitments, I will continue to make the case for wanting to see progress.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady and I come to this subject from different places, as I will be voting against the Bill. I agree with her and all the hon. Members who have spoken about the need to massively improve palliative care, but she says we can address some of those concerns at a later stage. How does one address coercion and guilt through legislation?

[Layla Moran]

These are conversations that I want to keep happening, but I say to those who are making the argument about the process and asking how we can make that better, what does a Bill that addresses assisted dying that they might vote for look like? If the answer is that there is none, let us be honest about that.

I want to end by giving a tiny amount of my time to someone who is in the Gallery today. Tracey, I cannot see you right now, but thank you for coming. I said to Tracey, my constituent, when we met that I would allow some of her words to be spoken today. Tracey was 58 when she was diagnosed with incurable stage 4 breast cancer, which spread to become a brain tumour in 2023. It was successfully removed, but Tracey lives every day knowing that her cancer is likely to return. These are the words Tracey wants us to hear:

“Despite this prognosis I can honestly say that I am a happy person now. I feel lucky to have made it to 60. There is just one black cloud on the horizon for me, and it is the way that I will die. I am terrified that I will suffer a long, painful death. If I knew I had the choice to have a good death, these worries would disappear. Please change the law so I can live what life I have left, safe in the knowledge that I have a choice about how and when I die. If you do this, I will be able to live even more happily today knowing that I do not need to worry about the prospect of a cruel and painful death.”

I will end by saying that there are sincerely held views being heard today. Let this be this Parliament that ensures, regardless of how we vote today, that we give people a good death.