Courts and Tribunals Bill

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

Not yet.

We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government.

It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues.

The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done.

As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Has the shadow Minister seen today’s statement from the Institute for Government, which has backed the Government’s modelling and overturned its previous position? He might want to reflect that in his comments.

[Dr Mullan]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read the entire statement. What the institution actually said was that the modelling

“relies on several assumptions—some of which are highly uncertain.”

Did he read that part of the statement? I do not think he did, because it claims that there will be reductions of only 2% in trial time as a result of these reforms.

What are we being asked to give up? We are being asked to give up 800 years of English legal history. A sledgehammer is being taken to the cornerstone of our system, and to fundamental rights. Thousands of accused people risk spending years in prison, losing their livelihoods, losing their families, losing their homes, and not being able to make the simple request for a forum of their peers to make that decision—a part of the justice system that is trusted and supported more than any other. That is perhaps why it is being defended so robustly by those within it. Just today, thousands of retired judges and retired and working legal professionals asked the Justice Secretary to think again. What has been the Government’s response to that? It has been to denigrate the role of jury trials.

We have had the appalling sight of the Lord Chancellor comparing three years in prison to a scraped knee. We have heard the Minister for Courts say that being accused of an offence of sexual assault, which could be considered either way at the moment, was not serious—an accusation that, if proven, would lose someone their livelihood. It is shameful and desperate stuff from a desperate Government. In contrast, what did the Prime Minister say? He said:

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

Now he asks us to upend that balance in a historically unprecedented way.

Of course, we can talk about the facts and figures, as woeful and thin as they have been, but at the end of the day, these decisions come from political instinct and a deep sense of what is right and wrong. That is not shallow; it is based on knowledge and years of experience —the sort that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) have. That experience told them, before they saw the figures, that the Government’s approach was not going to work. They have been proven right by the figures.

Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister does not understand this? Time and again, we have seen that he is absolutely devoid of any sort of deep political instinct. His only instinct is to chop and change his mind as it suits him on any particular day. No wonder he has been, more than any other Prime Minister in recent history, an agent of the civil service. He has forgotten the golden rule that civil servants advise and Ministers decide. The Conservatives have said yes to more resources, to efficiency and to the hard work of getting things done, but we have said no to eroding a fundamental right, no to more overbearing state power, and no to gutting and scouring away the mechanism by which all of us watch the watchmen.

The Courts Minister tells us that the Bill has been introduced on a point of political principle, whereas other Members have argued that it is a matter of necessity and resource. Too often, Labour Members have said yes to a Prime Minister to whom they should have said no. They have an opportunity tonight to say no to the Prime Minister when it counts. Let us hope they have the courage to do so.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order.

Dame Vera Baird: No, it is not at all disrespectful. Natalie Fleet, who has also been abused, takes the opposite view. She does not want to be weaponised, Kieran, and that is a very sound point. None the less, her example is appalling, and nobody could doubt her. The man was acquitted, but a judge believed her, so what is your argument now? Judges are not fair.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for the amazing work you do for victims—it is a shame that respect is not being afforded across this room today. Victims are at the centre of this, and we should try to remember that in the debate.

To bring it back to victims—you referred to this, Claire—the Bill makes changes to the bad character evidence. Can you go into a bit more detail on what that is like from a victim’s perspective to have to go through a line of questioning about bad character evidence? Why is it so important that we are changing it?

Claire Waxman: These are important safeguards that need come in to better protect victims during the cross-examination process. I have to say that most victims I speak to who have gone through the cross-examination process—and this is not just rape victims—describe it as “brutal”. That is their word, not mine. They feel that it is often an experience to try to undermine their credibility at every point.

We have seen the use of past sexual behaviour or past sexual allegations to somehow undermine credibility. We have also seen it with compensation: as I said, it is a right under the victims code to be told about compensation, yet victims trying to access compensation is being weaponised and used as a way to undermine credibility. Many victims feel like they are the ones on trial, and they are being scrutinised. Putting in these important safeguards will help to improve that experience, so that they do not feel like they are under attack.

As I say, you are going to hear from victims shortly, one of whom has gone through that very experience, and I urge you all to listen to them. That is really important, because they are the ones with lived experience—they are living and breathing this delayed criminal justice system. Delays are not the only issue for victims; it is also about the treatment that they experience throughout the criminal justice system. Both need to be dealt with to really reduce victim attrition and improve victim satisfaction.

[The Chair]

We are going to move on, because there are a lot of questions to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Alex, ask your question too, and then there will be a minute to answer it.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q Thank you, Chair. I have had the privilege of listening to all of you speak before; thank you very much for being here. I think you were all here when Sir Brian Leveson was giving evidence earlier. He said that the only way to tackle delays was to do all three: reform, investment and modernisation.

As victim-survivors, how would you feel if the Government adopted the Opposition’s proposal, which is to only do two of those three things and leave one on the table that might speed up the delays in the criminal justice system? Do you think the Government would be going far enough if they left options on the table?

[The Chair]

Last word, witnesses—over to you.

Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: I think we need to go full force. Now is the time for change. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to—I am not going to swear—get stuff done. If we do not do it now, it would be a missed opportunity. It is about centring lived experience: all these rippling changes being put forward will have trickling effects on the wider justice system, including support services. Centring victims’ voices in that is pivotal.

Charlotte Meijer: Agreed.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have two minutes and lots of Members who would like to speak.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q I will ask a quick question for clarification before I ask my substantive question. Ms Karmy-Jones, thank you, but I am a simple employment solicitor, so apologies, but for full transparency, will you confirm something? According to the Institute for Government, barristers may be reluctant to replace Crown court cases with magistrates court cases because they pay less. Will you confirm to the Committee that your members would get less in fees for magistrate cases than in a Crown court case?

Riel Karmy-Jones: It depends what we are talking about—

[Alex McIntyre]

Just as a general ballpark figure—

Riel Karmy-Jones: It is less, yes.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q I will come on to my substantive question then, because I have not got much time. You said that we should not remove the right to elect, as juries act as a safeguard against prejudice, but 90% of cases are already heard without a jury. I suggest that those cases have no safeguards against prejudice. Building on that, we know that a number of the more serious cases in the magistrates courts are dealt with by a district judge sitting alone. Is the position of the Criminal Bar Association that those should be replaced by full jury trials?

Riel Karmy-Jones: We are not suggesting replacing district judges with full jury trials. What we are saying is: do not lose jury trials for those more important, more serious cases in the Crown court.

[The Chair]

If we have very quick questions and responses, I can perhaps squeeze in two more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q I have one more question. Has the IfG ever done any modelling around the efficiency savings that could be made by introducing the RASSO courts, as per as the Labour manifesto, or by other reforms to the criminal justice system, such as introducing am and pm sitting days?

Cassia Rowland: We have not. Regarding the specialist RASSO courts, the principal arguments for those are about not efficiency, but the experience of the victim and the more trauma-informed and wraparound approach that that kind of set-up would allow for.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q Emma and Fiona, my questions are directed at you, and I will bring them together, even though they are on slightly different subjects. Emma, I am glad you raised the case of Andrew Malkinson, which was obviously a shocking miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that he had a jury trial at the Crown court, and there was a right to appeal. There is a process that needs to be followed to go to the Court of Appeal, where somebody considers the grounds and whether a person has that right. I assume that it is not APPEAL’s position to removal of that process.

Earlier, we heard evidence from victims who supported the change to the right to appeal against a magistrates court decision to include a review from a judge, on the basis that a number of victims drop out of the process because they fear being retraumatised by a system that is not designed to support them. How do you balance that with your position that there needs to be checks and balances? Do you not agree that, by having a judge look at it, we are not refusing a right of appeal but merely qualifying it first?

Fiona, JUSTICE has said that the magistrates are ill-equipped to enable the reforms, and you have made that point again today, but the Magistrates’ Association, which is not here to give evidence today, has said that magistrates are ready and willing to play their part. Why does your assessment differ from that of the magistrates themselves?

Fiona Rutherford: We already know that the numbers are not where they need to be, given the number of magistrates required to do the huge amount of work that would be placed into their hands. Equally, we have not heard yet —maybe there are plans on this—how magistrates will be better trained to be able to cope with the greater complexity of cases that they will necessarily hear. I have talked about the disproportionality of magistrates in terms of socioeconomic grouping; that is absolutely critical when it comes to public trust. There is a final point, but it has escaped me, so I will let Emma come in on this and I might come back to you.

Emma Torr: That was a good question, on which I would like to make two points. The case of Andrew Malkinson is a good example to consider when talking about these changes. Of course, there was a victim in that case, who was certain that the right person had gone to prison, but we know that Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for something that he did not do. When he appealed at the time, a judge looked at his appeal at the Court of Appeal; twice he went to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and twice his case was turned down. That is an example of where a judge has looked at the appeal, but would not give him—

[Alex McIntyre]

Q Should we remove it at the Court of Appeal stage as well? Is that APPEAL’s position?

Emma Torr: No, that is not APPEAL’s position.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q If that was the case for Andrew, why not? You are making the point that this would create unfairness, but you have just said that there is unfairness at the Court of Appeal stage, so why is it not your position to remove it at that stage as well?

Emma Torr: We are dealing with two different sets of processes. You are talking about the magistrates court, where there is more risk of miscarriages of justice happening by the very nature of the system—by who is hearing and who is presenting the case, as I said before. But perhaps the most important thing in magistrates court is unrepresented defendants. Around 50% of people in magistrates court do not have access to legal advice, either for their trial or to help them with their appeal, so it is important that you have the automatic right to appeal.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q In a case where somebody makes that appeal and says, “I was not advised and there was evidence that was not considered. I think there was a miscarriage of justice here,” are you saying that you have no faith that our Crown court judges would deal with that? We are not saying that a person cannot appeal, but there would be a check on that, for cases where they have no legitimate grounds—I am sure that you see such cases. We are introducing a transcript of the magistrates court as well, so that people can understand the decisions. Would that not lead to an informed process? Do you have no faith in the Crown court judges to make that decision?

Emma Torr: It is not about faith in the Crown court judges. APPEAL receives hundreds of letters from people asking for our assistance. In the majority of those cases, they cannot necessarily articulate, in their letter or communications to us, what has gone wrong. They might be concerned about things that have happened during the trial process, but they cannot articulate what could amount to grounds of appeal. It takes a lot of care by us to look at the case, understand what has gone wrong and analyse it before we can decide whether we can draw out grounds of appeal.

You would be asking judges to do exactly that; not just to read the application and dismiss it because they have not been able to identify compelling grounds of appeal. Will the judge look at the digital case system, will they review evidence of witnesses or will they simply look at a short transcript? A lot of care needs to go into that analysis to formulate what could be compelling grounds, and giving that job to Crown court judges will increase the workload.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you all for your evidence.

Examination of Witness

Tim Crosland gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have one minute.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q A quick question: building on the Minister’s questions, where would you draw the line on this? You mentioned the criminal damage cases, and I can understand your argument there, but theft is an either-way offence. Let us say that somebody nicks a bottle of whisky from Tesco and says, “Actually, I’m protesting against the excessive profits of the supermarket giants.” Does that fall into the narrow set of cases you were talking about? Do they not expand out?

[The Chair]

You have 30 seconds to respond.

Tim Crosland: We have this in the civil courts. Jury trials in the civil courts are reserved only for cases such as malicious prosecution or unlawful imprisonment—

[Alex McIntyre]

Q We only have 30 seconds. Where would you draw the line? If someone says, “I’ve stolen a bottle of whisky to protest against Tesco,” would they be included in the cases you are talking about?

Tim Crosland: If they argued that they acted in the public interest, then potentially, yes, but drawing that line—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, thank you very much for your evidence.

Examination of Witness

Sarah Sackman gave evidence.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Public Bill Committees

The higher the expertise in our appeals system, the more judges we have sitting, yet under these changes, for the complexity of cases in the Crown court system—currently either-way offences—we are going from multiple decision makers, juries, down not even to two or three decision makers, magistrates, but right down to a single decision maker, a judge. I reject the idea that to oppose judge-led trials where there were jury trials is to be in some way anti-judges or anti-judiciary; rather, it is to defend a system that we have had for many, many years—a system, by the way, supported by judges themselves.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I will keep my contribution brief. I want to speak in support of new clause 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington. It is clear that Government Members accept the need for reform but, as we go through those reforms, it is also important to keep one eye on ensuring justice for everyone in our society. We know that historically the criminal justice system has not ensured equal opportunity for everyone in our society—there are inequalities within it.

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State and the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to reviewing the reforms in the future to ensure that they do not exacerbate inequalities in the system. I look forward to hearing the Minister continue to reassure the Committee that that is the Government’s commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington is a tireless campaigner on these issues, and she made an outstanding speech. I will not add anything further to it, other than to thank her for tabling the new clause and introducing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I want to comment on two points. First, I agree entirely with the speech of the hon. Member for Chichester on the problem with clause 3 and jury allocation, and I especially agree with her point about the retrospective reallocation of cases, whereby people waiting for trial by jury will suddenly find that their case will be removed from the jury and heard elsewhere. She outlined in comprehensive detail all the issues—not just jurisprudence issues but legal and factual issues. I support what she said so I will not repeat it.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley about these issues. She highlighted the disparities in the way that different groups of people are treated in our criminal justice system. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for tabling new clause 29. I hope that the Government will consider accepting it although, of course, if we did not abolish jury trial we would not need it.

We are told that the reason for clauses 1 and 3, which restrict access to jury trials in many cases, is to do with the backlog. That is where the Government start their position—the backlog—and I want to concentrate on that aspect. Please bear with me: I will blind the Committee with a few facts and figures because I think that they will make logical sense of why people such as me say that juries are not the reason for the delays. It is important that we get that sense.

There are currently around 88,000 cases awaiting trial in the Crown courts. The queue for the Crown court is now so long that some trials are being fixed for 2030—the Committee has heard that. We have talked about the old adage that, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” That is happening, and the delay is unacceptable, but the answer is honestly not to get rid of one of the fundamental systems that we have had in our country for centuries.

The reason for the delay is not juries but the court structure and how things happen there. One judge sitting in one courtroom for one day is known as a sitting day. The Old Bailey has 18 courts. It therefore has capacity for 18 sitting days per day, 90 sitting days per week and 4,500 sitting days in a 50-week year. For the last 15 years, restrictions have been placed on the number of sitting days in Crown court centres around the country. Resident judges, who are the principal judges at each court centre, have been told that funding will be given only for a limited number of sitting days. Restrictions of between 9% and 25% have been imposed. That is what the previous Government did.

There is always a queue for the Crown court; that is inevitable, as cases cannot be tried immediately. However—and here is the story—up until the start of 2019, that queue was managed without any undue delay. The backlog had come down from around 56,000 cases in 2014 to 33,000 cases by the start of 2019. All those cases were tried by a jury, and within a reasonable time: within six months if the defendant was in custody, and between eight and 12 months if they were on bail. Given that cases were being tried within a reasonable time in 2019, the suggestion that jury trials somehow take longer or are more complicated has no basis.

The length of the cases backlog rose from 33,000 at the start of 2019 to 71,000 by summer 2024, and rose by another 10% to around 80,000 last year. That increase is a direct consequence of the restrictions placed on sitting days. The problem was exacerbated by the closure of some courts. For example, Blackfriars Crown court in central London, which was a custom-made, modern Crown court building with eight courtrooms and the capacity to host 2,000 sitting days in a 50-week year, was closed and sold in 2019. Over the six years since then, 12,000 potential sitting days have been lost.

There are around 4,000 rape cases in the backlog. Trials for rape that have one defendant and one complainant often takes five days—although some trials are quicker and some take longer—so 2,400 of such cases could have been tried in the 12,000 sitting days that were lost following the closure of those eight courtrooms at Blackfriars. The budgetary decision to close one court led to the inability to try what would have been half of all rape cases in the backlog. Similar examples exist all over the country, including where individual courtrooms within a Crown court building sit empty, meaning that the court is open but operating below its potential capacity.

The Crown court estate has a maximum capacity of around 130,000 sitting days. Currently, it is permitted to have 113,000 sitting days, which is partly because the Government have invested some money and allowed an increase to the number of sitting days. The Government have said that that number is a “record high”, but it is high only relative to the low numbers of the previous 15 years. Given the current backlog, I would say that it is incorrect to say that it is high. We need to invest in more sitting days and having more courtrooms open.

[Alex McIntyre]

I too am pleased that the Government have decided to uncap sitting days, but does my hon. Friend recognise that although the physical capacity might be there, there are capacity issues with all the teams around that? Even if we open the courts and uncap sitting days, it will not bring down the backlog in the short term, because we will still need to find more prosecutors, solicitors, barristers, court clerks and, of course, judges. All those need to be in place, which would take longer than just uncapping the funding.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

There are enough solicitors, barristers and judges available. Some of my former colleagues, who are now assistant recorders and recorders, were told that they could do x number of jury trials in a year, then the night before they would be due to sit in a particular Crown court, their session would get cancelled. The only issue here is with the number of court clerks, many of whom were dismissed during the years of Conservative Governments. However, those people do exist, and they can be recruited. It is not that difficult to recruit a few extra court clerks, as courts still have the capacity to do so, and it is better to do that than to throw away the whole jury system as we are doing at the moment.

It is important to note that, in any event, this law will not come into place for two or three years, which is enough time to recruit more people if there is a capacity issue—

[Alex McIntyre]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I will, but first let me explain. We have enough time to get those people in, so that we can increase the sitting days and reduce the backlog.

[Alex McIntyre]

I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s assertion that the workforce is there and ready and raring to go. Even the Bar Council’s own evidence suggests that the number of silks doing publicly funded criminal cases dropped by about a quarter and the number of senior juniors has gone down significantly as well. Silks are the most senior barristers. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. Will it not take time to fill those gaps so that we can have appropriately senior barristers in the courts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is absolutely correct. Of course, one of the reasons why some people left the criminal Bar is the fact that the legal aid funding was not great, but I assure Members that if they did not have other work to do, they would come back to the Bar. There are enough barristers and solicitors in the legal system for that.

[Alex McIntyre]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

In a moment.

The main reason why the Government have cited is the backlog. What I am trying to say is that it is not the juries that cause the backlog. It is quite clearly the case that, with investment in court structures and court personnel, the courts could be fully up and running, and we could probably get rid of the backlog within the next year or two. The right to a jury trial is not worth sacrificing to get rid of court backlogs.

[Alex McIntyre]

I remember the discussion the shadow Minister spoke about; we discussed MPs swapping political constituencies at the same time. The Institute for Government was very clear that the biggest constraint is the workforce, so is my hon. Friend saying that the Institute for Government has got it wrong?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Institute for Government also said that juries do not take up that much time—they save more time. The point is that, without too much difficulty, we could get the courts up and running and working for extra sitting days. Essentially, if we had more court sitting days, we would not have the backlog; it is not the juries that are causing the backlog.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alex McIntyre Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Another good thing we can do in Committee is try to clarify the Conservative party’s position. Is the hon. Member’s position now that the almost 40% cuts to legal aid during the last Conservative Government were wrong? If so, would he like to apologise for them?

[Joe Robertson]

This is a strange venue to ask for an apology for previous Government legislation from an MP who, like me, has been in this place for less than two years. The hon. Gentleman and I were on broadcast media yesterday; that might have been a better venue for him to ask me to apologise, but I would have rejected his invitation at that time, and I will certainly reject it in Committee. This is not about previous Governments’ views or opinions; it is about the views and opinions of this Parliament.