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.