Courts and Tribunals Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call Sir Ashley Fox.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I start by expressing my relief that the Government are removing clause 3 from the Bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on performing that U-turn so swiftly upon taking office.

In earlier debates, the Courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event and that she would go ahead with the change even if there were not a court backlog. What caused her to change her mind? Perhaps it was the change of Prime Minister. The Minister is a skilled orator. I am quite sure that she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different and always supported his position, and her rise through the ranks of Government will continue. We on the Conservative Benches wish her well.

The Crown court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout the debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in the Bill. That would see the remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the Government end when the backlog is reduced to its pre-covid level.

I urge the Government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that that will result in a reduction of the backlog. Where is the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years, yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Committee described the targets as “unrealistic”. Perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views are on the subject.

The Government still intend to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with an either-way offence. I oppose that and support amendment 1, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary. This matter poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty. Solicitors, barristers and Members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed were they convicted of theft, which is an either-way offence. That is why I support the sentiments in amendment 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and amendment 69 tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I appreciate that we will not vote on those amendments tonight, but I hope that Members of the House of Lords will look at the issue again when they consider the Bill.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I want to raise three issues. Having been a magistrate for 20 years, I think that one of the things that has led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate. The potential to reopen some of those sites should be in the mix to get the magistrates courts up and running.

On the right to elect a court, I was opposed to clause 3, as the Minister will know, but the right to elect a court was not a red line for me, because it does not happen in Scotland, and I do not see its constitutional skies falling in upon its system.

I would like to see some changes in the victim contact scheme. At the moment, the scheme does not allow victims to be advised of whether an offender has changed their name or their appearance. That information is not routinely shared with victims because it is considered to be sensitive personal data, and there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed unless there is lawful reason to do so. Let us take the example of the Haselip family. In 2003, Mick Haselip was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Rikki Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024, he changed his name to Rory Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that, and they were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. They say:

“This omission has undermined our ability to understand his movements, monitor our own safety and engage meaningfully with the Victim Contact Scheme.”

In 1986, Adam Stein murdered six-year-old Collette Gallacher. He has changed his appearance and name multiple times, and Collette’s younger sisters, Lauren and Claire, fear for their own safety if he is ever granted parole again. They do not know what he looks like. They do not know what his name is. The family are not aware. These people are living in plain sight, and this is a loophole that we need to close. We need to change the presumption that this information will not be disclosed to a presumption that it will be, so that families know what is happening.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Izzy was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door. Izzy’s mum, Helena Sharrott, was granted a special guardianship order and there is a request to change the children’s names, but they have been told no because the father, who murdered their mother, has a say in it. That is wrong; it is unjust, and we need to change it.