Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I make that commitment to her. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the Bill as introduced was agreed with Hillsborough Law Now and the families, and would not be watered down. We will do all that we can to strengthen the Bill. We will continue to work with the families. I, too, pay tribute to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby, whom the Government met this morning to discuss next steps. We met the families again today to discuss ongoing collaboration, which will continue. The families will be at the forefront of this, because this is their Bill. This is a legacy, and we want to ensure that we do right by them and bring forward the Hillsborough law.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and ask her for two points of clarification. Does she believe that it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence services to determine what information is provided to an investigation, or should that be determined by someone else, and does she accept that in the early stages of the Bill, the Government were clear that it would not be possible to make the Bill applicable to individual agents? How can the House have confidence that we can now do that without creating unacceptable risks to national security?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The primary objective of this Government, and I hope of every Government, is to protect national security and to keep our citizens safe. That is, and will continue to be, of utmost importance to this Government and to this Prime Minister. We will continue to work with the intelligence services. We have had a very collaborative working relationship with them during the development of this Bill. That relationship will continue. We would never do anything that would jeopardise or undermine national security; we have been very clear about that. The families have also been very clear that that is not their intention, and they totally understand this. We think there is a way forward. The Government introduced amendments to ensure that the Bill applied to individual agents, and we did that by working with the heads of the intelligence services directly and with the security services. We will continue to work collaboratively with them and with the families on finding a way forward.

Jury Trials

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I do not agree that the Government should curtail our rights to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an ancient right in England and the very essence of our criminal justice system. Combined with the Government proposals for digital ID, it reveals a very authoritarian attitude. It marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and I shall vote against it.

There is a crisis within the criminal justice system and specifically with the Crown court backlog, but that backlog was not caused by trial by jury and will not be cured by its removal. Why does the Lord Chancellor believe that abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do to bring down the backlog? If it is based on evidence, as he says, will he publish that as soon as possible?

In the last two years, Government figures show that the Ministry of Justice, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall, at an average of 10.7 days of sickness—more than two working weeks for every member of staff. That is more than 30% higher than the civil service average and over twice the UK average if the private sector is included. Were the Lord Chancellor to focus his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the system as a whole improve.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I was not going to intervene, but I think it is important to because I have just visited Bournemouth Crown court and magistrates court, and the people there talked about that question of sickness. They talked about the fact that their staff have been carrying the load for so many members of a team who were not in place because they had seen austerity. Many staff in the Crown court system may be going on to sickness leave because they are burned out. They are burned out from years of cuts. Does the hon. Member not recognise that we need to invest in our Crown court system so that they can get back on their feet and our criminal justice can also get back on its feet?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

In my experience, staff absence is normally the result of poor management. I suspect that the Ministry of Justice is managing its staff significantly worse than the rest of the civil service if staff sickness is 30% above the public sector average, which is not great to begin with. With approximately 16,400 staff in the court service, simply reducing the rate of absences to the civil service average would free up nearly 50,000 working days. That would help cut the backlog without undermining the principle of a fair trial.

We know that this Government have a habit of making bad decisions, getting ambitious Back Benchers to defend them for a few months and sending a hapless junior Minister out to face the media while the Secretary of State hides in his office, only at the last minute to realise what a disaster the plans are before executing a U-turn that comes far too late for them to gain any credit. We have seen that on winter fuel, welfare reform, the grooming gangs inquiry, the two-child benefit cap and, most recently, the family farm and family business tax, so I urge Labour Back Benchers to be very cautious about supporting the Government this evening. They risk voting for something that their constituents do not want and that in their hearts, they know is wrong. Ultimately, they know that late in the day, the Government will back down, leaving their credibility in shreds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed ending of jury trials for certain offences on the right to a fair trial.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain offences on the rule of law.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and the essence of a fair trial is a timely trial. Only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied.

[Mr Lammy]

I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an absolute essential foundation of our democracy that all of us in this House and in government respect the independence of the judiciary. I remind him that it is precisely because of the judiciary’s independence that it is not able to answer for itself. The Lord Chancellor has that responsibility, and I will do it robustly.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement on jury trials last week, he said that an impact assessment would be published with the legislation. Given how powerful a defender of jury trials he has been in the past, will he publish the evidence and the modelling that he has seen since coming to office that caused him to change his mind?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever a Government propose legislation, there must be an impact assessment—both an economic impact assessment and an equality impact assessment—and of course we will publish it in the usual way.

Criminal Court Reform

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

[Mr Lammy]

I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I can give my hon. and learned Friend that undertaking. That is why we have brought forward the sentencing review and increased the removal of foreign national offenders to 5,000. All of that has been done in the last 16 months, when the Conservatives never did it once.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Two days before Kaddour-Cherif was released, the Justice Secretary said he had

“introduced the strictest checks ever seen in our prison system to stop similar unacceptable errors in future.”

Were they not implemented, or are they not strict enough?

[Mr Lammy]

Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth.

Prisoner Release Checks

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is outrageous that Kebatu was not deported at the end of his sentence. What is worse is that the number of prisoners released by mistake has more than doubled under this Government. If the Justice Secretary is determined to release thousands more prisoners early, how confident is he that this mistake will not be repeated again and again on his watch?

[Mr Lammy]

There is actually a point of agreement between the two main parties: that foreign national offenders who commit crimes should be deported as quickly as possible. We are attempting to do that with the Sentencing Bill. The shadow Justice Secretary has raised that matter, and it is one point, at least, of agreement. I am serious about getting to grips with the early release issue and am serious when I say, and the hon. Member knows this, that this story began before we came to office. It is why one of our most senior police officers will be looking at this issue and, of course, we will take all her recommendations seriously. It is hugely important that the public sees the system working and that they feel safe.

Sentencing Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Minns]

I really do apologise, Ms Ghani.

Moving on, I support new clause 1. It would strengthen our approach to the deportation of foreign criminals by amending the definition of “period of imprisonment” in two key pieces of legislation: the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendment is about ensuring that the law reflects the seriousness of the sentence handed down by the courts, whether it is immediate or suspended.

Currently, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more does not count towards the definition of a foreign criminal for deportation purposes. This creates a loophole that risks undermining confidence in our immigration and justice systems. I have met the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to discuss the deportation of foreign criminals with suspended sentences, and I very much welcome the closure of this loophole. It is not an abstract policy change; it is a necessary correction to a real and pressing issue.

New clause 1 ensures that suspended sentences of 12 months or more are treated with the gravity they deserve when considering deportation. It sends a clear message that serious criminal behaviour will not be overlooked simply because the sentence was suspended, and it strengthens our ability to protect communities, uphold justice and maintain public confidence in our immigration system.

Let us be clear: a suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. It is imposed by a judge who has determined that the offence is serious enough to warrant custody. The fact that the sentence is suspended does not diminish the gravity of the crime.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that most victims of crime would say that a suspended sentence is very much not a custodial sentence?

[Ms Minns]

It is nevertheless a suspended sentence. By passing new clause 1, we are saying that serious offences—whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in the community—carry consequences, including the possibility of removal from the UK.

[Ms Minns]

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.

The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Gauke review was a thorough exercise carried out in good faith. It was intended to fix some of the problems that persist in the justice system, and was particularly aimed at easing the burden on the prison estate. As a member of the Justice Committee, I had the opportunity to question the former Lord Chancellor and was struck by his thoughtfulness and expertise. Despite that, I do have reservations about parts of the Bill, particularly those around the early release of certain prisoners. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), seeks to add an extra protection to the Bill to combat this. It would ensure that the most violent and dangerous offenders—those guilty of crimes like rape, grievous bodily harm, child sex abuse and causing death by dangerous driving—do not benefit from automatic sentence reductions.

We all agree that rehabilitation has a place in our justice system, but that is not its only purpose. The public expect criminals to be punished for their wrongdoing and to be protected from those criminals causing future harm. I fear that Labour Members do not know the consequences of the Bill, which are that violent and sexual offenders will be released from prison early and will then go on to commit further criminal offences. We will have to deal with those consequences in the years to come if the Bill is passed unamended. Those who commit the most serious crimes should serve the full sentence handed down by our courts. Early release should never be a reward for those who have shattered lives beyond repair.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals.

Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury.

Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it.

If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering.

Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time.

As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Increasing delays in Crown court trials are a very real problem. They pose a problem for victims, witnesses and those defendants who are eventually acquitted. We have heard that remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—a population that is at capacity and needs reducing. If we could speed up the rate at which Crown courts, and indeed magistrates courts, deal with cases, that would lead to a partial solution for our crowded prisons. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his report; he makes interesting and important recommendations, but in the time available I will focus on one of Sir Brian’s proposals with which I disagree: curtailing access to jury trials.

I support the proposal to allow defendants to elect for trial by judge alone. I do not see any diminution in the rights of a citizen in that proposal. I am concerned at Sir Brian’s other proposals, which would reduce the defendant’s right to trial by jury. I regard that right as a fundamental freedom of our country. As parliamentarians, we should be very slow to limit it.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the jury trial system has evolved over time—it has been with us for centuries—and has changed intermittently over time: it looks very different now than it did in the 13th century. In the 19th century, civil adjudications were taken out of the jury trial system and our civil justice system is still extremely robust.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but before curtailing that restriction further I would want to be persuaded that there are very real benefits. I am afraid that I see none, or at least I see no evidence of any. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, each of the trials under the new court that Sir Brian proposes would require a sitting judge and a sitting day. There is little evidence that removing the jury from that process will make a great deal of difference to the time it takes. In my view, therefore, the focus of the Ministry of Justice should be increasing the productivity and efficiency of our Courts Service.

The House of Commons Library produced a useful document, on page 17 of which we can see the Crown court caseload in England and Wales. The receipts and the disposals have risen only marginally since the pandemic, and yet the outstanding caseload continues to rise. I put it to the Minister that the reason for those delays is not the jury system—that is simply a misunderstanding. The problem is that the Courts Service is not working as efficiently as it should be. That might be partly due to failing buildings or computer systems, but I fear that in Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, we have a solution in search of a problem. There have always been certain judges and barristers who have never liked jury trials, and I am reluctant to accept this proposal by Sir Brian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.

The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.

A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.

I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.

The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The crisis that we inherited in our criminal courts, with record and rising backlogs, is intolerable. The human impact of that on people, whether they are victims, witnesses or they serve in the criminal justice system, is simply intolerable. If we do nothing, as the Conservative party was all too willing to do, the system will, in the words of one of its own, former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, become “irrecoverable”. It is not enough to sit our way out of this crisis—we must have radical structural reform as well. That is the abiding lesson of Sir Brian’s report, and we will take it on board.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.

[Sarah Sackman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the comprehensive review that they have undertaken, to which the Government will be giving due consideration over the summer, before we formally provide our response. We have to ensure that whatever package of proposals we take forward knits together with the recommendations from the Gauke review and the outcome of the spending review that the Ministry of Justice has received, with a commitment to make an additional investment of £450 million in our courts. I want to address his point about intermediate courts: they are not about saving money, but about addressing the backlog, delivering swifter justice for victims and having a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence. If this package of ideas is right and will achieve that aim, we will pursue it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The publication of Sir Brian Leveson’s review is due very soon. My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot give any the exact date, but once Sir Brian has published his findings, the Government will consider them in due course, and we will come to the House first with our full response.

Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system in the most serious cases, but we have to recognise that they take five times longer than cases heard in magistrates courts, and magistrates courts already hear 90% of all criminal trials. With victims waiting so long for their day in court, we must ask whether there are cases being heard by juries today that need not be heard by juries in future.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The rise in the Crown court backlog in 2024 was 7,051 additional cases; that is 588 extra cases on the backlog every month. The figures for March 2025 show an additional rise over three months of 2,300; that is 769 additional cases on the backlog every month. Not only is the position getting worse under the Lord Chancellor’s leadership, but the rate at which it is getting worse is increasing. Can she explain to the House why the rate is getting worse, and why, when in November the Lady Chief Justice offered 6,500 additional sitting days, she did not accept every single one of those?