Jury Trials

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Foody]

Unfortunately, I did not hear the apology that should have preluded the question, for the absolute carnage the Conservatives left in our courts on their watch. They have shown no recognition or contrition for what they left behind. In every single one of those cases there is at least one victim unable to access justice. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members find it so amusing. They would find it much less amusing if they were at the other end of the justice system. Every victim is waiting to move on. Every witness is stuck in limbo. Every defendant is entitled to have their case heard, within a reasonable time, to repay their debt or to begin to be rehabilitated.

I speak about this issue not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a former member of the judiciary, having sat as a magistrate. I have made the decisions in courtrooms that I knew would have a lasting impact on people’s lives.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

A very valid point was raised earlier about triaging whether a case should have a jury trial. If a judge decides that the sentence would be less than three years, but after a trial in the absence of a jury it is decided that the defendant should get five or six years, do they have a right to appeal the decision and have a jury trial?

[Emma Foody]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to go into the details of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I would like to make some progress.

As I said, I have made decisions that will impact people’s lives. I have seen at first hand long delays that damage victims’ wellbeing, undermine their confidence and cause too many to withdraw from the process altogether. That is not a failure of victims, but a failure of the system. Let us be clear: the backlog is not just frustrating; the system can be frustrated. Some defendants game the system to delay their trial and avoid accountability for as long as possible, in the hope that by the time their case is heard, either it will fall over entirely, or witnesses and victims will be unable to give evidence, as it is not as fresh as it was. That is indefensible.

That is exactly the type of behaviour that the reforms are designed to stop. We are already investing heavily; there are more Crown court sitting days this year than ever before. We are putting money into repairing and modernising court buildings, legal aid and victim support services, which are getting long-term funding so that they can plan ahead. However, anyone who has worked in the courts knows that we cannot spend our way out of this problem. There simply are not the judges, the criminal barristers or the court staff to keep up with demand. Even courts that are running flat out are struggling. Without any reform, the backlog will continue to grow.

As we have heard today, everyone will have the right to a fair trial—that is fundamental—but the truth is that most criminal cases have never involved juries. Over 90% are already dealt with by magistrates, and they are dealt with fairly. Let us also be honest about history. It was a Conservative Government who, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, restricted eligibility for jury trial by reclassifying a range of offences as summary only. We see selective amnesia all too often in this place.

As a former magistrate, I am proud of the work that magistrates do. I was pleased to see the campaign launched recently to recruit more of them to the bench. They are volunteers, drawn from their communities, who give up their time to serve the public. They are more representative of the society that they serve than the judiciary as a whole, and they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I thoroughly enjoyed my role and truly encourage anyone from my community, and communities across the country, to put themselves forward for this important role.

Sir Brian Leveson has been clear: jury trials now take far longer than they used to, largely because cases are more complex and involve vast amounts of digital evidence. That is not anyone’s fault, but it does mean that the system needs to adapt. We must restore confidence by keeping communities safe and making sure that victims are supported, not forgotten, by the system that is meant to protect them. The Conservatives left behind a justice system in serious trouble. Labour is choosing to fix it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Jury trials were introduced to bring order and justice to a legal system beset by opportunism, superstition, bias and archaic practices. For eight centuries, they have been the bedrock of English and British liberty, recognised globally as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Yet without any modelling, impact assessment or equalities assessment, and not in line with the review done by Sir Brian Leveson, the Government plan to scrap this ancient protection.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I have yet to make an argument, but I will shortly.

Who in this place can honestly say that if they were facing incarceration, they would be happy with just one judge and no jury making that decision? Think of the victims who face unconscious bias daily, and who will not get justice if just one person decides that question.

Most sinister of all has been the debate in the Chamber this afternoon. Labour MPs have argued that juries—ordinary people—cannot be trusted and are not up to the job. They have said that it is too complex and too detailed. What next? Will Labour strip their right to vote as well? It is deeply concerning. The Minister has said that this change is not the result of some crisis that Labour MPs want to blame on the Conservatives, and that the Government would be making it anyway. It is ideological. Every time Labour has come into government it has tried to strip jury trials—under Blair when I was a child, and yet again now.

Both the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have previously recognised the importance of jury trials; in fact, they opposed their abolition publicly. How will they justify their change of mind? Perhaps when the Justice Secretary is returned to Parliament after the next election, as he almost certainly will be, he will bring in trial by combat. Almost 40 of the Government’s MPs have opposed this change, and they are absolutely right to do so, because there are other options, including using unused sitting days and Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to have one judge sitting with two magistrates; there would then be an element of a layperson having a say.

Clearly, the Prime Minister can admit it when he gets something wrong and can change course, as we saw—albeit far too late—with the family farm tax, welfare and grooming gangs. Do not leave it too late this time. The Labour manifesto made no mention of curtailing our right to jury trial. This is not a minor shift in policy; it is a worrying trend fundamental to the relationship between the individual and the state. We see this trend in the proposal for digital ID and the stripping of fundamental freedoms. Jury trials recognise the gravity of removing someone’s right to liberty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

My sincerest apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year of maternity leave does leave one with a few cobwebs.

The British people are very clear that they do not want this fundamental change.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member makes a persuasive point about modelling and impact assessments. Having practised at the criminal Bar for the last two decades, I can tell the House that there will still be opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, and there will still be cross-examination of witnesses. Most importantly, there is the questioning of the defendant. Judges understand the procedure, but defendants must also understand the procedure and closing speeches. I cannot see where there will be savings. That is why the modelling is so important. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am afraid that we hear again the continual argument that the average layperson cannot understand justice. If a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer cannot make the argument make sense to the average person, they have no job representing an individual at court. It is their duty to make law transparent and understandable to every individual.

We hear this argument that court cases have become more detailed, but we should be pleased that there are more detailed and complex arguments being made in our courts. It is a sign of a court system that is working, and that does not rely on basics or tropes to get justice, yet the Labour party sees it as the opposite.

This is, unfortunately, yet another disappointing and deeply sinister step toward the Government fundamentally changing our relationship with the Crown and the state. I urge the Government to listen to the legal industry, and to listen to and trust the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

As ever, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this or many of the other issues he raises in the House.

Let us be very clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has set out, this is a modest change to jury trials—something that has happened throughout our history. The Opposition were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) that their party has made modest changes to jury trials in the past. It was Margaret Thatcher, one of the shadow Justice Secretary’s various political heroes, who reclassified crimes including taking a motor vehicle without authority and who raised the threshold for criminal damage. Those became summary-only offences in 1988—they were not subject to juries at all. I wonder whether Conservative Members consider Mrs Thatcher to have torn up the Magna Carta or undertaken constitutional vandalism. It is a rhetorical device that Rumpole would be proud of.

We have heard today about what more we could be doing, but let us set out what we are doing. This Government are investing at record levels; this year alone, we have allocated over 100,000 Crown court sitting days—the highest number ever and 5,000 more than the previous Government. I remind the House again that in 2019, the previous Government cut Crown court sitting days by almost 15%—that is their record and their legacy, but Conservative Members did not mention any of that in their speeches today. The Government have committed £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million a year for criminal legal aid solicitors, in recognition of their vital role in the justice system and to fix the problems caused by the previous Government’s mismanagement. We are also looking at match-funded criminal barrister pupillages, with a clear focus on opening up the criminal Bar to more talented young people from every background.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister tells the House that an insignificant number of cases will be impacted. If that is true, what is the point? I am sure he has heard the adage that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It can only been done through jury trials.

[Jake Richards]

It is a small number of cases, but they take an inordinate amount of time. That is the whole point of what Sir Brian Leveson has put forward, and in due course, when this legislation comes before the House and the impact assessments are put before it, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that for himself.

Others have argued that investment alone, or ironing out inefficiencies, would be enough to deal with the record and rising caseload. We have heard about the problems with getting prisoners to court and about the buildings left with leaking roofs after 14 years of austerity. We are going to fix those too, but Sir Brian Leveson could not have been clearer that that will not be sufficient. Even with record investment, the Crown court caseload is projected to exceed 116,000 by 2029. The demand is simply too great, which is why we are driving forward a full programme of modernisation.

Criminal Court Reform

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This independent review comes at a time when our criminal justice system is at breaking point. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As a member of the criminal Bar, I know the importance that many barristers out there place on this debate.

We now know that Crown court trials could have a potential backlog of more than 100,000 cases by 2029. The review’s recognition of the need for significant reform is welcome, but restoring the criminal justice system cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process or the right to be tried by jury.

I understand, as it is currently set out, that the proposal to create a new Crown court bench division would allow select cases that carry a sentence of up to three years in prison to be heard without a jury. Under the proposals, it would be the judges, not the defendant, who decide where a case is handled, and who therefore hold the power to potentially change the entire trajectory of a criminal case. Unless there is forthcoming evidence to show that this change creates additional capacity without distorting judicial outcomes, we surely cannot consider such an idea.

The right to jury trial is, and should remain, a cornerstone of our justice system. For centuries it has served as a guarantee of public confidence and accountability. Any attempts to restrict or infringe upon that right should be approached with the utmost caution.

Before we consider surrendering our core principles of jurisprudence, we should first seek out efficiency reforms in part 2 of Leveson’s review and postpone any changes to jury trial until such changes have been fully implemented. At the very least, we need the Government to make reassurances that such changes would be reversed as soon as the backlogs are cleared, and to confirm their belief that trial by jury remains the best way of administering justice in this country.

In my view, removing trial by jury, even in complex or lengthy cases, risks undermining public trust, particularly among communities that already feel marginalised by the justice system. Non-jury trials should remain a measure of last resort rather than some administrative convenience.

I clearly believe that this is not the right path to follow. I fear that we are being made to consider watering down our justice system because the Government fail to understand that, even with reform, we will not be able to change the reality on the ground without proper investment. Creating a new court division will not in itself solve the backlog; it will merely shift the pressure from one part of the system to another.

Rather than sacrificing jury trials, we should be looking to solve things like the criminal legal aid system, which has been withering away thanks to years of chronic underfunding. Even with the Government’s recent £92 million commitment, more is required, especially if investment in one area comes at the expense of another.

Another key priority must be to reduce demand on the courts themselves—for example, introducing a rebuttable presumption that certain groups of offenders, such as first-time offenders or those suffering from mental ill health or substance misuse, should in appropriate cases be diverted from the criminal justice system at the outset. In those instances, out-of-court disposals could deliver justice more swiftly, more proportionately and without mounting pressures on an already overstretched system.

Finally, we cannot ignore the physical state of our buildings. Years of neglect have left our courts crumbling and have contributed directly to lost sitting days up and down the country.

The House will always support positive reforms that make key improvements to our justice, but reform must be principled, evidence-based and properly funded. That is the only way to clear our backlogs, and the only way to restore the criminal justice system to the essential and reliable public service that it ought to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I have picked out the main recommendations in the report that I cannot agree with. There are 45 recommendations in the Leveson report and some of them could go some way, but removing the key pillar of our justice system by removing the right to trial by jury is something that I cannot support.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Sentencing Council was headed by the late Lord Justice William Davis, who was a recorder at my local court in Birmingham. He made reference to the sentencing guidelines and the disparity in sentences highlighted in the probation report. We know that sentences were passed by judges. Given that judges have passed sentences that were disproportionate for certain communities, does the hon. Member agree that that is one of the reasons we must ensure jury trials remain?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will bring my remarks to a close. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to ask the Minister my questions, but I will get back to her on a suitable occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.

Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.

We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.

The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.

Sentencing Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Road accidents caused by negligence and people on drugs and alcohol cause havoc for those who lose members of their family. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in thanking those families and activist groups, including RoadPeace, Mat MacDonald, our local media in Birmingham and the journalist Jane Haynes, for their campaign to bring about life sentences for the worst driving?

[Mr Lammy]

Dangerous and reckless driving that takes innocent lives is a serious and painful issue that causes lots of anguish across our country, so I applaud the work of the hon. Member’s constituents and thank him for raising that issue; no doubt it can be explored further in Committee.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our focus is on victims of crime, who in some cases are waiting years for their day in court, but on the other side of the coin, defendants who are accused of a crime—perhaps wrongly—are waiting to clear their name. That can have a devastating effect. What he describes is the human impact of the delays that have accrued as a result of the backlogs that we inherited from the Conservative party.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

As a barrister working in criminal courts, I have often addressed the jury in closing speeches by saying, “Members of the jury, we have the best legal system in the world, and it is the best because you make it so. You bring your wisdom, your life experiences and your common sense, and you apply it to the facts in this case. Before you decide a verdict of guilty, bear in mind that if you or a member of your family were sat in the defendant’s seat, you would need to be sure before you returned a verdict of guilty. As a peer, that is an obligation on you.” I get the Minister’s point that justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, there is the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Sir Brian Leveson has been given a basic mandate that we need to speed up jury trials, which will eliminate the fundamental principles and the cornerstone of our legal system. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I have said, the jury trial will remain a cornerstone and pillar of our justice system in the most serious cases, but what Sir Brian Leveson tells us in the opening pages of his report is that the current system is broken, and he uses the word “essential”. He says reform of the system will be essential, because although we rightly take pride in the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, the fact is that it is simply not working at the moment. It is letting down those whom it is intended to serve and those who serve within the system, and we have to fix that. We will take our time, and then we will act on the programme of reforms that Sir Brian Leveson has recommended today.

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address an issue that continues to cause deep pain and disruption to our communities across Birmingham and the west midlands, and to speak about an under-appreciated service that we will all turn to at some point in our life. The amount of time that passes between death and burial is not a matter of mere procedure or bureaucracy; it is, first and foremost, a matter of dignity, faith, and human decency, so we must afford our coroner services the urgent and serious attention that they deserve. For many, the news of a loved one passing brings not only sorrow, but an immediate sense of duty. In both the Muslim and Jewish traditions, burial cannot be postponed without consequence. It is a religious imperative to bury the deceased as soon as possible, ideally within 24 hours. That is a fundamental and non-negotiable feature of those faiths. When that process is delayed—not for hours, but for days and sometimes weeks—it causes a deep wound. These families are not just dealing with a loss, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally, unable to complete the final rites that bring the peace, closure and healing that we all deserve when we lose a loved one.

What is worse is that these delays have become commonplace. They are no longer the exception; increasingly, they are the norm. Every week, I hear from grieving families in my constituency—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.)

[Ayoub Khan]

Every week, I hear from grieving families who are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless. Their stories are heartbreaking. Many do not know where to turn. They call their councillors and their MPs, and they are right to do so. When the system fails them, it is our job to listen, to act and to advocate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) before the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; he and I were in a debate in Westminster Hall just this afternoon. Coroner services, whether it be in the west midlands or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, are an issue. I told the hon. Gentleman what my intervention was going to be, by the way, and he okayed it; I was happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are only three full-time coroners in Northern Ireland. With the historic legacy of the troubles taking up time and the coroner stepping outside his remit, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in both his constituency and mine, the need for the coroner must be focused on and that they should be available to those who need them most? Furthermore, does he agree that there is a need to increase the number of coroners in order to allow families to have the facts of the case when they need them, to allow the healing to begin?

[Ayoub Khan]

I really appreciate the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who makes a poignant point. The service does require modernisation. In Birmingham and Solihull we have one senior coroner, two area coroners and seven assistant coroners to look after a population of approximately 1.5 million, according to the 2021 census. In comparison, in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, there are four coroners for 1.9 million people, which is simply not enough.

As I said, these families are not just dealing with the loss of a family member, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

In May 2024, more than 6,000 inquests in this country had been delayed by more than a year. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, each of those inquests represents a grieving family unable to find closure, plan funerals or settle estates. Does he agree that this Government should now act to clear the backlog and to provide extra funding? This situation is nothing short of a crisis.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was going to quote those figures in my speech. He is absolutely right that those 6,000 delays have a direct impact on not just families who want closure, but current cases that need to be worked on. The time spent by the coroner on inquests will naturally impact the basic sign-off of documents in other cases, and where the coroner is not available to sign off, families will have to wait to effect burial. We need modernisation, of course, and I seek support from the Minister on how we can modernise the service.

As I said, I hear of grieving families every week. They are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless, and turn to elected representatives for intervention. I want to share a story from my constituency that highlights the human impacts of these delays. A prominent brain surgeon had lost his father. The funeral, which should have taken place within a day, was delayed for over a week due to coroner backlogs. That surgeon, bound by faith and family duty, remained in mourning and could not return to work until the burial had taken place. His father’s death was more than a personal loss; it had a professional consequence, too. Appointments were cancelled and surgeries were delayed. There are countless examples of where family members, and extended family members, have to remain in mourning, which means that they are not able to do the work that they would ordinarily do.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very powerful speech. Does he agree that any death is very stressful and distressing, but when it is a child, everything becomes amplified? A child’s post-mortem requires a specialist paediatric medical examiner, and a shortage of them in the east midlands, rather than in the west midlands, means that bodies are sometimes taken to other cities, and this is further stressing and distressful for the family. More paediatric medical examiners are required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

I had not actually thought about the loss of a child, but, of course, that must be extremely distressing, especially if the family have to wait for a child’s body to be sent to another part of the country for examinations to take place. In raising this matter in the Chamber today, I hope the Minister will take on board the points that I have made and understand why we believe that there is a desperate need for modernisation, which deals with the issues felt by communities up and down this country.

Let me return to my personal experience. Patients were left waiting because the brain surgeon was unable to attend to them while he was still in mourning. This is what happens when we allow systemic inefficiencies to go unaddressed. They begin to erode the very services on which we all rely and impose hidden costs that cannot be measured, but are there none the less.

This brings us to the heart of the issue: what is causing these delays. There are several factors at play here. Among them is the state of our coroners service. Quite frankly, it is under-resourced, understaffed and overstretched. The people working in this sector are not to blame. They are doing incredible work under immense pressure, but the system is in desperate need of transformation. Let us look at the facts across England and Wales.

[Shockat Adam]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I would like to echo that fact: Leicester’s coroner services are doing an excellent job. One reason is that the community and any burial committee, especially in the Muslim Burial Council of Leicester, have created a real relationship, thereby overriding any misunderstandings and improving proficiency.

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, it is important that all communities form a bond with their local coroner, but, ultimately, if the coroner and their staff are limited in numbers, there is always going to be a backlog and delay in processing the very important work of identifying the cause of death and then releasing the deceased.

Let us look at the facts. Across England and Wales, more than 6,000 coroner cases were pending for more than a year—four times higher than in 2017. Birmingham and the west midlands were among the worst affected. Our population is growing. Our communities are increasingly diverse, with more residents who require specific religious considerations, yet the infrastructure has not kept pace. The Government’s funding commitments have not matched rising everyday demand. We do not have enough pathologists and we do not have enough administrative support. We do not have the essential tools that could make a significant difference—tools such as MRI and CT scanning machines, which are used for the sole purpose of conducting non-invasive autopsies. However, we do have access to these facilities, but they are not dedicated to the coroner. It is by taking advantage of technological innovations such as those that we can make life easier for families whose faith prohibits invasive post-mortem procedures. With the right equipment, we can respect those beliefs and still get the data required by law.

Another major issue is the absence of weekend services. In most parts of the country, coroners offices operates Monday to Friday, but people do not stop dying on Fridays. Deaths occur every day. When services close for the weekend, a death that occurs on Friday night may not be processed until Monday or even Tuesday. For families who are religiously obligated to bury their loved ones immediately, the delay is deeply distressing. Introducing weekend operation for coroner and burial services is not a luxury but a necessity. In Birmingham we did have a coroner who would give up his time on weekends, but that has stopped.

To speak plainly about another area of concern, MPs are increasingly being told not to contact a coroner’s office on behalf of constituents. We are told that it constitutes interference. In fact, that is set out in the code of conduct for parliamentarians. I reject that completely. MPs are not asking coroners to change their findings or trying to influence investigations. We are not questioning their professionalism or their judgment. We are simply asking for speed, efficiency and compassion. To suggest that this is interference misunderstands both the role of an MP and the seriousness of the issue. We must be allowed to advocate for our constituents.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. We are all of different faiths, whether Christian or other faiths, and some people have no faith. A person’s religion must be paramount when it comes to the coroner’s work, and the coroner must ensure that a burial can take place within the period of time that the person’s faith indicates. I would have thought that is something that cannot be ignored under human rights and equality. Perhaps there is another way of looking at that.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is significant case law that identifies this specific need, and coroners do abide by that and try their best to assist when expediency is required because of religion. Unfortunately, it comes back to the bottleneck, where coroners want to do the best they can within the structure in which they are working, but they are limited by resources. That comes down to issues such as staffing.

When families have nowhere to turn, it should not be inappropriate for parliamentarians to contact the coroner to assist the suffering or grieving family. Will the Minister please review the part of the code of conduct for parliamentarians that relates to communicating with a coroner?

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

One way that we in Dewsbury and Batley try to overcome this restriction—a rule I also could not understand—is by working with our not-for-profit and charitable funeral services, especially in religious communities. Organisations such as Fisabilillah and Sadaqah Jariyah build a relationship with the coroner to try to facilitate communication with families who reach out to MPs. Does the hon. Member agree that these organisations in communities should be congratulated and thanked for their service, and that the communication channel he speaks of should be formalised and made permissible?

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. Up and down the country many organisations such as undertakers provide that support mechanism. Unfortunately, from my personal experience—this is certainly the case in Birmingham, and I am confident it is in the west midlands region too—a family’s first port of call is their local councillor or parliamentarian, and there is an expectation from the community or the family that they will make representations to the coroner. If elected representatives are unable to have that communication because of the code of conduct, our very function is undermined. It is important that organisations maintain the relationships that they have with coroners, but it is also important to give parliamentarians the ability to communicate with the coroner directly. To ensure that the services meet the demand of their communities, they need additional funding. Coroner services require transformation, but resourcing for that transformation is important. That means hiring more pathologists.

[Warinder Juss]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene again. Apart from him, I think I am the only Member from the west midlands in the Chamber; my constituency is Wolverhampton West. Does he agree that there appears to be a postcode lottery, as the time it takes to process an inquest ranges from 10 weeks to 76 weeks depending on where a person lives? If we do have a postcode lottery, does he agree that we must address that by having a national performance framework for our coroner services and targeting funding for underperforming areas?

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course, if there is a disparity in the level of service received, there ought to be some mechanism for identifying where that is occurring and an understanding as to why. If it is because of resources and manpower, that must be addressed. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s analysis. It is a shame that we do not have other parliamentarians from the west midlands in the Chamber. I am confident that some will have received an enormous amount of contact and huge numbers of calls throughout their tenure, as I do.

One of the issues is resourcing, including those MRI and CT scan facilities available for post-mortems and dedicated to that purpose. Although our coroner in Birmingham and Solihull has access to those devices, unfortunately they are not dedicated to that task, and a deceased may lie in the coroner’s mortuary until a facility becomes available, which can take days, and sometimes even longer.

A transformation also means ensuring that services operate not just five but seven days a week, because death, grief and religious obligations do not adhere to the normal working week. We also need to develop a clear protocol across all local authorities that recognises the need for expedited burials in line with religious beliefs. There must be training, awareness and sensitivity in coroner services.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

As I recently had the experience of bereavement in the family, may I ask the hon. Member to join me in recognising the exceptional service of the Blackburn coroner service and its vital contribution to our community?

[Ayoub Khan]

I can say confidently that the coroners I have worked with work tirelessly, and often outside their working hours, to deliver the best possible service, but the limitations on them are of concern. Although coroners are doing their level best, they are limited—certainly in Birmingham—in what they can do if they do not have the resources. I hope that the Minister can take that issue away for review and support. I agree with my hon. Friend about the good work that coroners do up and down the country.

There must be training, awareness and sensitivity within coroner services, registrars and local councils. For example, in Birmingham we have a relationship whereby there is a rapid release system as hospitals understand the sensitivities and do their utmost to ensure that a body is released. Unfortunately, to give another example, one family were left grieving because a deceased’s body could not be given to the undertaker at Queen Elizabeth hospital because there was no individual who could do the handover. The family had to wait over the weekend just to get the deceased’s body. We need to look at how we can work across all sectors to ensure that they are properly resourced and we avoid any unnecessary delay.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The lack of resources and coroners across the country has a knock-on effect on the NHS. There is an additional administrative and logistical burden from holding bodies and dealing with families who are getting in contact every hour, many times. That takes staff away from frontline services. Does the hon. Member agree that having the right level of coroner services would reduce the burden of knock-on costs on the NHS?

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree, but I am conscious of the time, so I will swiftly wrap up my speech.

This is not a partisan issue. It is not even a religious issue. This is a human issue. It affects people of faith and of no faith. No one deserves to wait weeks or longer to say goodbye to those they love. Let us act not just with policy, but with purpose. Let us fund, reform and rebuild a system that respects every community, honours every tradition and puts compassion first once more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With my own father’s Islamic funeral taking place very recently in Birmingham, I too am very interested in the Minister’s response.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Sentencing Council says that if, for example, someone is a white, Christian male, they are less likely to benefit from a pre-sentence report than if they were a member of a religious or ethnic minority. I believe that that is wrong.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member know that any defendant before the courts who has no previous convictions, despite the seriousness of the offence, is entitled to a pre-sentence report?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As a former solicitor, I am familiar with that provision, and I agree that any defendant who has not yet received a custodial sentence should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. However, imagine two criminals who both have a criminal record, but one is a member of a religious or ethnic minority and one is not. The guidelines propose treating them differently, and that is not justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

To return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), it is difficult for some to realise that with these guidelines, the definition of “normal” has flipped away from the male, the white, the Christian and the majority to shine more of a light on people who are parts of minorities and might have experienced systemic problems leading up to the sentencing decision. That is the point of the guidelines. That is how we act in an anti-racist way. It is how we put together policy that mitigates the great problems that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has outlined and we know well.

In contrast to this rushed Bill, the process that led to the now suspended new Sentencing Council guidelines was excellent: the document was consulted on widely; the Justice Committee looked at it; and it was given the green light by a Conservative Government, of which the shadow Justice Secretary was a member. Before I am intervened on, I am aware that a small change was made, but in essence the same document has come forward and the same principles were enshrined in the document that was proposed and approved. There was basically consensus that more use of pre-sentence reports should be made for people suffering from systemic injustices, that particular groups might be in greater need of them, and that judges should be permitted and encouraged to ask for such reports for those groups in more circumstances.

I want to talk about another group who will suffer from the delay caused by the Bill suspending the guidelines. I do not know when we will get new guidelines, but there will be more harm to women, families and children, who were all given more specific focus in the new—now suspended—guidelines. I have worked for some years on the problems and injustices facing women in the criminal justice system. I am concerned about the serious consequences that will come from any delay to these long overdue changes to further widen the use of pre-sentence reports and to make those reports easier for these groups. There will be serious consequences not only for too many people with these characteristics or circumstances—however we define it—but for wider society too. Will Ministers tell us about the impact of this delay on women, families, pregnant people and other groups named? When will we get new guidelines that include them? How many people will be harmed in the meantime? This delay has already taken some weeks.

Some Members will be familiar with the seminal 2007 Corston report about women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Incidentally, that document reminds us in its introduction:

“Equality does not mean treating everyone the same.”

The Sentencing Council guidelines were about to help plug a gap that still remained in terms of addressing the recommendations and themes of the Corston report. Indeed, in its commentary, the Sentencing Council rightly points to deeply concerning evidence of this problem. I am aware of difficulties judges have had in justifying delays and adjournments to go and get pre-sentence reports. The old guidance pushed for often impossible same-day reporting back from the Probation Service and cautioned against adjournments. With this delay to the new guidelines, will it be 2027—20 years after Corston—before the old guidelines are fully removed? How many women might be harmed in the meantime?

As far as I can see, the shadow Justice Secretary has scored a major win today, seizing this issue to stage another culture war ambush against another minority. Instead of standing by judges and by important principles we have all known for a long time—instead of simply allowing these guidelines to be trialled while the concerns being raised were addressed calmly—this Government have essentially put an executive order-style Bill before us now for its remaining stages. There was not even time on Second Reading for opponents like me to point that out.

I am sorry, but I believe that this Bill represents nothing less than a rushed and extraordinary capitulation by this Government to hard-right propaganda. People will suffer injustice as a result. It is profoundly worrying to see the Government legislating in this manner, micromanaging justice in ways that are led by—let’s face it—dog whistles, rhyming slogans and disingenuous propaganda. I will support new clause 1, but I sincerely hope that other Members will join me in voting against this Trumpian Bill and showing our respect for the independence of judges and magistrates on these matters. It is vital that we do something today to stand up for evidence-led policy, judicial independence and genuine equality before the law.

[Ayoub Khan]

Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the Bar.

I will align my comments with those of the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Bill, and the amendments, do not in reality tackle two-tier justice in this country; in fact, they risk entrenching it. Our justice system is founded on a principle that we all claim to uphold—fairness and equality before the law—but today we are being asked to support legislation that fundamentally undermines that principle.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a matter of opinion. Lord Justice William Davis, the chair of the Sentencing Council, has written candidly about the issue. He has said, for example, that defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts for a similar offence. That is not the opinion of politicians or pressure groups, but a warning from within the senior judiciary itself. The Bill ignores that reality. Worse still, it undermines one of the very tools designed to correct it: the pre-sentence report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

From a medical perspective, there would be a genetic predisposition. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people would, on a genetic basis, find themselves affected by the law purely because they were black? The comparison he has just made is exactly that, from a medical standpoint. I do not think he would really make such a suggestion, and I would certainly be against that position.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but as a criminal practitioner who has frequented courts over the last 20 years, I have seen disparities. I have seen sentencing which, in my view, was not fair. Lived experiences among certain communities are just as important as those of other minorities, whatever their backgrounds. Ultimately, who has decided that this is an important element that needs to be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines? This went through all the consultation under the last Government. People had seen it, and agreed to it. It did not raise a concern back then, so why should it now?

Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is, in fact, the only way in which to ensure real equality—to ensure that justice is not just blind in theory, but fair in practice. I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right: that longer-term work is essential. However, while it is going on we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and support the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research and consultation.

This Bill is not just misguided; it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelines expert insight, ignores data and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and right now the communities that face this disparity will no doubt be concerned about the Government’s approach.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

First, I acknowledge that disparities in outcomes in our judicial system are a real issue and merit serious attention. I recognise the work of the Lammy review in 2017, as well as the conclusions of the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 report, “Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System”, which found disparities in how people from minority ethnic groups are treated in the judicial system. It is important that these issues continue to have the focus that they merit.

However, I am glad that the Bill has passed its Second Reading and that we are progressing through its remaining stages today. I am firmly of the view that it is not for the Sentencing Council to make policy decisions on this matter, for those are the domain of politicians and must remain so. The Government should be able to make political decisions and implement them, and the ballot box is the right place for us to be held to account.

What I find refreshing about the continued passage of this Bill is that we are showing that politicians do not have to be jelly-like in the face of blockages to their desire to make political decisions. At the same time, I support the unamended passage of the Bill, because it finds a way to thread the needle with a targeted intervention. Amendment 3, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, goes too far and would undermine the independence of the Sentencing Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I refer the hon. Member to the comments the shadow Justice Secretary made at the last Justice questions—I think the hon. Member was not in attendance for that—when he named a specific judge and made a critique of or complaint about them outside the formal processes.

[Ayoub Khan]

Judges have been vilified, as have others sitting on the Sentencing Council, by Members of this House. Does the hon. Member agree that, if there is to be any vilification, it should be of the Conservative Members who formed the previous Government, who held the consultation and agreed to the guidance?

[Josh Babarinde]

I do not agree that vilification is the right approach from any side of the argument. This debate should be conducted with respect and courtesy, and I feel that that was missing from some of the comments I just referred to. Absolutely, there must be accountability. Indeed, the previous Government were held accountable in huge respect at the general election, where they suffered the biggest defeat in their history. So desperate is the shadow Justice Secretary to rise to the top of our democracy that he is prepared, in the ways I have described, to undermine our democracy itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If Members keep standing, it makes it easier for me.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I am shocked about is that we can see a disparity in the overall cohort sentencing outcomes. Everybody accepts that we are not quite sure why it is happening, and there has not been sufficient curiosity over the last few years to work out why that is the case. My view is that if we can see a problem or think we have one, we need to get to the bottom of what is actually going on before we start coming up with broad policy solutions to fix that problem. I also think that some of these broad policy decisions are better made by Ministers, because we are directly elected individuals who will pay the price for the consequences of our choices. That is a conversation that I will pick up with the Sentencing Council when we meet later this week.