Courts and Tribunals Bill

Baroness Bi Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I said at Second Reading that I was going to oppose a lot of the clauses in the Bill, and I will be standing up several times today to do exactly that. The first clause I oppose is Clause 1, and I find myself signing up to do so with some unusual colleagues—which is obviously a pleasure. I am against this clause because the Government, in order to make the court system easier to manage, are taking away an important protection from people accused of criminal offences. If we cannot get rid of the first clause, I support the other amendments in this group.

The right to elect trial by jury is an important safeguard. This clause removes that choice and hands the decision to magistrates. I have great respect for magistrates—I know quite a few and I appreciate the work they do—but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a defendant should lose the choice of having their case heard by a jury. The Government argue that this is necessary to tackle the Crown Court backlog, but as we have already heard, removing rights is not a substitute for properly resourcing our courts. It is not going to work; that is fairly obvious from the debates we have had already.

The Bar Council strongly opposes this provision. It warns that the changes will result in more serious and complex cases being heard in magistrates’ courts, which is fairly obvious. But that concern becomes even greater when we consider Clause 5, which I will also be opposing and which increases magistrates’ sentencing powers. Taken together, these provisions mean that more serious cases can be dealt with in magistrates’ courts, with greater powers to deprive defendants of their liberty.

There is also the equality consideration, which I am disappointed that the Government have refused to address so far. Their own equality statement acknowledges that Black defendants, older defendants and women are more likely to elect for a Crown Court trial. In 2022, 26% of Black defendants elected for a Crown Court trial, compared with 15% of white defendants. The Lammy Review found that many people from ethnic-minority backgrounds had

“more confidence in the fairness of juries than … in the fairness of Magistrates’ Courts”.

So removing this choice risks further undermining confidence in a justice system where trust is already quite fragile.

There are consequences for witnesses and complainants too. Section 28 special measures, which allow eligible witnesses to have their cross-examination pre-recorded, is not available in magistrates’ courts. This is particularly important for children, people with certain disabilities, and complainants of sexual offences. With the current spotlight in our country on sexual offences and the fact that women find it incredibly difficult to get justice, this is quite an important component.

The Government acknowledge that there is insufficient data to establish how many vulnerable witnesses could be affected. How can we press ahead with something when we do not even have the data to see whether it is going to be good or bad? I do not understand. The organisation Justice also supports removing the clause.

A fair trial should not depend on whether the Government want to move one backlog to another. The right to a jury trial should not be treated as expendable and Greens such as me will always defend it.

[Baroness Bi (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a partner of Norton Rose Fulbright, a law firm. I start by apologising for missing Second Reading as I was travelling overseas on firm business that could not be avoided. I have, however, read the debate in full in Hansard. I was struck particularly by the important contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, with its cri de coeur at the end of

“if not this, then what? If not now, then when?”.—[Official Report, 27/10/26; col. 1099.]

As a corporate lawyer with no expertise in criminal law, unlike many noble Lords who will contribute today and have done in the past, I want to make the point that the reputation of our criminal courts is important to all of us, as it drives the reputation of our legal system as a whole, and that forms the basis of our success as a leading economy. That reputation is now suffering, and in some cases international clients are choosing to take their commercial cases to our competitor jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Dubai, where they believe they will receive faster judgments. It is therefore not just a matter of justice that we address the crisis in our courts but an economic imperative.

It was generally agreed by your Lordships at Second Reading that the courts are in crisis and that we need not only more money and efficiency but a principled, structural reform of how trials are run. My concern about the amendments proposed to Clause 1 is that they are based on the assumption that the better form of justice is trial by jury and that requiring a case to be heard in the magistrates’ court by removing the right to elect is a denial of a fundamental right.

This assumption is made even though only a small minority of criminal cases are heard by a jury and over 90% of criminal cases are dealt with entirely in the magistrates’ courts. The number of “each way” offences comprised 18% of the cases that were before the magistrates in July 2026, only a minority of which elected for trial by jury. Are we really saying that those whose lives are permanently affected by a criminal conviction, irrespective of the length of the sentence handed down by the magistrates’ court, have had an inferior form of justice, and the only trial worthy of the name has to involve a jury?

Am I the only person to be shocked to read in the impact assessment that the size of the magistracy reduced from over 29,000 magistrates in 2010 to 12,500 by 2022? That was under successive Governments claiming to be tough on law and order. It is not a surprise that we have the backlogs that we are talking about. Very importantly, the Government and the Lady Chief Justice are seeking to widen the diversity of the magistracy and the judiciary, because it is vital that defendants believe they have been judged by their peers, which has been the main argument for a jury trial until now. I take seriously the comment that has just been made about Black and other minority defendants, and I am glad that the Government will commission an independent review of the changes to ensure that they do not disadvantage any groups in particular.

This Bill, including Clause 1, is only one of a number of measures that are needed to ensure that our legal system remains the gold standard internationally, on which our reputation as a good place to invest and do business rests. The Government are bringing into place not just the changes that this Bill represents but a broad programme of hiring further magistrates, judges and court officials to make sure that courts are properly staffed and able to deal with the broad range of the backlog. They are also increasing the number of court days and ensuring that criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court is increased, which is important to make sure that defendants are fairly treated. For that reason, I reject the amendments suggested to Clause 1, and I hope the Bill continues as it is currently drafted.