Courts and Tribunals Bill

Baroness Goudie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have been in touch with me and have come to see me, including all the organisations that have briefed me, from Amnesty to the Bar Council and Liberty. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stace, on his maiden speech today and the work he has done before coming to this House, including with the King’s Trust.

I welcome the aim of today’s Bill to produce swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants. The pressure is astronomical, with the Crown Court’s open caseload reaching a record of 80,829 in June this year. Almost one-third of them had been open for over a year, and over half were for sexual offences or violence against a person. The resource burden, as well as the distress felt by the parties involved, cannot be overstated. One can never understand what it must be like to live in this situation.

I will talk about the importance of jury trials. A jury brings together 12 different citizens, each with entirely different lives and experiences. It is a rare form of public participation in justice. This helps to build confidence in outcomes and is a fair part of the right to be judged by one’s peers. At the same time, it is absolutely vital that legal aid is available in all criminal trials, including those concerning domestic violence. We have to ensure that legal aid is available; there must be no going back on legal aid.

Clause 1 would go further than the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, which apply to offences carrying a maximum sentence of two years or less. I hope the Government will recognise the importance of jury trials and work to protect this fundamental right. I also hope that the Government will consider the impact on women, as well as race and socioeconomic status, especially considering institutional bias and the implications on access to justice and public confidence.

The criminal justice system is not working for victims of crime, witnesses of crime or criminal defendants. Indeed, it can scarcely be described as a system. All are prejudiced and stressed by the increasing delays, which are among the most significant features of the way the criminal courts operate in practice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, has warned that a radical extended package of measures is needed to prevent total collapse—this is absolutely true; the figures show this to us. Something has to be done, urgently and effectively. The status quo is not an option, but there are important limitations on what can be done. Equally, jury trials must be preserved, as I said earlier, and legal aid must be available.

The problem in the Crown Court is that many cases are heard by a judge alone, rather than by a judge and a jury. I think this should be possible only for lengthy and technically complex fraud and financial crime cases. Enhanced jurisdiction must be considered for magistrates’ courts, which have increased sentencing powers and controls over appeals. However, it is difficult for magistrates to sit for more days than possible, because of issues around having time off work and having extra training—that makes it quite difficult at present.

The National Audit Office has attributed at least part of the backlog to fewer criminal barristers and solicitors, and the legal profession points to fewer sitting days. Funding is needed for extra sitting days. The magistrates’ courts already hold a record 380,230 open cases, and the chair of the Justice Committee noted that the magistrates’ courts’ workload has risen by 65% in the past three years. We do not want to risk adding more pressure there. I hope priority will be given to having more advocates, more sitting days and more courtrooms, so that the backlog is cleared without narrowing choice. Courtrooms have to be made suitable—at present, half of them are not suitable for cases to be held in; they are in a terrible state.

Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of defendants. We have a human rights obligation to prisoners awaiting trial and on remand. It is important that the prison system, under whose care they are placed, ensures that they appear for their case at the right time and in the right court. Prisoners are not being produced on time. When a defendant is not brought to court on time, a hearing day is lost, and a person waits longer for a decision on their liberty. We have to look again—I know that this is likely to happen—at the contracts between the Prison Service and those who bring prisoners to court. What has been happening over the past few years is disgraceful.