Jury Trials

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I start by saying how extraordinary it was to hear the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services say earlier that she would be pursuing this policy even if there were not a backlog to deal with. That suggests that it was planned all along, but it is nowhere in the Labour party manifesto. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) explain in summing up why that is the case?

There is no mandate to reduce trial by jury. It is a profound constitutional shift—one that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. Trial by jury is a centuries-old safeguard designed to ensure that an individual can be judged guilty only by their peers and not by the machinery of the state. It is the ordinary person’s shield against arbitrary power and yet, astonishingly, the Government now ask us to believe that that ancient protection must be curtailed just because Ministers do not want to do the hard work to reduce the backlog.

The Bar Council, which represents the very professionals who keep our justice system functioning, is correct to raise alarm bells. There is absolutely no evidence—none whatsoever—that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog. The Government have produced no modelling, no data and no analysis to justify that constitutional gamble. That work should have been done before the announcement was made, especially for something of such magnitude. Around 3% of criminal cases currently reach a jury. To claim that reducing jury trials further will magically clear the backlog of tens of thousands of cases is just implausible. It defies logic and makes no sense whatsoever. This is a complete distraction. No hon. Member supporting the Government position has been able to explain how the decision will actually shift the dial on reducing the backlog.

Concern goes deeper, however, as many of my hon. Friends have explained. Every time this Government face a crisis, their instinct is not to work out how sensibly to fix the system but to take things away from British citizens. We have heard examples including digital ID and Chagos, and now they are taking away people’s right to be judged by their peers because they cannot get a grip of the criminal justice system. Judge-only trials may be quicker, but they are not fairer. They concentrate power in the single hand of a single state official. Did it cross anyone’s mind to pilot juryless trials in Crown courts? If not, why not? They remove the diversity of experience, the collective wisdom and the democratic legitimacy that juries bring. How many judges are under 40? How many are non-white? How many were educated in state schools? How many have personal experience of the issues? Now ask the same question of juries.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

With two dangerous offenders on the run, many of our constituents will rightly be very concerned and worried. Will the Minister explain what resources are being deployed to capture those offenders as soon as possible?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

When a prisoner absconds from open conditions, the prison must notify the police immediately, so that officers can locate the individual and return them to custody. Local governors have good working relationships with their local police forces and maintain constant communication about efforts to locate prisoners who are at large, including on whether to launch a public appeal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the police launched a public appeal on 3 January to assist them in locating the prisoners. I encourage any member of the public who spots the prisoners not to approach them but to alert the local police so that we can bring them back into custody.

Sentencing Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

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

[John McDonnell]

I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. This is about the only time I have disagreed with it. I will not support that measure, although I understand where it is coming from, and I understand that there may well be a review of sentencing, and what is taken into account, when these actions tragically occur. To have a mandatory sentence like that would most probably not be appropriate, although the shadow Minister is right that the Prison Officers Association has argued strongly for the measure, and I respect that.

My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the family, and in particular the children. Sometimes, the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Last week, I met one of my constituents, Tracey Hanson, in Parliament to honour the 10-year anniversary of the tragic loss of her son Josh, who was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in Hillingdon, west London, in October 2015. We spoke about the tireless work that she has put into campaigning for victims’ rights, and I heard more about how the law that she wants to introduce—Josh’s law—would ensure that the rights of victims and their families to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are clear and equal to the rights of offenders.

I will speak specifically to new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). After cruelly taking the life of Josh Hanson, Shane O’Brien absconded and evaded police for three and a half years before he was finally caught. Dubbed Britain’s most wanted man at the time, O’Brien was sentenced to at least 26 years in prison, just one year above the minimum sentence. After just missing the deadline to appeal the sentence as a result of unclear information about victims’ families’ rights under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, Tracey has spent years campaigning to ensure that no other victims face what her family did. Unfortunately, far too many victims and their families face the same problems, simply because they are not being made aware of their right to appeal sentences.

There are also concerning numbers of cases in which clerical errors—in one case I heard of, it was an email stuck in a barrister’s outbox—lead to the Attorney General running out of time and missing the deadline to appeal a sentence. While appeals from offenders will still be considered by the Attorney General outside the 28-day window in exceptional circumstances, appeals from victims or their families will not. Historically, victims were at the centre of the justice system. Victims were the driving force in bringing criminal cases, and played a central role throughout the process. It was not until the 19th century that there was a significant shift towards state-led prosecutions, with the victims, rather than criminal cases, significantly diminished. The focus only started to shift back towards the victim with the very recent introduction of the first victim’s charter in 1990. I believe that we must recapture more of the focus from the state, and divert it back to those who are most directly impacted by crime.

The lives of Tracey and her family will never be the same again. They should have been a central focus in the criminal case, and should have received the same rights, and information about their right to appeal against the sentencing decision, as the offender did. It is vital that victims and their families are clearly informed about their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. New clause 12 would require the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, providing details of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme and the deadlines, which would also be extended, giving victims a better chance of benefiting from the scheme.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a bold case on behalf of victims. I hope that he will agree that the more we agonise about the circumstances of the guilty, the more we displace consideration of the effects on the innocent. Over the whole of my lifetime, the focus on the circumstances of wicked people has had exactly that effect, and unfortunately it has permeated so much of the establishment, including the judiciary; sentences are sometimes inadequate for that very reason.

[Blake Stephenson]

I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.

New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.

The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.

This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk.

Independent Sentencing Review

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Under these proposals, foreign criminals will be deported after serving 30% of their sentence, which I appreciate is an improvement. The public want them to be deported right away—does the Lord Chancellor?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review recommends immediate deportation—meaning “as quickly as possible”, because we still have to detain people before we can get them on a plane and back to their country of origin—for sentences of under three years. We are going to work up proposals on that with the Home Office. For more serious offenders with sentences of over three years, we are going to bring the threshold down from 50% to 30%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

What a load of nonsense. I am the Lord Chancellor who is rectifying the situation with the proper distinction between matters of policy and matters of independent judicial decision through the Bill that we will debate on Second Reading later today. I have already dealt with the issues in relation to the immigration guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about that which do not bear resemblance to fact, so perhaps he would like to correct the record. On the bail guidance and on all other guidance that relates to equality before the law, I have said that we are reviewing absolutely everything. I will ensure that under this Government equality before the law is never a principle that is compromised, although it was compromised under the Conservative Government.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

21. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

This Government inherited a situation where around 10% of offenders account for over half of all convictions. We also inherited rising levels of theft and shoplifting. In February, I announced reforms to the probation service that will focus more of its time on offenders who pose a higher risk of reoffending, and I have asked David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, cut the cycle of reoffending and ultimately make our streets safer.

[Blake Stephenson]

In my constituency there is a particular problem of hyper-prolific shoplifting. There are no credible deterrents and it is a scourge on our local communities and shop owners. Can the Justice Secretary rule out any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, in the Crime and Policing Bill this Government have removed the effective immunity from prosecution for thefts relating to values under £200, so we are already taking clear, definitive action to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman sees in his constituency. I will not pre-empt the findings of the sentencing review. I am interested in how we ensure that those who he correctly described as career criminals turn their back on a life of crime, because in the end that is the best strategy for cutting crime and making our streets safer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Member well knows, the solicitors profession is highly regulated. We have the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which itself is regulated by the Legal Services Board. All our professionals, whether they are practising in criminal or civil law, are highly respected and highly regulated, and we are indebted to them.