Courts and Tribunals Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not now—later. I will.

I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me.

There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.

[Catherine Atkinson]

On that point—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it.

If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time. As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will he give way?

[Andrew Cooper]

Will he give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say.

This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan—[Interruption.] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice.

A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now.

The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate.

The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people.

There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial. Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment.

The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not.

I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle. I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country.

I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation.

I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I may give way in a moment.

Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury

“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.

That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,

“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”

There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.

Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I fully agree that jury trials are a hugely important part of our justice system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way that summary offences, either-way offences and indictable-only offences are classified has altered over the years? That classification was changed in the 1970s and in the 1980s, and it is incorrect to try to portray our legal system as one that is unchanged in 800 years.

[Gideon Amos]

Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.

I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It has been a positive debate in terms of the exchange of ideas, and there have been some fantastic contributions. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for the very personal way in which they made their cases. There is consensus that for victims, the current waits are terrible and an experience that they should not have to go through. It is not only damaging for them as individuals, but some of them drop out as a result. We see perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and we see defendants who would have been found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Not yet.

We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government.

It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues.

The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done.

As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, alongside many others, on behalf of black and Asian women in particular to make sure that that work is included in Baroness Amos’s report. That is central to the work that she will do. We know that there are high risks. There are engagement groups as part of that work, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend and others are kept up to date on that.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, Derby County Community Trust launched its “See you at your smear” campaign, encouraging women across the city to visit the pop-up cervical screening clinics that are in place until March. The trust does amazing work on women’s health. We know that increasing the uptake of smear tests is very important as, nationally, one in three women are overdue. Will the Minister outline what work she is undertaking with the Health Secretary to improve smear test uptake?

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.

I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.

Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.

More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.

We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.

The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can the Minister perhaps restrict himself to the amendments?

Jury Trials

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are facing a real and serious crisis in our criminal courts. It did not happen overnight and it certainly did not happen by accident. It is the result of 14 years of neglect, and it is now denying justice to people up and down the country. Right now, around 80,000 cases are waiting to be heard in the Crown court. If we do nothing, that number will only grow. As we have heard today, in some areas cases are being listed in 2030.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really frustrating to hear people say that the backlog is the result of covid, when it is clear that backlogs were increasing before covid as a result of underlying factors including substantial real-terms cuts to the justice system, court closures and reductions in judges and court staff? They began rising in 2019, the same year that the previous Government cut sitting days.

[Emma Foody]

Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend. I am immensely frustrated at the rhetoric on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment.

There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty.

The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit.

The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Is there a part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech where he says that the reason that so many of our courts are dilapidated and falling down is because we did not see investment in 14 years of Conservative Government?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours.

It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system.

The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate.

I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I wanted to be a barrister from when I was a child. I did not know any lawyers, and I think I got most of my ideas about what lawyers did from TV shows, but jury trials is what I wanted to do. Some of my most memorable moments as a barrister were prosecuting and defending in front of juries, so I get the importance of jury trials, but I also saw courts falling down and delays getting longer and longer, and I have spent recent years hearing former colleagues talk about cases that are listed for three, four or five years’ time. We have heard that the Crown court backlog is sitting at 78,000 cases, and in every single case, justice is being put on hold—a family is left reeling from a burglary, a teenager is recovering from assault, or a survivor of sexual assault is waiting years for her day in court. It is not acceptable.

Of course I want increased funding, and with this Labour Government we are already beginning to see that; an additional £450 million per year has been earmarked for the court system over the spending review period to fund the increased number of court sitting days. However, Sir Brian Leveson made it abundantly clear that the current system cannot stop the backlog from growing. With more digital evidence being presented in court; more DNA, cell site, electronic and social media evidence; and the massive disclosure exercises, trials are more complex. Sir Brian Leveson found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000.

I spent over a year of my time as a barrister working on a complicated insider trading fraud case. We spent huge amounts of time and resource working out how we would present that prosecution to a jury. This is not to say that juries are not capable, but in terms of suitability and proportionality, I need no persuasion that trial by jury is often not appropriate in fraud trials and similarly technical trials.

We must be absolutely clear that the proposal is not to scrap jury trials. The proposal is to amend the type of cases that are heard by juries. The types of cases being heard by jury have changed and evolved over time. It was the Conservatives who, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988 , made offences such as common assault and criminal damage summary only, and not subject to jury trial. We are rightly proud of our legal traditions, but it is untrue to suggest that the lack of jury trials is somehow unique to despotic regimes. Sweden, which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings, does not use jury trials at all. Norway, which is ranked No. 3, also does not—nor do Germany and the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are heard by juries.

I believe that jury trials are a fundamental part of system, and it is right that they remain so, but something has to change. Without really bold action, the backlog will continue to grow.

[Alison Griffiths]

I just wonder why the hon. Lady would not look to implement the recommendations from the shadow Secretary of State before seeking to restrict jury trials.

[Catherine Atkinson]

There are a huge number of additional measures that will be rolled out, and I look forward to continuing to engage with Justice Ministers on other measures that I believe will help. We have more coming after the next stage of the Leveson review.

We need bold action to ensure justice for victims across the country—and not years in the future. They need a criminal justice system that works. We all—the British people—need to have faith in our criminal justice system again.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I listened to her speech very closely, and it was largely invalidated by the admission of the Minister that she would have made this change anyway, irrespective of any backlog. The hon. Member cannot guarantee the House—neither can the Minister—that the backlog would come down after the abolition, or partial abolition, of trial by jury, because there has been no impact assessment or modelling shown to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that.

The Minister is making this change under the guise of modernisation, but we must be very clear about what is at stake: 800 years of legal precedent. This right is set out in Magna Carta—and how clever they were in 1215 to come up with a legal mechanism that made sure that individual citizens have the right to pass judgment on their peers. This mechanism goes right to the heart of our society and shapes the relationship between the individual, or group of individuals, and the state. That is so the state cannot abuse its power in making a decision about taking away someone’s liberty or livelihood, or their reputation; a panel of peers makes that judgment. That is what is at stake.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will my hon. Friend consider how Conservative Governments were wrong to reduce the number of types of offences heard by juries? Does he agree that it is absolutely necessary to see some modernisation, acknowledging that criminal trials and the evidence presented in those trials has changed over the years?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am delighted that the hon. Member called me her hon. Friend; I accept such an accolade. I agree with trial by jury, as stated in the motion—it has validity in where it is in place—and Opposition Members think that reducing it, as the Government propose, without any assessment or guarantee of numbers, is wrong.

The hon. Member and many other Labour Members set out a number of ways—albeit in a party political guise—in which we could reduce the backlog, but the reality is, the Government are not even talking about those seriously; they are talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they would reduce jury trials to reduce the backlog. Those two things do not go hand in hand. That is why there is cross-party opposition as well as opposition from judges and all sorts of organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association, which says that this will not achieve what the Government want it to.

A constituent of mine—a local barrister who sees this day in, day out—wrote to me about improvements in sitting days. He wants to see investment in sitting days, and the Conservatives have called for that. We have also called for prisoner transport services to be on time, as well as—I think the Minister referred to some of these points—the targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted and, of course, investment in basic court infrastructure. If all those issues had been assessed and invested in, there may even have been cross-party support, as offered by the shadow Justice Secretary. I was surprised by the Minister’s tone; she then made the glaring admission that this change would have happened anyway.

This is about big statist ideology, undermining trial by jury. We continue to hear, as we did from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), that this proposal will undermine fairness in the system. Fundamental to this, in my view, is arrogance. There is arrogance in saying, “Actually, lawyers will know better than juries.” The whole nature of trial by jury is not about expecting an individual juror to have expertise in everything; it is about collective decision making that takes away bias and discrimination. No Government Members can guarantee that an individual judge—as neutral as they must be and as professional as they are—will not demonstrate those biases. That is the point we are making: the Government’s plan undermines one of the most fundamental individual liberties that we rely on in society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am pleased to wind up this Opposition day debate on the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary’s ill-considered, poorly evidenced and rash plan to curtail one of our cornerstone rights—the right to a trial by jury—which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) colourfully described as one in which the bottom fell out of the Government’s argument.

I disagree with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on very many issues, but today, for once, I find myself in fulsome, wholehearted agreement with not just the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). I agree with all three of them that jury trials are a crucial, vital part of our justice system that should be protected wherever possible. Even with this Prime Minister, who has an unrivalled reputation for having opinions that last as long as they remain popular with whoever’s vote he is seeking at a particular point in time, we are in the extraordinary position where the Government are now putting forward a proposal that the Justice Secretary, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister himself all previously argued vigorously against.

In fact, I am going to indulge in a degree of parliamentary plagiarism—I am going to let them do the hard work of writing at least some of my speech for today. First, I will hand over to the Justice Minister, who previously said on the issue of limiting jury trials:

“Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work…We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.”

Next, let me ask the Justice Secretary to take over. He said:

“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

He also said:

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

I could not have said it better myself.

Finally, although I appreciate that he is a busy man, I will lean on the Prime Minister’s carefully considered words. He said:

“The general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”,

and,

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That question of balance is at the heart of the matter. The Minister, as well as Labour Back Benchers—thin on the ground though they have been—have rightly pointed out that we have criminal trials without juries. That is a fact, but it is no argument for these measures. If that is the Government’s argument, we could simply do away with jury trials entirely without anyone being concerned. It is and has always been a balance, but as the Justice Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister understand—or understood at one point at least—altering that balance should be considered only when there is no other option.

To draw a comparison that illustrates the seriousness of the matter, during the pandemic—at the heart of the crisis that was widely accepted to be the biggest challenge to face our nation since world war two—jury trials continued. In fact, it was during world war two that we last saw proposals anything like as radical as those we are considering today, but even they did not come close to this proposed curtailment. During that time, we reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven in most cases. When our nation was under attack and every element of life was turned over to the war effort, we modified but fundamentally retained the right to jury trials.

I am pleased to say that the meeting of minds between me and the triumvirate who are making this decision is only the beginning; I find myself in common cause with 37 Labour MPs today. It is fair to say that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), as well as the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) are very far from me on the political spectrum, but, like other colleagues, they are clear that these proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree. When there are 37 names on a signed public letter, any decent Whip would know that there are at least the same number lurking in the background, not willing to go public but rushing to answer the phone call from the Whips at the weekend to say that they are not happy with the proposals.

What do those 37 Members say? They say that the proposal is “madness”, that it

“will cause more problems than it solves”,

and that

“the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government could do to more effectively reduce the backlog.”

That final point takes us right back to the issue of balance. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. They might have received a more sympathetic reception had they strained every sinew to tackle the issue and truly exhausted all other options since their election.

As our motion acknowledges, the courts are under unprecedented pressure—no one disputes that. The delays are too long, victims are waiting too long for justice, and defendants are left in limbo. Prior to the pandemic, the Crown court backlogs were lower than those that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—I do not remember Labour MPs being concerned about that at the time—but then covid hit and placed unprecedented strain on the criminal justice system, leaving a long and difficult legacy. The result was an enormous reduction in court capacity that led to backlogs shooting up in a way they never had before.

I remind the ouse again that even during that challenging time, there was cross-party support for the guiding principle that jury trials should continue. After the pandemic, England and Wales resumed jury trials faster than many comparable countries, following one of the shortest suspensions anywhere, because they were treated as a priority. The previous Government opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courtrooms, increased the number of judges and raised the judicial retirement age to retain experience in the system. In a short number of years, we increased the number of sitting days by more than 20,000—an unprecedented level. Despite that, the loss of capacity could not simply be undone.

[Catherine Atkinson]

In the light of the shadow Minister’s comments about sitting days, does he condemn the Conservative cut of nearly 15% of sitting days in 2019 and congratulate this Labour Government on increasing the number of sitting days?

[Dr Mullan]

As the shadow Justice Secretary outlined, there has not been enough investment in the justice system over many decades. I also want to make it clear that the claim about a record number of sitting days is a bit of a statistical anomaly, because, as the Government know, there was a change in how sitting days are measured. Using the historical measure to make the comparison, we matched that number of sitting days—and perhaps even surpassed it. Of course, we uncapped sitting days for a number of years during the pandemic. This Government have failed to do that, and they have failed to rapidly increase the number of sitting days, which the Institute for Government said makes things more difficult. As I said, there is no dispute about whether there are long-standing issues, as Members across the House acknowledge. The question is what to do about them.

Let us be clear about how many of the unacceptably long waits are the result of a wait for a jury trial. The Justice Secretary has rightly been criticised for quoting statistics about victim drop-out rates in a deeply misleading way. We do not want to see any victims drop out for any reason, or any long waits, but fewer than 10% of drop-outs occur post-charge, and that figure is coming down. It is not helpful to understanding this issue for Members to cite waits of six or seven years that in fact relate to the delay from alleged offence to sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture.

Jury trials are not a quirk or a happenstance for how we deliver criminal justice in this country; they are a foundational principle of our justice system reaching back to Magna Carta. For more than 800 years, ordinary men and women have been trusted to sit in judgment, to weigh evidence, and to decide guilt or innocence. That public participation is not a flaw in the system; it is one of its greatest sources of legitimacy. Removing juries, even for a narrow category of cases, let alone the radical changes before us, alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, and replaces collective judgment with individual arbitrary authority.

[Catherine Atkinson]

In light of the shadow Minister’s comments, does he think it was wrong of the then Conservative Government, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to make offences such as criminal damage and common assault summary only, removing juries for those offences?

[Dr Mullan]

I wonder whether the hon. Member was listening to my speech. I have said throughout that the issue is one of balance. As the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Minister have said, we must tread carefully; for the hon. Member to draw comparisons between minor changes and wholescale huge reductions in the use of jury trials shows that she fails to understand that the issue is one of balance. The obvious flaw in the argument being made by the Government in support of these measures—that they are to tackle what we should all consider a temporary problem—is that the measures are permanent. There is no plan to reverse them when the backlog is down, as the temporary measures in world war two that I mentioned were reversed.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the decision regarding Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners to open prisons has been made by successive Governments. This is a policy decision. The Parole Board makes independent decisions. At the time of those risk assessments, no concerns were raised about the risk of harm to the public or absconding in relation to any of the prisoners who have absconded.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

When we see offenders abscond from prison, it is understandable that many people feel unsafe. Our thoughts are particularly with the victims and their friends and families. Does the Minister agree that absconding is not only a serious criminal offence, but a symptom of years of austerity and chronic underfunding that saw our prison system pushed to breaking point?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. This is just another symptom of the crisis we inherited in our criminal justice system. Whether prisons, courts or probation, every single aspect of the system was at breaking point following 14 years of underfunding and mismanagement by the Conservative party. We are working as quickly as we can to bring back to justice the two prisoners who absconded. My thoughts are with the victims. We have made contact with two of the victims and their families via the victim contact scheme. I encourage the public to get behind the police’s public appeal to bring those prisoners to justice.

Criminal Court Reform

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

No, I do not.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Cambridgeshire is a part of the country that I know well, having spent seven years of my life in Peterborough. I will look closely at this issue, and I will ask the Prisons Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we move forward.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Probation Service plays a vital role in our justice system, and is integral to ensuring that community sentences are effective and that our communities are kept safe. The Conservatives’ part-privatisation reforms were disastrous for our Probation Service. What are this Government doing to ensure that our probation officers are properly supported in carrying out their vital jobs?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The decisions that were made under the last Government by the then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, were catastrophic for a wonderful service, and we are now in the business of rebuilding the Probation Service. I have been very pleased to visit probation workers in Chatham, Kent, and in Islington recently, and one of the things they raise is their caseload. In Kent they were trialling our transformation fund money, which is introducing artificial intelligence that can help them do what they want to do: provide face-to-face contact and reduce their caseloads. I want to see that rolled out across the country.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Government inherited a prison system so weakened by austerity, but it was also overcrowded by a justice system that failed to look at rehabilitation as well as punishment. Will the Secretary of State redouble the Department’s efforts to match employers who want to give prisoners a chance to learn skills and the habit of work with the opportunity to do so while serving their sentences and afterwards, so that we can ensure that our communities are safer because we rehabilitate as well as punish?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she emphasises punishment that works, and that has to mean skills, education and employment so that people do not go on to reoffend. We have inherited a system where recidivism rates are beyond 60%, which means that the system is not working even though it is overheated. We have to look at those issues in time. The Sentencing Bill is the beginning of the story, but we will have to return to those issues if we are serious about reducing reoffending.

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

As always, I welcome the contributions of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that he and I discussed before Committee stage last week. I have not returned to them in the last seven days, but we will no doubt do so in the coming weeks as the Bill progresses.

I will briefly touch on the issue of probation. A number of amendments have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and spoken to by other hon. Members. The Government accept that the Bill places an extra responsibility on the Probation Service. That is why we are investing £750 million in probation—a 45% increase, and the biggest upgrade to investment in probation for a generation. We are investing £8 million to improve technology, so that probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled by the burden of paperwork. We recruited 1,000 probation officers in our first year and 1,300 this year. However, there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will undertake that work in the coming weeks and months.

This Government have been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons. Ensuring that offenders work will mean that they can be rehabilitated and, when they leave prison, can enter society with the prospect of employment. Clearly, some of the details of how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out carefully. I am very happy to meet the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons, because it is absolutely vital. Labour is the party of work. We believe in the inherent value of work, and work in our prisons plays a vital role in rehabilitation.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.

I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?

[Jake Richards]

In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

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

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.

People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.

New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.

Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:

“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:

“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]

That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.

The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.

New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.

My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen.

[Esther McVey]

I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

[Catherine Atkinson]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not.

New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.

New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.

Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.

All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.

The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.

The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.