Court and Tribunal Transcripts

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If a victim has gone through a challenging court case, having immediate access to some of the witness statements and contributions that were made during the court proceedings —which can happen without difficulty, following a judge’s ruling—will potentially enable that victim to properly seek closure regarding the sentence that has been given. Probably more importantly, if they wish to challenge that sentence—and currently, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, they must do so within a 28-day period—being able to look at the transcripts, albeit only what can be released in the short term, could provide them with the opportunity to do so.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Clearly, we are talking about having access to accurate court transcripts. I have been contacted by a couple of constituents who work as registered public service interpreters. They feel that the current system is very patchy and that the quality of interpretation services is not good enough. Indeed, someone can still act as an interpreter in the system without professional or vocational training. Does the hon. Member agree that we must raise standards and ensure that there is a strong supply of level 6 qualified interpreters to support people in getting access to the transcripts we are discussing?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. They were some of the key ones picked up in the Justice Committee’s report, because they not only advocated for better use of technology but argued that there was a skill challenge among the various courts. That feeds back into the issue’s narrative: when the tender was given back in June 2023, it was geographically based, and once that tender was locked in, it was very difficult to alter it, despite challenge, our raising it in the House of Commons, and a petition coming down the line with more than 200,000 signatures. So I would like put the hon. Member’s points directly to the Minister.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

James Naish Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system?

Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them.

There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously.

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I will support the Government tonight, because it is clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that so many Members have described, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are genuinely confident about the package of reforms that they are presenting, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review clause or the equivalent to ensure that we are clear about whether we actually need some of these measure?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach.

Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important. I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the range of diversions that can help the rehabilitation of young offenders, including boxing clubs. I am happy to meet him.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

16. What steps her Department is taking to restore the Legal Aid Agency's digital services.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

As the House will be aware, the Legal Aid Agency suffered a criminal cyber-attack across its systems. It has worked tirelessly to ensure that those who rely on legal aid have not seen that legal aid stop and that providers are not left out of pocket. In short, it has kept the show on the road with a series of emergency contingency measures. Let us be in no doubt, however, that it suffered that attack because its IT systems had been left in a fragile state by the lack of investment from the Conservatives. We will learn from the crisis and build back better with additional investment.

[James Naish]

Two of my local firms—MJC Law and Nottingham Law Centre—have contacted me about this issue. MJC Law said:

“This has left legal aid law firms, often small businesses, to decide whether to take on the risk of cases and hope they will be approved and paid retrospectively”.

Cash flow could become a genuinely serious issue for such firms, so what steps are being taken to support them? For how long does the Minister envisage firms dealing with this situation? Finally, on GDPR notices, is it sufficient that the LAA has simply provided a notice on its webpage?

[Sarah Sackman]

I pay tribute to the legal aid providers across the country who have kept going through this difficult time and who do vital work in the sector. As part of the package of contingency business measures, we have delegated more decision making to providers and we have committed to backdating criminal legal aid applications. I must assure the House that we will turn the systems back on only when we can be sure that they are secure and we can guarantee that we are protecting people’s data.

Independent Sentencing Review

James Naish Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

All those who have received an extended determinate sentence—and that includes many of the offenders mentioned by the hon. Lady—are excluded from these measures. All other offenders would have to earn an earlier release by proving that they have behaved properly in prison and not broken prison rules; the minimum for them is set at one third of the sentence, but it can be higher. As I have said, for those who egregiously offend, we will set no upper limit.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

We heard this morning that probation services in Nottinghamshire have been rated inadequate following visits by inspectors. They have been judged as understaffed, with urgent improvements needed. I therefore welcome the £700 million increase for probation services, but can I ask the Lord Chancellor what other steps can be taken to drive up probation standards in constituencies like mine?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues relating to the Probation Service. We have already expanded the number of staff. Last year, we recruited 1,000 extra, and this year we are on track to hit our target of 1,300 extra staff. Increasing resource—first and foremost with more staff—is a clear priority for us. We are investing in technology to help the Probation Service to be more productive. We have already funded programmes and pilots on AI tech designed to decrease the amount of file work that probation officers have to do to allow them to have more time to do the things that only a human can do: to spend time with the offender in front of them, to come up with a proper plan to reduce their reoffending and therefore to keep the public safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

This Government recognise the difficulties that parents and guardians of young people who lack mental capacity can face in accessing their child trust fund. I recently met the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), and his constituent about this issue. The Government will consider what can be done in a way that safeguards those who lack capacity.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

T6.   Several constituents have contacted me about the sentences being handed down to climate protesters, with some seeing these sentences as too long given the pressure on our prison system. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there are any plans to look afresh at sentencing for these types of offences in the context of crowded prisons?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The right to protest is an important part of our democracy, but it has to be exercised within the law. Sentencing in individual cases is, of course, a matter for independent courts.