Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Sackman]

Q We both agree that we need investment. We agree that we need to do a major drive on efficiency and the Government are doing that. Sir Brian’s team concluded that both those things would not be enough to bring down the backlog. My question to the Bar is, “What do you know that Sir Brian’s team does not?”

Kirsty Brimelow: We know, operationally, what works. You will hear some more of that from the circuit leaders who are giving evidence. I have pointed to Woolwich as an example in 2023. We are agreed on the fact that we need to reduce delays. We focus on, “Where are the delays happening?” If we are serious about reducing them, we need to look at where they are happening.

You have heard a lot from victims of rape this morning. It should be made clear to them that the delays are weighted pre-court, so the median average that a rape victim is waiting is happening in the investigation stage and the charge stage—it is around two years. The median average currently from receipt in Crown court to completion is around a year. That is still too long, but we need to focus, therefore, on what is happening with the CPS and what is happening on investigation.

Charlotte Nichols was mentioned this morning by Vera Baird. In her case, she had more than two years waiting before getting to court. When it got to court, it was eight and a half months to conclude, so it is important to look at where the problem is and focus there.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Q Thank you both very much for being here—we really appreciate your time. What effect could the Bill’s proposed changes to jury trials have on newly qualified legal professionals, who quite often cut their teeth on jury trials with lesser sentences? Also, at the other end of the profession, have you done any polling or modelling to see whether this could impact the number of legal professionals staying in the profession?

Kirsty Brimelow: We have heard—and I agree with this—that we already have the data, and I believe some more data is coming over the next weeks. We already have the data to show that a quarter of King’s counsel have now left working in publicly funded work. As I have said, we have the retention back on our junior Bar, which is very positive after the investment in legal aid, but we need the legal aid promise to come through quickly to keep that retention, and hopefully attract back the KCs.

However, if jury trials are removed for those cases where juniors are currently very much cutting their teeth—they are doing those trials in their early years of practice before a jury—it may well be a disincentive to doing criminal law. From my own experience of coming from a mixed, publicly funded chambers—we do not do private cases, but legal aid cases across all the jurisdictions—there is always that persuasion with our young barristers as to what area of law they will go into. The persuasion that lands is, “You will have the advocacy with the jury trial.”

If they do not have that advocacy, my fear is that we will lose our junior practitioners, who are very important, or we could end up with very junior practitioners whose first jury trial may have a level of seriousness beyond their ability, which again impacts on the quality of justice, and there could be a potential increase in miscarriages of justice.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you. The victims in the previous session spoke about a necessary change in culture in the criminal system, which I think is a shared view across all the parties represented today. Can either of you see anything in the legislation before us that will provide that change in culture?

Kirsty Brimelow: I am going to hand over to Riel on this. We support much of the reform from clause 8 onwards, on which I will hand over to her. We are all absolutely there to make improvements; no system is perfect, and the criminal justice system absolutely is not. We are there ready to support the reforms, and we are very experienced in bringing in reforms. Some of the issues I heard spoken of this morning included clearly terrible communication issues, where people were not informed as to what was going on, and they should be fairly easy to sort out.

Also, we very much support the idea that there is a lawyer advising complainants, which is another proposal that has been put forward by the Government. We support that because complainants often get wrong information from NGOs or the police—doing their best—about what might be happening, and what might happen to them in court. That, in itself, can cause them to be anxious about what might happen, and it can contribute to the attrition rate. We have always had an issue with an attrition rate in sexual offences cases, and each time we need to look at why that is, so we welcome any proposals. I will hand over to Riel.

[The Chair]

We have a very limited amount of time, but please come in, Riel.

Riel Karmy-Jones: In terms of the culture, all the things that were spoken about this morning have no relevance, in a sense, to jury trial. Juries are in the best possible position to consider the situation that victims are in; they are more likely to have someone who really understands, who is from the community and who may have some experience themselves of what the victim has gone through, or to know someone who has.

To change the culture, some of which I do not really recognise—it may be slightly older than the way things have progressed now—we would firmly recommend creating a specialist sexual/domestic abuse court. We would add to that by saying there should be specific training for the judges and jury—the jury could have a short period of training—and we would say that the prosecution and the defence need to be qualified or accredited advocates to deal with this sort of work. One of the problems we have at the moment is that the prosecution are accredited, but the defence are not, so questions coming from the defence are not as properly informed by the training that they could receive. Specialist court facilities, aimed at the comfort and safety of complainants, accommodating special measures, are really important, because at the moment we have victims in terrible rooms, with the ceilings coming down and water leaking through, and having to share loos, potentially with other witnesses in the case, risking coming across defendants in the court building.

We need to have stricter time limits on case preparation, and more active case management, and we suggest a national protocol on the approach to third-party material and the review of third-party material, and disclosure with strict time limits applicable to mirror the service of the case—also, fixed trial dates.

One of the issues that complainants in sexual and domestic violence cases have to contend with is that the defendant is often on bail. That is why they get shunted to the end of the line, because we have custody time limits that apply to custody cases. We need to consider a mechanism to give priority to these very important cases, and we think that a specialist domestic abuse court could do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you all for being here today and providing evidence to the Committee. Can any of you outline the reasons why Crown court hearing time has dropped to an average of 3.2 hours per sitting day? Is that drop anything to do with jury trials?

Claire Davies: I think we would all agree that it is nothing to do with jury trials. What is happening is that, due to a lack of sitting days, judges are having to deal with more administrative matters and other hearings before they begin a trial, if of course any of those are in custody. If there is a delay—they are not always delayed, of course—that pushes matters back. A trial will take longer, and they do not have the whole day available to them. They do not have 10 am till 4.30 pm, which is a court sitting day; they get only part of that day. That is what is eating into the hours—or it is one of the reasons.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you. At some point, I would love to talk you through my amendments, which suggest fundamental reforms but not by curtailing the right to a jury trial. This is probably quite a simple question, which will mean that we can move on, but do you believe that the Crown court backlog could be fixed without reforms to jury trials?

Caroline Goodwin: Yes, I do. As I have pointed out, you have to allow us the opportunity to put in place very key and significant changes. Frankly, senior judges have already identified that they would enable us to get through this backlog.

In addition, the investigative stage needs to be got hold of and have a coach and horses driven through it. One of the big complaints that we have been hearing about today—it is a terrible complaint, when one thinks about it—is about the time it takes from investigation stage through to Crown court and the final determination with a jury. All those things could be addressed with efficiencies, which do not mean that you have to remove the right to a jury trial. Let us focus on those.

Let me make it clear that it is very commendable that this large investment has been put in, but it brings us back to where we ought to have been after the last 10 years, in which we have suffered significant cuts. There is a will from the judiciary and practitioners; we just have to be able to make it work. You have experienced judges telling you, “I need blitz courts. I need more courts,” so let us open them, staff them, resource them and make them work.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q My question concerns appeals. I am looking to see whether there is synergy here. Across your regions, 1% of cases that come from magistrates are appealed, so, accepting that the magistrates system is working, why do you not accept the principle of extending magistrates’ sentencing powers—as we have done in the past from six months to 12 months—from 12 months to three years?

Claire Davies: It is 18 months. The difficulty is the percentage of appeals against conviction, because we take a slightly different approach in relation to appeals against sentence. With appeals against conviction, the success rate is something like 40%. I understand that there is no data that demonstrates whether that is because witnesses do not attend the retrial hearing or simply because a wrong decision was reached in the lower courts. What concerns me is when you have the chair of the Magistrates’ Association giving evidence before the Select Committee that he would like the right of appeal retained.

There are errors and mistakes made, but if the length of sentence is extended, it will potentially increase that risk. The other difficulty that follows is that the number of those who qualify for legal aid will reduce, which means that they will not have access to legal advice as to whether they should be appealing or not, and if restrictions are brought in on the basis on which you can appeal, they will not be adequately equipped to launch what should perhaps be a successful appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Thank you, Claire, for sharing such a powerful testimony. I think I first met you during a Westminster Hall debate, which was called by your tireless and fearless MP Marie Tidball, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. Your testimony is compelling and it is why we are bringing forward the provision in clause 17 of the Bill to repeal the presumption of parental contact. We know that will not protect every single child, but it does send quite an important message about what we in Parliament say, which is that the courts should always have at the forefront of their minds the best interests of the child, and that alone. I just want to say thank you.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you, Claire. Can I just acknowledge that children who are yet to go through the family courts are safer because of you and your tireless campaigning over many years? I hope you can hold that close as you go on. I believe that all campaigners like you, who never fight for themselves, are fighting for the next generation—the job is never done. My question to you is: what is the next step? What would you like to see in legislation going forward, especially in our family courts, to protect more children from harm?

Claire Throssell: What I would like to see moving forward is an understanding of what it looks like without presumption of contact; what good practice looks like; understanding trauma; understanding what coercive control is; understanding emotional abuse. We all understand physical abuse—it is there; we see it. What we do not understand is the emotional abuse and the scars that we carry. We must always look from the position of actually seeing a child, hearing a child, believing a child, protecting a child, and we must go from this basis. We must use the legislation that we have in the Domestic Abuse Act. We know that it is not being used in courts. We must see children as victims in their own right of this crime. We must accept children as victims in their own right of this crime, and we must take away the fact that we are always trying to prove the crime that has been committed against us.

Domestic abuse is a crime, so why is it that when we go into family courts we are ripped apart by barristers? Why is it that a crime has been committed against us, but we are always the ones who have to prove it has been committed, and by whom? Why do we have to go into a court, when we have committed no crime, and stand up and be humiliated in order to fight for our children? Why do we have to do that alone?

With any other crime, the onus is on the police to prove that a crime has been committed and by whom, and then sentencing is carried out accordingly, but in a family court, the person who has had the crime committed against them time and again has to prove that that has happened. We are not believed automatically, and we are not supported automatically. There should be special measures in family courts to help see the child, like in the Pathfinder courts, but it is not just about seeing the child; it is about hearing them, believing them, supporting them, and letting perpetrators of abuse know that it will not be accepted and that we are going to take action, protect that child and always presume the unthinkable.

[Matt Bishop]

Q It is good to see you again, Claire. I echo everyone else’s comments about your very powerful evidence. You will remember that the last time you attended a debate in the Chamber, certain Opposition Members commented—we have heard comments and suggestions even today—that sometimes mistakes happen and both parents should have the right to their children at all times, but do you agree that this is an opportunity, and that the Government and, in fact, all parliamentarians should be doing everything we can to make sure that the 68 does not go to 69? I would rather that we make a mistake and the child survives than make a mistake where a child dies. Do you agree?

Claire Throssell: Absolutely—I agree with that 100%. It comes back to the fact that we must not presume that children are safe. We must not presume that children are not going to lose their lives, because perpetrators of abuse manipulate, they lie, they turn it around and they use DARVO—everything is always everybody else’s fault, and their voice is always louder than the child’s. You have an opportunity now to change that. You have the opportunity to make sure that no other child has to use their voice and say to a fireman, a police officer or a doctor, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.” No other boy should have to have a dying testimony and believe that he saved the life of his brother, because I never told him differently. Mistakes are not good enough. Sixty-eight mistakes is a national disgrace, and in 2026, there should be no more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Q Other Committee members want to come in, but I want to ask you about fairness and, importantly, the perceived fairness and confidence that communities have in the system. On my visit to Toronto, it struck me what a diverse city it is. I believe that 50% of the residents of greater Toronto were born outside Canada. Is that something that you measure? Can you help the Committee understand the confidence that the public has in judge-alone trials?

Doug Downey: There are two parts to that. First, clearly, people are choosing judge-alone. On its own, the fact that the accused are choosing judge-alone speaks to the confidence they have in that system. There have been studies, such as the national justice survey in 2023 and 2025. Half the respondents to those studies indicated that they are moderately to very confident that our criminal justice system is fair to all people, and more than half—59%, to be exact—reported being moderately to very confident that the criminal justice system is accessible to all people. That is a fairly high number for people who are experiencing the system or know people who are experiencing the system.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you, Mr Downey, for your time today. I profess my ignorance of the Canadian justice system—it will stay with me forever that I do not know exactly how it works. Is the lay element in your criminal courts just 5% of all criminal cases?

Doug Downey: Are you talking about the non-lawyers who are hearing—

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Yes.

Doug Downey: We have in the Ontario Court of Justice what we call a lay bench—the justices of the peace. They do a lot of the bail hearings and a lot of the provincial offences—traffic and that sort of thing. That is where the lay bench resides, but the trials are not done by the justices of the peace when it comes to criminal matters; they are done by judges who are appointed, with a minimum of 10 years’ experience and quite often more than that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q That is helpful. What sentence can a judge sitting alone give, and are there particular cases that will be heard with a jury?

Doug Downey: It is a great range. Let me answer that in reverse, if I may. The most significant matters, such as murder and treason, will default to a jury, but if the Crown agrees with the accused, they can move it to judge-alone. That generally is not the case—it generally stays where it is—but they can. For the balance of matters, such as serious sexual assaults, it is not directly based on what the consequence might be; it is a class of cases that we call hybrid and I think you call either-way cases, where an individual can make an election to move into the superior court and, by consequence, get a jury, but generally they do not do that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q I have a quick follow-up question, based on your earlier comments. Do you believe that a large part of the confidence in the Canadian model is the right to elect?

Doug Downey: I think so. The right to elect is a feature, but I do not think there would be any less confidence if they were not given that right, simply because the default would probably be with jury, but that would become very inefficient for us.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q My question concerns the potential issue of judges being identified and targeted because they are dealing with cases at a high level. Clearly, in your situation, judges are dealing with high-level cases and sentences. Have you seen any evidence that judges are particularly targeted if they hand down higher sentences?

Doug Downey: I think we are seeing, around the world, a heightened level of concern about individuals taking things into their own hands, so court security is very important to me. Judicial security is something that we have put a lot of effort into.

As for whether it happens because of a sentence, I cannot say with confidence that that is the driver. I think our societies are becoming more vitriolic, and that is what we need to guard against in protecting individuals. But if an individual judge is presiding anyway, I am not sure that they are going to attract more attention as a result of whether or not there is a jury.

To be honest, the nice thing about judges is that we get written reasons why things happen. In Canada it is very different from the United States: the jurors are not allowed to be debriefed afterwards in a public way. I do not know whether that is the case in Britain, but that provides a little bit of anonymity and protection against people drawing attention to themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Q Coupled with the procedural safeguards—things like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and what have you, which we all think are a good thing—that driver of demand is not going away. Unlike covid, which thankfully has dissipated, it is now a permanent feature of our criminal justice system, I take it.

Chief Constable Hatchett: Absolutely. We sometimes get better at what we do with it and I suppose the innovations become better, which may enable us to interrogate devices quicker. We hope that will come in time and we invest in the technology to do that, but the reality is that we live in a digital age. That goes across the board for us all.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you for being here. Your police officers are at the coalface. They often experience these adjournments and see victims let down at the final hurdle when they are about to have their day in court. What is your assessment of why cases are so often adjourned in our Crown courts?

Chief Constable Hatchett: I think there are multiple reasons. There are people who are far better qualified to give you evidence on that; undoubtedly you will have spoken to defence lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service, who can probably give you some really good evidence.

There are a whole host of reasons why cases are adjourned. Sometimes it is evidence, sometimes it is witnesses and victims, sometimes it is disclosure, sometimes it is court time—the reasons are multiple, but ultimately victims and witnesses are suffering as a consequence. My witness care units then have to pick up the conversations with those victims and witnesses to prepare them, hoping to keep them on board and confident enough in the criminal justice system to give evidence at a future date.

[Matt Bishop]

Q Thank you for being here, Chief Constable. Before I ask my question, I should declare that I worked as a serving officer for three police forces across the country.

Chief Constable Hatchett: Respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you all for being here. Mr Goldstone, Liverpool is often held as a bastion of good practice in the criminal justice system, but Sir Brian Leveson said this morning that we should not necessarily use it as an example because of the very unique set-up there. Do you agree with Sir Brian’s assessment that Liverpool’s set-up cannot be emulated in other places across the country?

Clement Goldstone: I think that many of the efficiencies that Liverpool has created can be replicated across the country, because many efficiencies stem from positive leadership and proactive engagement. In a way, it is much more difficult to achieve those efficiencies with a larger court centre than with a centre where there are only two judges. There really is a limit to what you can do if you are running a two-judge court, but in the larger courts I believe that there is far more room for efficiency than is perhaps readily assumed.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. This is a question for all of you: what risks do you perceive arising from the proposed removal of the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates to the Crown? Do you believe that this right of appeal is currently being abused?

Sir Richard Henriques: I see no evidence at all that it is being abused. Sir Brian thinks that there should be an application for leave to appeal, as there is between the Crown court and the Court of Appeal. It is finely balanced, in my view.

With respect to the perfectly good question, I think we need to look at the bigger picture here. Sir Brian’s work is phenomenal—if anyone apart from Lord Burnett has read every word of it, they have done extremely well—but it would conceivably create more communications and more work, and it would not necessarily achieve a great deal, as I think that only 2% of cases are appealed. While it is a very interesting dilemma, I have not given it a huge amount of thought myself.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Lord Burnett, would you say the same?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: I was going to make the observation that Sir Richard just made about the very low level of appeals from the magistrates court to the Crown court, which is something of a tribute to our magistracy. It really is a very low level, so I do not personally see this as a big problem.

You asked about risk; one of the reasons why the current system exists is that the magistrates court is not a court of record and transcripts of what has gone on in the magistrates court are not readily available. If there were to be an appeal of the sort that is contemplated in this legislation, my understanding is that there needs to be quite a lot of work to put the nuts and bolts in place in the magistrates court. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I had not understood that it was expected that this could be put into place immediately. It is more a tidying-up measure, as I see it, that accompanies issues that are really much more important.

Clement Goldstone: In principle, I am in favour of controlling the right of appeal to the Crown court. When I was in Liverpool—it is not that long ago—we were sitting one or sometimes two judges on Thursdays and Fridays on appeals. For some unknown reason, there seemed to be a lot dangerous dogs in Liverpool, so there were a lot of dangerous dog appeals.

More seriously, I do not think the right is abused, because it is there to be utilised, but I do believe that there is an argument for weeding out a lot of hopeless appeals. Also, you must bear in mind that if there is an appeal based on a wish to call fresh evidence, particularly perhaps bearing in mind that a defendant in the magistrates court was not represented, that is something that would have to be carefully considered, so I would not reject it as a good idea, because it could result in time savings, but it is something that has to be counselled with caution.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Q You said that your preference would be for two magistrates and a judge to sit together, and I understand your views on that. There are already examples in our criminal justice system of where a judge sits alone in the magistrates court. We have district judges, which I am old enough to remember as stipendiary magistrates. I am not aware of any big campaigns or calls for them to be abolished. They deal with the most serious cases in the magistrates court, or tend to. Are you aware of any campaign to get rid of them because of unfairness or otherwise?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: District judges (magistrates’ court), formerly stipendiary magistrates, have been a feature of our system since the mid-19th century—I cannot remember precisely which year they were introduced. I have never been aware of any reasoned criticism of the way in which they conduct cases. On the contrary, the rate of appeal that Sir Richard referred to includes cases that have been tried by district judges and deputy district judges. It is a phenomenon that we are used to in the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I would not disagree with that for one second.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you all for being here. It is very helpful to have your views as part of today’s evidence gathering. Do any of you share concerns that there is a lower level of legal aid available in the magistrates court, and that that could have an impact when magistrates hear cases that carry higher sentences?

Fiona Rutherford: Yes, and I referred earlier to the impact of having more litigants in person, which would be the impact of there being fewer lawyers representing defendants in the magistrates court. If you are looking at it from a victim’s perspective, one of the key things is that you will get the cross-examination directly from the defendant in court. Equally, there are some issues with the way that appeals will take place. At the moment, as Emma has said, there is a reliance on the lawyers to really lead the way with those appeals—that is possibly why only 1% of appeals go from the magistrates to the Crown court.

Without a lawyer being present, and of course without there even being the right to appeal directly, you are leaving a whole load of defendants, who may well be wrongly convicted or may get the wrong sentence for the crime they have committed, floundering. From what we know, either about the legislation or the policy that sits around it, I simply don’t know who will inform these people about how they will put grounds of appeal together, what grounds of appeal even are, how you formulate those, what key points you need to make in them to persuade a Crown court judge sitting alone in a room with just some evidence papers and how to put your best case forward. There are a number of ramifications of legal aid being an issue in the magistrates court, or of there not being enough legal aid.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Thank you. I have a question for Emma about appeals. Excuse my ignorance, but my understanding is that, if you are appealing from a magistrates court, you already have to have grounds for appeal anyway. You cannot just say, “Well, I didn’t like that; I’d like to appeal and go up to the Crown court.” There is already a threshold that has to be met—is that correct?

Emma Torr: There is a simple form where you have to set out your reasons for appealing, but there is no judge in the Crown court looking at that form and saying, “You’re not entitled to an appeal because you haven’t set out the reasons why you want to appeal.” It is an automatic right to a full rehearing in the Crown court. That is so important, because that automatic right acts as an essential counterbalance. We have heard about swift and speedy justice in the magistrates court. It is often rough and ready; we are talking about cases being tried by lay justices, some of whom may be experienced but some may not be, and we are also talking about less experienced judges. You often find in the lower court, the magistrates court, that advocates are more inexperienced and tend to be at the start of their career. The more experienced they are, the more serious the cases they deal with. What I am trying to say is that to have rough and ready justice dealt with quickly, the magistrates court requires that automatic right to redress any mistakes that might have happened. Let me put it this way: the automatic right of appeal is the ying to the magistrates’ yang, in the sense that you have an important safeguard against the miscarriages that do happen.

It is worth pointing out that the Magistrates’ Association, in its response to the Law Commission’s consultation paper, agreed with retaining the automatic right of appeal on the basis that justice may occasionally result in rough edges and potential errors in the magistrates court. In its view, the automatic right of appeal operates as a crucial safeguard, and that is essentially what we are saying.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q I have a quick question for Cassia. The Government proposals rely on the magistrates court taking on a significant amount of additional work and, importantly, sentencing powers. Have the Government adequately outlined how that will be mitigated in the magistrates courts? What assessment have you made about how much quicker they will be able to hear cases compared with the Crown court?

Cassia Rowland: We have not done an in-depth assessment of that. If by mitigation you are thinking about the justice fairness outcome, we have been principally focused on the ability of the courts to cope with this, but there is, as Emma mentioned, an acceptance that summary justice is rapid justice and it can be a bit rough around the edges. There needs to be a clear-eyed assessment of the trade-off you are potentially making between swifter justice by hearing more cases in magistrates courts and more robust justice in the Crown court.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q I have one more question. Has the IfG ever done any modelling around the efficiency savings that could be made by introducing the RASSO courts, as per as the Labour manifesto, or by other reforms to the criminal justice system, such as introducing am and pm sitting days?

Cassia Rowland: We have not. Regarding the specialist RASSO courts, the principal arguments for those are about not efficiency, but the experience of the victim and the more trauma-informed and wraparound approach that that kind of set-up would allow for.

[Alex McIntyre]

Q Emma and Fiona, my questions are directed at you, and I will bring them together, even though they are on slightly different subjects. Emma, I am glad you raised the case of Andrew Malkinson, which was obviously a shocking miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that he had a jury trial at the Crown court, and there was a right to appeal. There is a process that needs to be followed to go to the Court of Appeal, where somebody considers the grounds and whether a person has that right. I assume that it is not APPEAL’s position to removal of that process.

Earlier, we heard evidence from victims who supported the change to the right to appeal against a magistrates court decision to include a review from a judge, on the basis that a number of victims drop out of the process because they fear being retraumatised by a system that is not designed to support them. How do you balance that with your position that there needs to be checks and balances? Do you not agree that, by having a judge look at it, we are not refusing a right of appeal but merely qualifying it first?

Fiona, JUSTICE has said that the magistrates are ill-equipped to enable the reforms, and you have made that point again today, but the Magistrates’ Association, which is not here to give evidence today, has said that magistrates are ready and willing to play their part. Why does your assessment differ from that of the magistrates themselves?

Fiona Rutherford: We already know that the numbers are not where they need to be, given the number of magistrates required to do the huge amount of work that would be placed into their hands. Equally, we have not heard yet —maybe there are plans on this—how magistrates will be better trained to be able to cope with the greater complexity of cases that they will necessarily hear. I have talked about the disproportionality of magistrates in terms of socioeconomic grouping; that is absolutely critical when it comes to public trust. There is a final point, but it has escaped me, so I will let Emma come in on this and I might come back to you.

Emma Torr: That was a good question, on which I would like to make two points. The case of Andrew Malkinson is a good example to consider when talking about these changes. Of course, there was a victim in that case, who was certain that the right person had gone to prison, but we know that Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for something that he did not do. When he appealed at the time, a judge looked at his appeal at the Court of Appeal; twice he went to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and twice his case was turned down. That is an example of where a judge has looked at the appeal, but would not give him—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a good question. Can you answer it?

Tim Crosland: I want to talk particularly about cases where people are saying—like Clive Ponting and many activists did—that the motivation for taking the action is that what the state is doing is insufficient to protect the public. That is a fundamentally different situation. Look at the Colston situation: who better to decide whether that action crossed a threshold than a cross-section of Bristol residents, who would understand better than anybody in this room the impact of that statue on that community? That would not happen any more; it would be a paid judge deciding. In my submission, it is precisely those cases where a jury trial is a democratic imperative and where you would lose something really profound.

To answer your question, I would not wish to say that other people should not have a jury trial. I am not saying that at all; I am just making a particular argument for these cases.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q I have a very simple question: what are the risks of ignoring campaigners like you when we talk about fundamentally changing the way we do jury trials?

Tim Crosland: The risk is to democracy and to people’s confidence in democracy in cases that explore the boundaries between public interest, the right to protest and criminal law. We lose the essence of democratic rights if people know that they will not get a trial before their peers. It is a very profound danger. It was only in 2024 after 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner had been arrested and prosecuted for holding up a sign outside London Crown court that the High Court said that juries were entitled to acquit as a matter of conscience. Her case came before the High Court, which dismissed the Government’s prosecution of her and said that jury equity is a vital principle of our democracy and she was right to uphold it. It was part of her convention rights. We lose that principle if we ignore protesters when we look at this legislation.

[The Chair]

Thank you. We have one minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack]

Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s question about what good reform looks like, we have had a period of reform in the justice system. What would be your measure of success? We know the system is creaking under pressure, so what would success look like?

Sarah Sackman: There are two tests that I set myself, and neither is going to be easy to achieve within this Parliament. The first essay question is: can you deal with the intolerable delays? Can you ensure swift justice? That does not mean summary justice. That does not mean rushing through the cases, but it does mean getting through the caseload quicker so that people are not waiting for years. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want people waiting years for justice. That is the first test. It is the timeliness, which is the essential ingredient of fairness.

The second thing is: we are in a crisis, but we have an opportunity—with justice being the focus of our Parliament and our national debate for the first time in a very long time, and with real investment from the Treasury—to create something better. Our justice system has remained largely unreformed since the 1970s. There are lots of things that people might like about the 1970s, not least the music, but there were lots about our social values and our societal norms that were very different then. It was a different place for women, for black and minority ethnic communities, for gay people and lots of other communities. I do not think the system that was designed then is the one that we would design now.

We heard earlier from Katrin Hohl, who is leading work for the Government to embed some of the Soteria measures, which have been so good and progressive in the police and the CPS, into our courts. I know it can sound like a cheesy cliché, but my objective is the idea of building back something better, and designing a system that is not just sustainable and capable of dealing with the delays question but, in terms of its design, centres victims and is fair, particularly to women and black and minority ethnic communities. That is my objective: can we get a more progressive justice system?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Do you share my discomfort that we have no pilot to refer to, to see if the proposed measures would work?

Sarah Sackman: The difficulty is that any pilot where you are testing the sorts of measures that we are countenancing, which have taken their cue from the IRCC, would require primary legislation. We could not do this without primary legislation in the first place. Secondly, I do not feel discomfort, and I feel confident in the measures, because they are based on expertise that the independent review gave us. Thirdly, as we have heard, the time for pilots was yesterday—it was probably 10 years ago. The state of the backlogs at 80,000 and continuing to grow means that we have to pull every lever to not just reform the system but to invest in it and modernise it, to bring down those backlogs.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q On pilots, I agree that something needs to be done now. A pilot ran during the pandemic that looked at dual court sitting days. That pilot showed that courtrooms were able to hear 3.5 cases in a week compared with the typical rate of 0.9. It was a short pilot that was run in seven courtrooms. Have you had conversations in the MOJ about alternative reforms to bring down the court backlogs? If you have, why was the decision taken to not look at that proposal? If you have not, why not?

Sarah Sackman: We learned a huge amount through the pandemic. To give a personal example, I had a trial that was due to come on the day that we went into lockdown, and we were told that we were going to do it on video link. People had been speaking for years about the use of videos in courts. They said you couldn’t do it: you could not cross-examine a witness; you could not do your advocacy. Yet there we were. We were all told to go on video, and the sky did not fall in—it worked. We learnt and the MOJ got a lot of institutional knowledge through the pandemic.

There are also a lot of piloting initiatives that the MOJ is undertaking: for example, our pilots for our new digital listing tool, where we are taking some of the lessons from Liverpool and elsewhere but doing that using data. We are piloting that in Isleworth and Preston. A lot of that evidence would have been put forward to the IRCC. Obviously, it is also held within the MOJ. This package of measures that we are bringing forward, when you model, it is what we believe is capable of bringing down the backlog, together with the investment and modernisation.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q If I can ask my question again to clarify, have you as the Minister had any conversations with any officials in the MOJ about the pilot that happened in the pandemic, specifically about two cases being heard in a Crown court in a day? Why was that discounted?

Sarah Sackman: On that specific example, I would have to go away and ask what was considered by officials because it has not been surfaced to my attention. I have had the blitz courts, where cases are listed very aggressively, brought to my attention, and we are doing them in London as of next month. I do not know about the specific pilot you are talking about. I have not considered that directly, but I am sure that my officials have.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am happy to send you the Government link to that.

Sarah Sackman: I would appreciate that, thank you.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Sir Richard Henriques, who we heard from earlier, said that if we were not facing such a huge backlog we would not be here at all. I may have bastardised his language slightly, but do you agree with him?

Sarah Sackman: I think that I know where this is going, because I think that you will push me on this. Plainly, we are here, and the nature of the debate is shaped by the appalling backlog in our courts and the crisis we face—we all agree on that. There are 80,000 cases, and behind every one is a victim, and cases are being listed into 2030. This British justice system, which we will have huge pride in, is kind of indefensible.

You have heard me say in the Chamber, and I am not going to resile from it, that there are certainly parts of this plan that I would be advocating for anyway, because I think that they will make the system fairer and more sustainable. You heard the police chief talk about the fact that demand pressures come into the picture not just because of the backlog but because of the changing nature and complexity of criminal trials. The system needs to reform itself.

You heard Charlotte, one of the victims who spoke earlier, talk about the changes to the right to elect. I find it curious that Scotland, for example, does not have the right of election for a defendant. We know that it exists in Canada—we heard about that example—but it does not exist in Scotland, and there are lots of other jurisdictions where that does not exist. I find it strange that the defendant chooses the mode of trial, rather than the court triaging it. I use a healthcare analogy: if I go to A&E on a Saturday night, I do not get to insist that I get to see the specialist consultant if I can be treated appropriately by a resident health associate. It seems to me that the changes are normative and values-driven, and would be good for the system anyway.

We probably would not be here at this time of night with this exact shape of debate if it was not for the crisis, but I stand by the principles that lie behind the reforms we are bringing forward.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Q Finally—I will be very quick—you spoke about making the system fairer, and I think that it is shared across all parties that we would like to see that. Will you be looking to address the disparity between the legal aid provision in magistrates courts and Crown courts during the passage of this Bill?

Sarah Sackman: That is a really good question, and you have asked me it in the Chamber. At the moment, 97% of applications for legal aid in the magistrates context are approved. We have to fully consider the IRCC package and see what final version of this Bill, if it passes through Parliament, receives Royal Assent, and then reassess and ensure that the availability of legal aid across both magistrates and Crown courts is not a barrier to access to justice. We have a means test in criminal legal aid, and that is important. It is important that people who can afford to pay their legal fees do but, where you do not have the means, it is important that you can access legal aid to get representation, which is why the hardship mechanism that we currently have exists. That will be a really important feature of the system to ensure that legal aid provision—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of the Minister. I thank the Minister for her time today.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)