Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The entire criminal justice system is on the brink of collapse. We can all agree today that the current backlog in our Crown courts is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. The situation we face—a backlog sitting at over 80,000 cases and victims of rape waiting on average 424 days for their case to complete—is the direct result of the historic and monumental failings of successive Governments. Whether it is a lack of prison places, soaring reoffending rates or the horrendous backlog in the Crown courts with a growing backlog in the magistrates, it is a national emergency waiting to happen. But the Government’s plans to address this situation have been equally dangerous. Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path towards curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. That was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own Benches, and despite the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown court bench division. Political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan.

We remain deeply concerned about the pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either-way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The Government now predict that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseloads each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%—it is exceeding that of the Crown court backlog.

Increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases—a point that has been raised by the Bar Council and others. I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims in summary justice; it is not just the Crown court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna’s powerful testimony. I am thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row. She spent months and months of building herself up for that moment before being totally failed because she did not get her day in court. The Government have done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name, remains on the amendment paper. It would prevent magistrates’ sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months.

The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions with significant and real consequences. On the whole, we all agree that they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed. But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. We are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases carrying higher sentences at the same time as the Government are bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. The Government want to speed up the process within a system, but changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. The reasoning, as per their own response, is:

“If we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase given the impact of other reforms will be to retain more cases in magistrates’ courts.”

Let us reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because the Government believe this number may increase, they are satisfied to remove that safeguard. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard in summary justice, while also accepting that it would be more needed than ever?

There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of, the implications for legal representation in magistrates court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and magistrates courts. Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Baron Leveson reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a “perverse incentive” for a defendant to choose the Crown court, but the Government rejected Baron Leveson’s recommendation in their response yesterday.

This not only has a profound effect on fairness in our justice system; it also affects the Government’s assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared. A lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases, leaving victims and defendants waiting once again. That is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence, rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every Member of the House asking them to support it.

New clause 20, tabled in my name, requires all new contracts for court-related services to include performance penalties, to put an end to these sham contracts that are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time.

The Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structures. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. That approach was trialled during covid, and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours. New clause 4 calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours. Solutions such as this—which have not been explored by this Government, as confirmed in Committee—would supercharge the Crown court process, with a specific focus on clearing the backlog.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Member makes a really important point about the prisoner escort and custody services contract and ensuring that defendants are delivered to court on time, but not all defendants going into a Crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants on bail who can get themselves to court, and it would be up to the listing officers to ensure that those cases are heard in the morning, which would take off the pressure that the PECS contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 am slot; instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 pm slot. He raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome it.

New clause 2 supports the implementation of fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences. We have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of the Bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offence courts, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for. It was therefore welcome when the Government announced their plans to implement them, but it is puzzling that they have not included those provisions in the Bill, because there is no point in waiting—these courts should be implemented urgently, to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing.

The Government also announced when they agreed to roll out these RASSO courts that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist trauma-informed training. Given the Government’s decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these RASSO courts, that would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist trauma-informed training for all of the judiciary, which we have called for throughout the passage of the Bill.

New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. Amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of the Bill, as it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. On the issue of transcripts, the Government have made real progress, which I welcome. Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one’s life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to go further.

Finally, I turn to new clause 17, tabled in my name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010. A 2022 Justice Committee report found that the argument for closing the inspectorate had not stood the test of time and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. In his review, Baron Leveson also recommended a mechanism to inspect His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which was rejected by the Government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts inspectorate would provide—a position that was also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Government have approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures, opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver the reforms, and eroding the safeguards that protect those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims. The Bill before us today makes dangerous changes that will have little effect on the backlog. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the Bill, which is unfortunate especially given the good clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with the serious issues around presumption.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

I have therefore tabled amendment 70, which is based on a recommendation by the Committee that would require the Government to increase the legal aid thresholds in the magistrates court before the removal of the right to elect can be implemented. I urge the Minister to consider giving us that commitment today. Otherwise, the House is being asked to double the sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect without any reassurances that defendants who cannot afford to pay privately will be legally represented.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

As the hon. Lady has just turned a page, I am confident that she will go on to the fact that, at the same time, the Government are proposing to remove the automatic right of appeal. If somebody has no legal background and cannot navigate a system that is totally alien to them, they will not know how to follow the process or what legal backing they could have if they had grounds for appeal.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am very conscious of the time available for this very important legislation, so I am turning the page to conclude.

To return to where I started, I welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing down the backlog. However, if we sweep the queue away from the steps of the Crown court only to lengthen the line around the block at the local magistrates court, we will not serve that aim, and we will continue to fail victims of crime and defendants alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle]

I speak today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me. One wrote to me and said that

“the system still allows a father to weaponise the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position, while none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement.”

Another felt that

“the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.”

I start with new clause 6, on victim-led intensive case management, which I stress is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts shows that special measures are still not being properly implemented. The lack of a common-sense approach to communication is still a problem in 2026, when great technological advances have been made.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on her many amendments that seek to improve experiences for victims, such as new clauses 7 to 9 on judicial training. I stress that all members of the judiciary should always have access to training. In fact, they should have to hear at first hand from victim-survivors about their experiences as part of that training. It does not matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I am going through or acknowledge what I have been through—they really cannot unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has.

The phrase “trauma-informed” is incredibly powerful and crucial. Such training should always be trauma-informed. That brings me to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma-informed training, which needs to include looking at how we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims.

There are severe issues with diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear more about what our Government are doing to ensure better representation.

New clause 16 is about remote participation. As someone who has recently been through that as a victim, I believe that we must include an assessment of the special measures involved and whether they are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I recently experienced an online hearing in which I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I was not able to blur the background on my screen and I was not able to hide his face. The hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents did not reach the right parties on time, despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in sharing her powerful story and for highlighting how special measures do not work if people do not know that they available to them. During the Bill Committee, I argued that special measures should be there as standard, with people having the ability to choose to remove them to face their perpetrator in court. Does she agree that we could easily roll that out across all our courts so that every victim would be protected from the moment they arrived?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we should look for that to be the standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court they were not implemented, so I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. That is what I experienced as a Member of Parliament. I dread to think—although I do know—what some of my constituents are experiencing.

On new clause 24, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for ensuring that children’s voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know that representatives of Women’s Aid are here, as is the formidable Claire Throssell. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) on her tireless efforts in making that happen; she is incredible. The pro-contact culture embedded in the court system puts too many children at unnecessary risk. I am really pleased to see that the Government are removing that.

I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) addressing, in the form of amendment 22, the issue of post-separation abuse, which the courts have facilitated. I thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they face and their experiences of the court system. It is always good to have his support.

I am grateful that the Government are taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the victims helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatised, and establishing specialist RASSO courts. However, I want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims and ensures that they are genuinely heard and properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers.

I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then taking action that tells me they do not. I am fed up of being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control and then telling me that it does not matter. I am fed up of feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not to enable perpetrators. We should always remember that.

We still allow our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgments. Perpetrators walk among us: they are police officers; they are teachers; they are fathers; they are mothers. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives, and we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt because of that. We have to look at the facts, we have to ensure that victims are heard and, crucially, we need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we make and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state.

Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today.

I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces.

Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers.

This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries.

I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed.

The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically.

The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are.

Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt.

Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that many in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Will he please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?