Courts and Tribunals Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.

Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.

This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

When the Justice Secretary talks about juries, is it not right to point out that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed against, and that of that 0.4%, which is about 5,000, 41% are successful on appeal? What does he say about that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: 41% are successful, and that, of course, means that 59% are not. With the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that, in order to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. As is set out in the Bill, people would appeal from a Crown court beyond, as they appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015. Soon after that, your talents were recognised and you were quickly given a ministerial brief. You know my politics, as we have crossed swords many a time, so you know it pains me to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the shadow Justice Secretary, on his outstanding contribution; there was really nothing in it that I could disagree with. None the less, I do welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, because it is true that since he has been in post, he has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion. I commend my dear friend for that work, which I know will have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is true that much of this Bill is absolutely critical, including the actions to reduce the backlog. No Member of this House wants to see victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour Government’s policy on reducing violence against women and girls is crucial as well. It is also right to say that the previous Government savaged the criminal justice system, underfunding it during the austerity years. But I have to be honest: it was not just the previous Tory Government who did that. The criminal justice system has been badly treated and badly funded for decades.

There are parts of this Bill, though, that are unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary, including jury trial curtailment, the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates courts, and the removal of the right to elect jury trial for offences with less than three years’ tariff. It is concerning that the Government are doing away with the automatic right of appeal in the magistrates courts—that is essentially what is happening—because, as I said in an intervention, about 0.4%, or around 5,000 cases, go to appeal and 41% of those appeals are successful.

I am afraid to say that the analogy used by the Justice Secretary, of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky, is an unfortunate one. I do not pretend to be a terribly eminent lawyer—I was prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected to this House in May 2010—but never did I see a situation in the magistrates court in which a defendant was advised to elect for a trial when they had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. That scenario is for the birds, to be perfectly honest. It is on the same level as the Justice Secretary, in his MOJ video, referring to a scraped knee in an A&E triage situation—it is unfortunate and disappointing, and he could do much better. The Institute for Government report, published today, states that the MOJ modelling is sound, but that it relies on several uncertain assumptions. That is a very grave concern.

I am not going to detain the House terribly long. Yesterday evening, I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest and robust, but constructive, discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it is absolutely imperative that one of our number—one of those of us who are opposed to these changes for principled reasons—has a seat on the Public Bill Committee. Colleagues told me that this was impossible. They said, “It’s never going to happen.” They said that the Chief Whip would never concede to allowing one of the so-called rebels on to the Bill Committee. But, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s representations to the Chief Whip, that guarantee was made. For that reason and for that reason alone, I will abstain from voting on the Bill today.

Let me put it in this way: I will abstain today because I think there is a possibility of making progress, and because I trust my right hon. Friend to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who are opposed to the Bill. What I do not appreciate is MOJ officials spinning the line that “even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this Bill.” That is not right, it is unfair and, frankly, it is unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any Department. None the less, I abstain today and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well. I am more confident now than ever before that the worst parts of the Bill will be defeated by amendments. I sincerely ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to let the Bill pass its Second Reading, so that we can make progress on getting rid of the bits of this Bill that are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not just now.

I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country.

At a time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) pointed out when he rose to intervene, when our institutions are under unprecedented attack, is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative who unquestionably will be seen as a representative of the state? It is the jury that protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon that citizen’s future. That is what protects, preserves and enhances the reputation of the administration of justice.

[Karl Turner]

It was telling when Jo Hamilton OBE wrote to the Justice Secretary—I think it was yesterday—to respectfully remind him that, as a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal, under the legislation proposed, not one of the 900 sub-postmasters who were convicted would have been entitled to a trial before their peers. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to that?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Postmasters, postmistresses, postmen—those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment and who, for a breach of trust, would not receive three years’ imprisonment—would all be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the sharks and the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country. We are now on the brink of undermining—I believe irredeemably—one of the most precious of those institutions, which commands almost universal assent. Let me say why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes my status as a barrister.

Let us remind ourselves of the issues here. It is unacceptable that criminal trials should be listed today for 2030. That is a failure of the state. It is a failure of the state to provide a fundamental public service—that of justice. So the Government have to act, and I do not accept the argument that things have to stay as they are. I welcome the Government’s £2 billion investment in the criminal justice system and the decisions to lift the cap on Crown court sitting days, to implement efficiencies, to invest in the estate and to streamline case management. All of that is overdue and should have been done by the Conservatives. This is about ensuring that trials actually go ahead. However, the Government believe that that will not be enough to address the backlog without structural change, and I have not heard any attempt to argue to the contrary.

I turn to the most contentious element, which is the permanent removal of the right to elect jury trial for either-way cases. As hon. Members have said, this rests heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s assessment of a minimum 20% time saving in the Crown court. Sir Brian has been candid that his estimate is based on modelling and is an informed qualitative judgment, not a hard empirical fact. The Ministry itself accepts that this modelling might not fully reflect real-world operations, and when dealing with a safeguard as important as trial by one’s peers, where liberty is at stake, the distinction between modelling and hard data matters. Most people seem to agree that those measures will save time, but there is a dispute about how much they are likely to save.

[Karl Turner]

What does my hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that judges will have to give detailed reasons for their judgments and for why they have decided on a case in a particular way? I declare an interest: my wife is a judge and it takes her days, and often more than a week, to come up with the reasons for the decisions that she has taken.

[Tony Vaughan]

I practised as a civil lawyer for most of my career, and I have been challenging written reasons and decisions my whole career. I do not have a problem with judges issuing written reasons in the criminal jurisdiction. I think it is a way of getting more transparency about why those decisions have been made. That is my personal view.

Ideally, I would have piloted this system first and gathered the data, and only then, if that data showed that the measures were necessary to reduce the backlog, would it have been difficult to rebut. If Sir Brian is right and these reforms clearly cut waiting times, that will be good for victims and public confidence. However, if the proposals are rolled out nationwide and he and the Government are wrong, and the gains are negative or outweighed by harms to fairness, equalities or public trust, particularly for minority defendants, it will be important that this House should not have tied its hands.

Removing the right to elect jury trial takes out around half of our jury trials. It is a very real interference with existing safeguards and it should not be a permanent change before we know that it works in practice. That is why I believe there must be a clear statutory mechanism in the Bill allowing Parliament to reverse this change if it does not work. In my view, we need a time-limited mandatory review on the face of the Bill to track timeliness, conviction patterns and equalities impacts, with an explicit power to require Ministers to restore the right to elect if the reforms do not deliver. A clause of that nature would be a statement of confidence in Parliament’s oversight, rather than of a lack of faith in the reforms, as has been suggested.

Expanding judge-only trials requires us to address the fact that the judiciary do not reflect our country’s diversity. Replacing lay juries with a single judge demands an intense focus on how we improve judicial diversity, and particularly transparency in appointments. For example, judicial references must be disclosable so that there is accountability for providing objective, evidence-based references if we are to improve the recruitment and promotion pipeline for women and minority ethnic judges.

One of the last cases in the courts that I was involved in before I was elected to Parliament was a judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission not to promote a district judge into a more senior position. The whole case was about why she could not see the reasons that she was not promoted. That secrecy, which is behind what many campaigners believe has been a process of secret soundings or a tap on the shoulder, has resulted in the situation that we have of a bench recruiting in its own image. That concept was recognised by the Lammy review, and it is a very real thing that we must address if we are to expand judge-only trials.

We face a grave crisis, but if we are to curtail long-standing rights, we must build robust safeguards into the Bill. I hope that Ministers will work constructively with Members across the House to ensure that we tackle the backlog effectively while strengthening confidence in our justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

No one is denying that after 14 years of desecration by the Conservatives, the backlog in the Crown courts is out of control and stacked against victims, but curtailing jury trials is not necessary to tackle it. There is no evidence that these plans will fix the problems in our criminal justice system, and the Institute for Government has suggested that restricting juries could save less than 2% of court time.

It is no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the Government to oppose these plans. They do acknowledge, like many of us, that the Bill contains some good provisions, including the repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in this House and by organisations such as Women’s Aid and Right to Equality, and led by the incredible Claire Throssell, who joins us in the Special Gallery. The Bill will also make transcripts available from the magistrates court, which has been long campaigned for by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for All, among others, and supported by many of us in this House. However, on the curtailment of jury trials, I have spoken with many rape victims who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy—all for cost-cutting purposes. Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence-led.

The value and importance of a jury system cannot be overstated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury in 2021 after a vexatious trial driven by malicious intent. Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. I am not saying that that would have led to a different outcome for sure, but for someone of my background—working class, Muslim, and a woman of Bangladeshi heritage—the risk of a miscarriage of justice would have been much higher, without a shadow of a doubt. Back in 2017, the now Justice Secretary said in his report:

“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants…This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts… In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women… Of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.”

The Bill will entrench structural discrimination, and I believe that Justice Secretary knows it. Indeed, I am also alarmed by the proposals to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases. As the Criminal Bar Association has highlighted, over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent overreach in financial and fraud cases. In my case, the jury considered evidence over eight days—that was necessary, in my view.

[Karl Turner]

I have just looked at the recent stats. In 2025 there were 67 ethnic minority circuit judges and 42 judges of unknown ethnicity, while there were 637 white judges, the vast majority of whom were men. What does my hon. Friend say about that?

[Apsana Begum]

My hon. Friend highlights important and vital statistics that illustrate an issue in the legal system: it does not reflect the wider diversity of communities who experience and go through the criminal justice system.

The majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls; nearly 70% of women in prison report having experienced domestic abuse. They are more likely to have been tried in a magistrates court for either-way offences that could have been considered by a jury. I am very worried that the proposals in the Bill will result in more victims being jailed. This really matters. Three-year prison terms are life-altering sentences, but under the Bill they could be handed out by a judge.

The Government have no mandate for a decision of such magnitude—it was not in the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto. Instead of restricting jury trials, I urge them to invest in and properly fund our criminal justice system in order to address the issue of court backlogs. Everyone—every single one of us—should have equal rights in our legal and court systems. Jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and surely our society should be based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Of course we support Sir Brian’s assessments of 20%. He also relied on international comparators. That is one reason why I was recently in Canada, which thought that 20% was an extremely conservative estimate, and that 50% was more likely. We will of course publish our modelling alongside the introduction of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

As the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, there is no sitting in 56 of the 516 Crown courtrooms. That is because he and his Department cap the number of sitting days in those courts. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty to plan to do away with some jury trials when courts are not sitting. The Institute for Government says that Sir Brian’s 20% estimate, which was pulled from thin air, is more like 2%. What on earth are this Government doing? Why do we not get a grip of what is really happening in the system?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—

[Karl Turner]

We used to be friends, David!

[Mr Lammy]

He still is my hon. Friend. I know that he has a principled objection. It is important to recognise that Sir Brian has emphasised that we need to do all of it to deal with the inefficiencies. We will have more to say tomorrow, when Sir Brian publishes part two of his report, which looks at courtrooms, prisoners and how the justice system works as a whole. We are increasing sitting days and investing more than ever before. I am negotiating with the Lady Chief Justice; there will be more sitting days to come. However, we also need reform to ensure that we continue to support the jury system, which is what we are doing.

Jury Trials

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

rose—

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.

The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.

[Karl Turner]

It pains me to say that I agree with the vast majority of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying at the Dispatch Box. He referred to Sir Brian Leveson. Of course, none of us would suggest that Sir Brian does not know what he is doing—he is very eminent and skilful, and has taken a great deal of time to come up with his suggestions—but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any situation before when the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, circuit leaders and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system have been as one in their opposition to an utterly ludicrous, unworkable policy?

[Robert Jenrick]

I rest my case, my Lord. I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he has conducted himself, and the campaign that he has fought and is fighting on this issue. Having campaigned at times against my own Government and having voted against the last Conservative Government, I know that it is not easy to do, and I credit him for the work he is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.

Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.

We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.

We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.

We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.

There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.

One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.

As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.

People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.

[Karl Turner]

The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the Opposition on using one of their Opposition day debates for this very important subject.

There is no doubt but that this Government inherited a terrible crisis in the criminal justice system, with the backlog of criminal cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court growing every single day. However, I can tell Members that I have been in this place for 16 years—I was elected in May 2010—and in those 16 years I have not once been tempted to vote against the Whip. Not once have I voted against the Labour party, whether in opposition or in government, but I now tell the Minister, the Chief Whip, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister that I will vote against this ludicrous proposal every step of the way, including by voting with the Opposition today.

This proposal goes well and truly beyond what Brian Leveson recommended. I have had the privilege of getting to know Brian Leveson a little. On one occasion, he helped me put together a private Member’s Bill on the issue of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. That proposal was adopted by Ken Clarke when he was Justice Secretary, and it was put into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Ken Clarke always tells the joke that he accepted my private Member’s Bill as an amendment to his Bill, but I then voted against his Bill. That is, of course, the type of thing I would do.

These proposals will not reduce the backlog one iota. Sir Brian speaks of 20% efficiency savings, and I do not dispute the fact that it is quicker for a single judge hearing a trial to deal with the trial, but what happens to the writing up of the judgment giving the reasons why the judge has come to their view? That will not take minutes. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the judge is not going to put that to bed while he is putting the kids to bed in the evening. It could take days, so any saving will be lost by judges having to write up their reasons.

There is a multitude of reasons for the backlog in the criminal courts. It is true—I have to be honest here—that parties of all political persuasions have failed to invest in the criminal justice system for decades. That is the reality of where we are. The previous Government played their part, but since we have been in government we have not, in my view, addressed the issues as we should, because the backlog can be addressed. If we look at Liverpool Crown court as an example, there has been proper case management of cases, and what is the backlog there? We should perhaps go there, and have a look at what the judge is doing.

I am concerned about the extra powers for magistrates to give sentences of up to 24 months. That concerns me, because the reality is that 41% of appeals from the magistrates court to the Crown court are successful. In any event, if there are going to be more cases for magistrates because they have more powers to sentence, where will all these guilty people be put? Where will all these guilty criminals, who apparently are going to be convicted in swifter forms of justice, be imprisoned?

I have said that this is a ludicrous proposal, and it really is, because it will not work. There was no mention in the Labour party manifesto of doing away with some jury trials. I suspect the Opposition were as shocked as anybody when they had to give up one of their Opposition day debates on this subject, because in opposition the Secretary of State for Justice would have gone off his head at the prospect of this being proposed by the previous Conservative Government.

This proposal raises more questions than it answers, so I have some questions for the Minister. First, did the Ministry of Justice do any modelling before the announcement, and if not, why not? If it did any modelling, please can we see it? Did the Secretary of State consider piloting single judge-only trials? Why are Ministers determined to pretend that trials for shop theft, for example, are holding up cases of serious sexual assault? There are listing priorities for such cases, and if a listings officer in a Crown court is prioritising a shop theft over a rape or serious sexual assault, I accept that that is a major problem. If the Minister can point to an example, fine—give us the example, and let us go off and investigate it—but, frankly, I do not think that is happening.

Today, 75 Crown court courtrooms are sat idle: 75 out of 516 courtrooms are not sitting. Why? Why do we not address the issue of courts not sitting? If we do not have enough judges and barristers to conduct some trials, where does the Justice Secretary think the judges and barristers are going to come from to do these judge-only trials? How long does the Minister think it is going to take for the prosecution, the defence and the judge to determine whether a case is worth less than three years on conviction, and thus is viable for a bench trial? When will circuit judges find the time to draft their reasons? That is a point I have already made.

What counts as successful delivery of a prisoner to court—mid-afternoon, or ready for court at 9 am, so the barrister and the solicitor can have a conference before they are called into court at 10 am? What delivery times are these private companies expected to meet? I know of an example recently when a Crown court judge—I will not identify the court or, indeed, the judge—asked an officer to come into court to explain why they had arrived at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and the answer given was that they had had to stop for a cheese sandwich. That is what is happening in the real world, and those are the issues the Minister needs to address.

What happens if a case is determined as suitable for a bench trial, with a sentence of less than three years, but the judge, after conviction, gives one of more than three years? This is a terrible error.

My final question is this: if charged with, say, a fraud or false accounting case, would the Minister want to be tried by a jury of 12 or a single judge sitting alone?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third of all sex victims in the backlog have now been waiting a year or more, and she knows that in many of those cases, there are also defendants playing the system, pleading late with pre-hearing after pre-hearing, with the result that witnesses fall away and cases collapse. It is for that reason that it is absolutely right that we change the threshold and introduce the measures that Brian Leveson has properly looked at, to speed up the process and get those victims justice.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary wants to do away with some jury trials. He wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence up to 24 months without the right to appeal a conviction or sentence. I think I am right in saying that the capacity in prisons is at 88,000 as we speak today. Where are all those apparently guilty people going to be put?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have been friends for a very long time and I recognise his experience in matters related to criminal trials. May I just remind him that we have the Sentencing Bill passing through the House? That will give us greater capacity in the prison system. He will also know that the Government are on track to provide 40,000 extra prison places by the early 2030s—under the last Government, there were only 500. All of that increases capacity, and of course we hope that jury trials will also make a difference for victims.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed.

Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change.

I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago:

“Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”.

He also said, of course:

“The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.”

It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments.

The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into

The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today.

To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics.

For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for approximately 65 minutes for multiple Divisions in the House. If we get back earlier than that and all Members are in their place, I will recommence the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

We will start where we left off. Injury time will be added to the debate, so I expect it to finish at 5.13 pm. I call Mr Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful for the additional time to conclude the debate.

Prior to the Divisions, I was reiterating the perversity of the situation that the 2014 change has forced the wrongly convicted into. It can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime of which they have already been exonerated. To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, for it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know that this can be challenged in practice, but the fact remains that the current compensation rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime—a crime, of course, of which they have already been acquitted to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let me return to the case of my constituent Mr Buckle. In its rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejecting his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be and remains innocent of the charges brought against him. If we were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, this response is a perfect example. It illustrates the way in which, by reversing the burden of proof, the 2014 change undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive, but illogical, linguistic gymnastics. For if Mr Buckle is presumed to be innocent in law, he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent, who has spent more than five years in jail, should be compensated; if the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man, and deny him that compensation, why should the burden of proving his guilt not fall on the state?

The Ministry’s claims that Mr Buckle is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him ring rather hollow when he is also denied a single penny in redress. It is clearly an affront to justice that the eligibility test prevents those who have been wrongly convicted from enjoying the full and unconditional benefits of being presumed innocent.

There is a growing acceptance of the need for action on this matter. Sadly, the list of miscarriages of justice that have perhaps not received as much media attention, but which are just as deserving of compensation, grows ever longer. I could mention cases such as that of Sam Hallam, who was imprisoned for seven years; Victor Nealon, who was imprisoned for 17 years; or Oliver Campbell, who spent 11 years in prison and a total of 34 years fighting to clear his name.

All have suffered unimaginable harm as a consequence of their wrongful convictions and, just like my constituent Mr Buckle, deserve justice. The new UK Government have an opportunity to provide it, and I urge them to address this injustice without delay. I know that the Minister will agree with the principle that the state should compensate those who have wrongly been deprived of their liberty by the state, and I would welcome confirmation from her that this is the Government’s position.

The Law Commission is consulting on reform to the law governing criminal appeals, because it, too, acknowledges that the current state of affairs is completely unfair. The Law Commission’s intervention is to be welcomed, in so far as it acknowledges the unfairness of the current position of the wrongly convicted. In its consultation, the commission suggests that, if the burden is to fall on an accused to prove innocence to obtain compensation, it should be to the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard, as is the position in every other situation in a criminal case where the evidential burden shifts to the defence. That would bring things into line with the normal state of affairs. Will the Minister offer the Government’s position on the Law Commission’s proposal? Would the Government accept such a recommendation? If they are minded to accept, will they ensure that the recommendation is applied retrospectively to those wrongfully convicted since 13 March 2014?

Although I cautiously welcome to the intervention of the Law Commission, and agree that it would make the current situation fairer, it still does not explain why someone presumed innocent has a further obligation or burden to prove it, nor would it address the failings made by the scheme in determining Mr Buckle’s application for compensation, or prevent other claims from being rejected after similar careful consideration.

If the Government maintain that it is necessary for a person presumed innocent to prove it to receive compensation, I do not believe the appropriate authority to make that decision is an official at the Ministry of Justice, someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unfamiliar with the facts of the case and will not have witnessed the evidence given under oath, but who instead must work solely from the papers. Such an individual is not best placed to decide on such applications.

Surely it is the trial jury that is best placed to decide whether the evidence proved Mr Buckle—in this case—to be both not guilty and innocent. I request that the Minister meets us to discuss the handling of Mr Buckle’s specific application and also the merits of amending the law to allow a judge to ask the trial jury, in circumstances where they have acquitted the defendant on all charges, to consider also whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is innocent of those same charges.

If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that true victims of miscarriages of justice are fairly compensated, asking the trial jury to make the decision must be the fairest way. It is difficult to see any rational argument against it. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to agree to a meeting to discuss how we can ensure that Mr Buckle is granted that opportunity, so that this miscarriage of justice and the ordeal that he and his family have endured is finally brought to an end. Urgency is key, because justice delayed is justice denied.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to catch my eye to be called. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Prison Capacity

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

On that last point, we have put a great deal of funding into the maintenance of Chelmsford prison, but also HMP Liverpool and Birmingham in particular. On the first point my right hon. Friend raises, about recidivist offenders, it is precisely because we are concerned about people committing so-called low-level offending that we want to ensure that magistrates retain the power to send people to prison. If people show defiance and that they are incapable or unwilling to abide by the terms of the order of the court, there is a simple answer: they will go to prison and they will learn to reflect on their actions in custody.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I welcome some of what the Justice Secretary said in his statement, especially on the implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Committee on IPP sentences. They were always a terrible idea, in my view, and they have been used badly. However, it should not be a surprise to anybody that, after 13 years of deliberate and savage underfunding, the criminal justice system is on its knees and our prisons are full to bursting. If it is right that the senior presiding judge, Lord Justice Edis, is saying to sentencing judges, “Adjourn sentence,” is that his fault, or is it the Justice Secretary’s fault?

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and she tempts me a little. I appreciate the point she makes but, as she will appreciate, the English and Welsh justice systems are one justice system, and it is not a simple task to disaggregate the data depending on whether someone is sentenced to imprisonment and serves in England or in Wales. I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue, but I would not underestimate the complexity of what she asks.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

16. Whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the steps taken by his Department to implement the recommendations of the independent review of criminal legal aid. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

In March we consulted on our approach to recommendations made by the independent review of criminal legal aid, and we published our interim response in July. We have introduced a 15% uplift across most free schemes, in line with the recommendations. That means an additional annual benefit of up to £63 million for solicitor firms, and up to £39 million for criminal barristers in a steady state situation. Uplifts for solicitors and barristers have already started being paid, and we have also applied fee uplifts to the vast majority of existing Crown court cases, to address concerns that the uplifted fees did not apply to ongoing work.

[Karl Turner]

Well before the Criminal Bar Association took action to strike, I warned the Lord Chancellor that that was inevitable unless he sat down with the association and worked constructively. He accused me of being its shop steward. Now, criminal defence solicitors’ firms are on their knees. The Justice Secretary is not known for working constructively, but will he sit down with the Law Society and representative groups of criminal solicitors to come to an agreement on parity of funding between the criminal Bar and criminal defence solicitors?

[Mike Freer]

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor meets all stakeholders on a regular basis, and I think he has a meeting coming up to address those very concerns. I am sure that he will sit down and discuss those concerns in the next few weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on pursuing this important issue. As she said, the law will come into effect in February 2023. I can confirm that cross-departmental work has been taking place to ensure that officials across Government, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are as up to date as possible. The Home Office has been updating its forced marriage guidance, which provides detailed advice to groups such as Border Force officers, social workers, police and teachers on what to do when faced with a case of forced child marriage. I hope that in swift order the work she has been so passionate about is enforced.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T7. In 2010, there were 1,861 firms of criminal solicitors with duty contracts; there are now 964. The profession of criminal defence solicitor is broken and so is the justice system. Who does the Lord Chancellor think broke the system? [R]

[Mike Freer]

I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation. The Government have invested—

[Karl Turner]

Those are numbers and facts.

[Mike Freer]

The Government have invested significantly in the criminal justice system, not just through the recent settlement with the Criminal Bar Association, but in the run-up to the settlement. There is continued investment in the criminal justice system. He may disagree, but those are other facts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very sorry to hear about this particular incident, and I commend, as my hon. Friend did so brilliantly, Sheila’s bravery in stepping in to help the individual affected. The criminal injuries compensation scheme exists to compensate for serious physical or mental injury attributable to being a direct victim of a crime of violence. The scheme is publicly funded, which means that there are strict eligibility criteria. An animal attack will amount to a crime of violence only where the animal was used deliberately to inflict injury. In 2020, we had a consultation on proposals to make claiming compensation simpler for victims of violent crime. We set out that expanding the definition of a crime of violence would go far beyond the original intention of the scheme, but we will be publishing a response in due course.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am afraid to tell the Minister that victims of crime are being further let down by the Government’s terrible handling of the Criminal Bar Association dispute. I know that a Minister has now finally agreed to meet the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and I think that meeting is tabled for next week, but what they need to know at that meeting is when the Department will set a timetable for implementing the money that Sir Christopher Bellamy said was needed urgently. Incidentally, Sir Christopher Bellamy, who I have a great deal of respect for, is now a member of the House of Lords. When is that money coming?

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I certainly can give that reassurance, and we will stand four-square with the commissioner herself as she seeks to do exactly that. The Met have not stood still in seeking to address this issue. I understand that they have a new LGBTQ organisational improvement group, and that there is a network of 125 volunteer advisers across the whole of the Met. Officers who are posted to particular boroughs or areas are now being trained and briefed much more coherently about the nature of the community with whom they are dealing, including LGBTQ members of that community. They are making big strides. Nevertheless, there will be lessons to be learned, particularly from Louise Casey’s review, and we look forward to seeing its conclusions.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

My constituent Sarah Sak, Anthony’s mother, was on holiday in Turkey when the Metropolitan police contacted her to say that her son had been found dead. From that very second, when speaking to me, Sarah has accused the Met of prejudice and throughout all these proceedings she has constantly made the point that there was discrimination. Sadly, the coroner chose not to look at that. I make no criticism of the coroner, but when I spoke to Sarah last night, she asked me, “What can the Home Secretary do to persuade me that this can never, ever happen again?”

[Kit Malthouse]

Of course I offer my profound condolences to Sarah. As a father myself, I cannot imagine ever having to go through that kind of experience: it must have been terrible. I am aware, in particular, that there were failings in the posture of the family liaison officers who dealt with some of the bereaved, and that is also being addressed by the Metropolitan police.

Those who know Baroness Casey will know that she will be unrelenting and forensic in her examination of the culture of the Metropolitan police. I have confidence in her to do a good job in examining the overall culture in the Met, and an examination of this issue will be part of that. Once she has concluded her examination, we shall be able to draw some lessons about the future.

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this incredibly important debate. Hull Prison is in my constituency, and I want to thank the prison officers and other staff who serve our community there, as well as the prison governor, Shaun Mycroft.

This issue is a major concern. In my previous job as a criminal lawyer, I was instructed on numerous occasions to represent prisoners for adjudications, and I was always struck by the serious nature of the allegations against prisoners and the degree of serious harm caused to prison officers. To me, the idea of a 68-year-old man or woman wrestling with a prisoner in order to contain a situation is utterly ridiculous.

I will not speak for much longer, but I want to say two things. The Government need to get back to the table and negotiate constructively, with a view to dealing with this incredibly dangerous issue. Having served in the shadow Justice team with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), I know how seriously she takes the issue. We regularly discussed the matter in shadow meetings while I was on the team, and I know full well that this party—the Opposition—will deal with it as soon as we get the opportunity, if the Government fail to do so.