Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that I am a practising barrister. I sometimes practise in judicial review cases arising out of the criminal justice system. As a very junior practitioner, I practised in the criminal, magistrates’ and youth courts as well as in the Crown Court.

I oppose many of the measures in the Bill but, in my allotted eight minutes, I wish to focus on one particularly egregious and counterproductive measure. The changes to the appeal mechanisms from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court will not help to reduce the backlog but will undermine faith in our criminal justice system. I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that the changes to the appeal system are justifiable procedural modernisation.

My reasons are these. The current system is one that works well. If a person is convicted or sentenced in the magistrates’ or youth courts, they may appeal as a right to the Crown Court. If it is an appeal against conviction, there is a full rehearing of the charge before a Crown Court judge, sitting usually with two lay magistrates. Vexatious appeals are avoided by the fact that if you choose to spin the wheel and have an appeal to the Crown Court, the sentence may be increased. This is a sensible measure that is, oddly, abolished in the Bill before the House.

I have some vital statistics for the House to hold close and dear. These are drawn from criminal court statistics published on a quarterly basis by the Ministry of Justice. The latest set is to the end of quarter 2 2026 —that is June. I am about to give noble Lords the Government’s own figures. There are three. Appeals against conviction represent just 0.4% of the Crown Court case load. The annual total to June 2026 was 2,418 appeals. This next statistic is one which I hope noble Lords will all make sure to remember for a long time: of those 2,418 appeals, 976 were successful. That is an overall success rate of 40%. However, that figure of 2,418 includes abandoned appeals. It is more relevant to look at the 1,746 contested appeals—of which 56% were successful. That is the statistic that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, alluded to, and it is one which should jolt us all into a recognition that this provision in the Bill is not one which can possibly maintain the assertion that there is any problem with the way that appeals presently work.

Clause 6 and Schedule 2 will remove the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. They will change the mode of appeal from a rehearing on the merits to a review of the safety of the conviction. The key decisions will now be taken by a Crown Court judge, sitting alone, who will determine permission on the papers. The lay justice’s role in the Crown Court is axed—a very regrettable development.

Seven points arise. First, the current system is swift and cheap. Compare the multi-stage process in the Bill with the current one-stop system. At present the appellant fills in a form; reasons for the appeal can be given but they are not necessary as it is a rehearing. The system works. Further, the new system will mean that the Crown Court judges are spending more time reviewing written applications for permission and responding in writing—presumably, also those decisions that are deemed capable of further review. Will this really save any time?

Secondly, the current system is fair and effective. The majority of contested appeals are allowed—I have told the House the statistics. The Justice Select Committee in the other place, reviewing the Bill, concluded that this

“plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes”.

The statistics show that the right of appeal is not being systematically abused by meritless appellants.

Thirdly, these measures are premature. The Law Commission is about to report on the issue of criminal appeals. It has been working on this since 2022. It published a consultation paper in 2025. The consultation has closed and we are awaiting the Law Commission’s final recommendations.

Fourthly, the Bill’s proposals are directly contrary to the Law Commission’s provisional recommendations, which include the retention of the current system of automatic rights of appeal. It is paragraph 5.86 of the provisional recommendations, in case anyone wishes to look at it.

Fifthly, this proposal is directly contrary to the Justice Select Committee’s recommendations. The Justice Select Committee in the other place recommended that the proposal is postponed, pending the Law Commission’s report. The Select Committee said in chapter 3 of its report that appeals from the magistrates’ court represent

“a small and declining proportion of overall Crown Court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates’ court decisions appealed in 2025”.

The Ministry of Justice’s own data does not support the premise that appeals make a material contribution to the Crown Court backlog. We are not persuaded that this proves a sufficient justification for the scale of reform proposed.

Sixthly, the Bill would place a greater burden on magistrates. The premise of the new system is that Crown Court judges will review the grounds of appeal alongside the transcripts of proceedings before the magistrates’ court, including reasons given by the magistrates for their guilty verdict. This means that magistrates will now have to give appeal-proof decisions for their reasons. That places a greater burden on magistrates to craft comprehensive reasons and to show that they have correctly applied the law and the facts. I very much share the doubts about the readiness of the magistrates’ court system to cope with this, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and others.

My seventh point is that the new system of appeals impacts on access to justice. An issue raised in the discussion of the Bill is generally that legal aid is less easily available in the magistrates’ court than in the Crown Court. The income cut-off is about £22,000. Roughly half of defendants before the magistrates’ court defend themselves, whereas it is unheard of, more or less, in the Crown Court. Introducing a highly legalistic system of appeals will impact on access to justice for many middle-income defendants. Can they really be expected to analyse the reasons themselves and identify grounds of appeal?

In conclusion, the current system is consistent with the centuries-old tradition of trial by lay justices. It is the other side of the coin of summary justice. There is no need for these changes. It is all too rare that there is an issue which unites me with the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. This is surely a red flag to the Government. These measures are unsound, unjust and unnecessary and should be withdrawn.