Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Fabricant Excerpts
Tuesday 12th September 2023

(1 year, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer Portrait Mike Freer
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I took quite a bit of time to read the report from the Magistrates Association on inaccessible courts to ensure that, where we can make reasonable adjustments, we make them, and that where we need to make more substantial investment to make the courts more accessible, particularly to make them compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we do so and those works are prioritised. We continue to work on new courts, as in Blackpool and the City of London, to ensure that the estate is modernised and we have courts that are accessible and fit for purpose. The point is well made and it is in hand.

Michael Fabricant Portrait Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

15. What training is provided to magistrates to help ensure impartial decision making.

Mike Freer Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

To preserve the independence of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice has a statutory responsibility for the training of the judiciary under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and that includes magistrates and their legal advisers. Magistrates, and the legal advisers who support them in court, must complete induction training before hearing cases and, once magistrates are sitting, continuation training is provided on regular cycles. Impartial decision making is woven throughout all the material.

Michael Fabricant Portrait Michael Fabricant
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for his answer. Chris Pincher and I have been working very closely to ensure that the police act strongly and swiftly in Shenstone near Lichfield over constant demonstrations at an Israeli company that supplies arms to the British armed forces. Two people went to trial at a magistrates court in Walsall and they were acquitted. It is reported—we do not know for sure because it is not a court of record—that the judge said

“on the principle of proportionality…their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop”

by the Israelis. I think that, if it were true, is outrageous. What can be done within the judicial system to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen, if indeed it did?