Courts and Tribunals Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

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

[Jess Phillips]

There are so many things in the Bill that I could talk about, but I shall start where my friend, the right hon. Member for the royal town of Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), left off; I am from the royal town of Birmingham Yardley. I want to get Members to understand what we are seeking to change and clarify in law. When we are in this Chamber, we do not get sued for the things we say. I can be held accountable for anything I say—I would not say it on X, because I would not go on it—until I walk into this building. Civil action could be taken against me for work that I did leading up to that point. Let me set out what the judgment that the right hon. Gentleman talked about means. In cases in which the police or the Crown Prosecution Service make mistakes, they should of course have immunity covering all the time that leads up to them entering court, as any witness does; but that that immunity cannot cover them against civil action relating to anything that happened in the case. If I had a pound for every time I have seen terrible mistakes made by police officers or the CPS, I could get rid of your backlog—not your backlog, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the nation’s.

I want to be clear about how dangerous the overreach is that results from the Court’s decision to allow that immunity, and will refer to some cases that caused Front Benchers to change the law. These were legal cases taken by victims of rape, domestic abuse and other forms of sexual violence that have changed the law of our land. They were based on civil actions taken by those victims against the police and the CPS, including by Jade Blue, the survivor of rape who waived her anonymity and brought a claim against the CPS after it made an erroneous decision to discontinue the proceedings against her abuser. As a consequence of Jade’s civil action and campaign, and her successful claim against the CPS, the Government rolled out the early victims’ right to review scheme. That was done on the basis of civil action taken by a rape victim, but this could be threatened by this new overreach in the law, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how she intends to sort this out. If we do not allow victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence—or any victim, or anyone who is treated poorly by the police and the CPS—to take civil action, we in this place are missing an opportunity to make better laws. Frankly, if I can be held accountable, coppers and the CPS should be held accountable, too.

I understand that we are awaiting a Supreme Court judgment, but I would be interested to hear what the Front Benchers can say to allay the fears of victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence all over the country. They fear that if, say, their address was wrongly given out, they would have no recourse to civil action, despite the danger they would be put in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) gave a powerful speech. I worked with Claire Throssell for years. The shadow Minister said that victims groups do not all think the same about the jury part of the Bill; I can tell him that they all think the same thing about the presumption of contact. The fact that the shadow Minister did not even mention that he has tabled an amendment that would genuinely endanger victims of domestic abuse across the country is—I do not know what I am allowed to say—a bit cowardly. He should have stood by his words and argued the case.

As a victim who has been dragged back to court on a completely unmeritorious appeal case by people who stalk me, so that they can get me in another room, I am pleased about the changes in the Bill. In these debates, I often think that this place thinks that the very worst thing that could happen to a person is being accused of rape. I think the worst thing that can happen is to be raped and have no one believe you.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a member of the Bar of England and Wales, and my wife is an employment judge. Notwithstanding some noble and commendable elements, particularly in clauses 12 to 17, in totality, I am afraid that this is a bad Bill. It was a bad Bill when it came before the House on Second Reading; it was a bad Bill when it left Committee; and without significant refinement, it will be a bad piece of law, should it come on to the statute books.

This is not the Lord Chancellor’s legislation; he inherited it from his predecessor. It is right to welcome his efforts on the amendment that recognises that clause 3 is unsustainable; it would be churlish not to. He has listened to the legal profession, to this House, and most importantly, to the public, who have raised serious and significant concerns. But I am afraid that the measures do not go far enough. If this Bill is the answer, then the exam question is fundamentally wrong. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in clause 6. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), which seeks to remove clause 6.

The clause, as we have heard, merely moves the problem from one part of the system to another. It pushes, on a conservative basis, some 25,000 cases into the magistrates court. About 5,500 of those are likely to be trials—and not necessarily straightforward trials; they may take more than a day or two to be heard. We are asking an under-resourced and ill equipped magistrates court to deal with them. That is not the way to deal with the magistrates court backlog, which, in the last year, increased by more than 9.5%.

[Karl Turner]

I think I am right in saying that a lay magistrate is required to sit 15 days a year. Very often, magistrates sit for a day at a time; they may do a day every other week. The scenario that the Government are presenting expects a lay magistrate to sit for two or three days in a row, and potentially into a second week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unsustainable?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, has his finger on the pulse on these issues. The Government’s proposals would narrow the pool of magistrates able to deal with these cases, by virtue of the time commitments that would be foisted on them.

I want to spend a little bit of time on clause 4, which deals with complex and lengthy cases. In essence, through new schedule 3ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the clause confines complex and lengthy cases to fraud or fraud-aligned cases. However, importantly, there is a provision that the Secretary of State can increase the number of offences captured in this provision. The danger is that there will be a slow accretion of such offences. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that misconduct in public office could be added to that list. The provision fails to recognise the very important work done by Jonathan Fisher KC in his independent review. He pointed out that these cases are not held up because of a jury; under the Bill, they would be delayed, because a judge would have to weigh up the evidence, and reach and write up a judgment. The provision also fundamentally undermines the point that facts of dishonesty—the offences in the schedule are offences around dishonesty—are matters for judgment by the ordinary citizen. Removing the jury element risks the erosion of civic ownership of these cases by the criminal justice system, and the criminal justice system’s engagement with them.

The provision would also have a chilling effect, in that the powerful narrative can be developed that these cases are being heard behind closed doors. This stems from a single case from 2005, the Jubilee line case. When the case was reviewed, the very sensible conclusion was reached that the issue came down to poor strategy by the CPS in processing the case; the issue was not jury trials themselves. Amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is therefore eminently sensible.

If the House is not with me on that, there is an alternative. Amendment 52 by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to limit the scope of this provision to trials where all the offences that a defendant is charged with are captured by new schedule 3ZA. That seems eminently sensible in the circumstances.

I want to mention the rule of law. If the rule of law is to be taken into account, we must have an impartial system of adjudication. That means having a fair hearing, which in turn means having the ability to challenge. Therefore, amendment 54 must be right. It must be right that in complex or lengthy cases, a defendant has an opportunity to challenge the decision that the case will be heard by a judge sitting alone.

I want to spend a few moments on new clause 25. When this Bill was brought before the House, the narrative that we heard from Government repeatedly was that it was being introduced so that we could deal with a backlog in the Crown court. It appears from the Minister’s remarks—she knows that I have enormous respect for her—that it is more of an ideological argument. The question today is whether hon. Members want to do this to deal with a backlog—a specific problem—in which case a sunset clause would be eminently sensible, or whether they are making an ideological argument, which I think is much more chilling on our society.