Courts and Tribunals Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Although she is on the opposite side of the debate from me, she always speaks with huge passion on these issues. I should start with a couple of declarations. First, my wife is a sitting employment judge, and therefore the tribunal element of the Bill pertains to her. Secondly, like many right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, I was a barrister immediately prior to coming into this place, and I maintain my practising certificate. I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me if I pontificate on this issue for a few moments.

While I was not a criminal barrister, I did a significant amount of inquest work, so I had face-to-face, first-hand experience with jurors, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they are the most remarkable, ordinary people, who give up their time for civic engagement. They sit there quietly, listening to the evidence; they take their role seriously; and they sit in judgment and make findings of fact. That is a huge constitutional principle. We have talked about rights, and I am not going to pretend that there is an innate right to a trial by jury, but there is a firm constitutional principle of ensuring that justice is not merely done to the public, but that it is done with the public.

We all know about the problem of court backlogs. It would be a farce to pretend that this is not a significant and serious issue—it is a failure of the state that we have got to this place. It is a failure of successive Governments, and we recognise that across the board, but the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether trial by jury should be abandoned; it is whether the reforms that are before this House, with the scrutiny that has been undertaken and the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, constitute sufficient evidence for making such a reform to this country’s constitution.

What the Bill asks for is very clear, and we have to be honest about it. We are asking for a shift in the balance between the state and its people, and that may lead to inequality before the law. Take the prime example raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox): that of two individuals who, on a factual matrix, committed precisely the same crime. Those individuals appear before the court, but one has a string of previous convictions. Are we really saying that a person should be denied the opportunity of a jury trial if they have not previously been of bad character? That is a nonsense, and it does not achieve what we should be seeking to achieve.

The further point, of course, is that if we are making such a constitutional change on the basis that it will enable us to deal with the backlog in the criminal courts, why is there no sunset clause in the Bill? Why are we not saying that the purpose of the Bill is to shift the dial and make progress, but that we recognise that it should not be a blank cheque for the state? We should recognise that if this change has to be made—although I do not believe it does—it should be made on a limited basis, because if we are to change a right that is older than most institutions in this country, the least Parliament should do is base its decision on more than just an assumption in the impact assessment.

Let me turn to the modelling, which was also raised by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). In this House on 3 February, I asked the Lord Chancellor a question about the 20% reduction in the time taken by court hearings. He gave me a very clear answer—that he accepted Sir Brian Leveson’s findings, but that the Government would publish their own modelling alongside the Bill. However, page 10 of the impact assessment is very clear that the Government have adopted Sir Brian’s assumption. That is an assumption; it is not modelling. There is a distinct difference. Analysis is helpful, but modelling is critical, and if we are weighing up the evidence base for the Bill, we have to have more than analysis alone.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend give us his views as a practitioner on something that has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which is the usefulness of juries in protecting the institution of the judiciary? At the moment, if there is a string of sentencing that the Government or politicians do not like, there is not a lot they can do about it. If it is judges who are handing out those sentences, they will come under direct political attack, as we unfortunately see from time to time. The distance and insulation that a jury gives is not just a protection for the citizen, but a protection for the judiciary and its ongoing integrity.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is a reason that judges wear a wig and barristers wear a wig and gown. It provides a shield between the arm of the law and the citizen. To dilute that would fundamentally upset the settlement that has been reached over hundreds and hundreds of years.

[Alicia Kearns]

Drawing on my hon. Friend’s point, we have also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system. As a woman, I do not feel that one person—we have to be honest with ourselves, they will likely be a man—who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they need simply to turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast-track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown court location. Surely that would be a better policy. It would make sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers, who are more likely together to understand life experiences than one individual.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is right. First, there is the argument that this is of such constitutional significance that it should have been in a manifesto. Secondly, there is the argument that there was a proposal within the manifesto that the Government are not bringing forward. Thirdly, this is about getting the right settlement for the public, where they are judged by a body of their peers on the evidence before them. That is as opposed to a distant judge, who perhaps at times appears aloof, which fails to achieve that balance. We are being asked today to curtail a constitutional safeguard that has been apparent for so many years, and it goes much further than Sir Brian’s report. There were many good things in that report, but this legislation goes much further than any of his suggestions.

We have to ask what the real issues are. They are plain to see. There are too few judges and too few advocates able to prosecute or defend the cases. There are too few functioning courtrooms. Removing jury trials will not fix any of that. There is a further issue that the Government have failed to address, which is around the recruitment of magistrates. We know that in this country, recruitment cycles of magistrates have often not returned the numbers required. The presumption must be that the reason the Government did not adopt Sir Brian’s recommendation of having two magistrates as wing members was because they knew they could not recruit a sufficient number of magistrates to implement it. There is logic on that front, but if we are pushing more cases down to the magistrates court, who will be able to hear them and listen to them? Who will be able to draw those conclusions?

My final point, which I will make briefly, pertains to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill will be rushed through this House and through Committee. It will get a mere five days in Committee, but it is of such constitutional importance. There is strong feeling across the House both for and against these proposals. Would it not be wiser in such circumstances to adopt an approach similar to what we do for armed forces Bills, for example, where we have a Select Committee of the House? Members with experience within the law and with experience of being victims could scrutinise the legislation and come back with a report. We could then do Report stage on the Floor of the House. That way, the country can know that we have given this legislation the due regard that it deserves.

There is a reason that jury trials have endured, and it is because they command the trust of the public. They ensure that the law is exercised with public participation. If the Government believe in diluting that right, they must provide the evidence for that change, and thus far they have failed to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]