Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

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

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The Government’s case for curtailing trial by jury is based on an impact assessment that rests on assumptions, rather than hard evidence. Is it not the truth that the Government are asking Parliament to give up and weaken a fundamental safeguard on the basis of hearsay alone?

[Mr Lammy]

Sir Brian Leveson spent months delivering part 1 and part 2 of his reforms. We are building on that. I have set out that this is a 20% saving. If the hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary—I am not sure he ever will be, but if he were—and he was told that a 20% saving could get the waiting list down, he would take it in an instant; so am I.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

2nd reading
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—]

Court Reporting Data

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing.

Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.

We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.

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

There is an obligation on anyone who is aware of a data breach to report it to the Information Commissioner’s Office no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it. Can the Minister say when the MOJ was first aware of the issues relating to Courtsdesk, and when the MOJ reported those issues to the ICO?

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue, and he knows that we need to increase the number of district judges. The forthcoming Bill will give us the power to increase the threshold for magistrates. Obviously, it will be essential to look at how that co-ordinates with the new swift bench, once we get Royal Assent towards the end of this year.

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

Sir Brian Leveson’s review did not contain any specific modelling to support his view that limiting jury trials would reduce by 20% the time taken for trials. If the Government’s own modelling does not support and validate Sir Brian’s assessment, will they U-turn on the policy?

[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.

Jury Trials

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The right to trial by jury is not some procedural convenience capable of being abridged when the administrative weather turns foul; it is one of the great constitutional expressions of liberty under the law. It is overwhelmingly legitimate, because it places the citizen, and not the state, at the heart of criminal judgment. When the state proposes to narrow the circumstances in which it must persuade 12 of a defendant’s peers, it is not merely managing a backlog; it is fundamentally recalibrating the balance between the individual and the Crown.

There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is under acute strain. Victims and defendants wait too long. Justice is stretched thin. However, the issue before us is not whether reform is necessary, but whether this reform is justified, proportionate and supported by evidence.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I hear everything my hon. Friend says. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) laid out a number of matters that could be acted on immediately to improve efficiency and ensure that we maintain the pillar of society that is our jury trials. Do you agree that we should be focusing immediately on that, rather than demolishing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. No “yous”—it is not me responding.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment.

There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty.

The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit.

The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Is there a part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech where he says that the reason that so many of our courts are dilapidated and falling down is because we did not see investment in 14 years of Conservative Government?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours.

It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system.

The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate.

I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

There was no mention of reforming the jury trial system in the Labour manifesto. Given that this is a fundamental, very serious change to the operation of our legal system, which has served us well for centuries, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this change should never be allowed to go ahead without some form of electoral mandate?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: there is no mandate for this decision. It represents such a significant constitutional change to our legal system, and it is being made without reference to the will of the people.

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but justice expedited at the cost of constitutional principle may prove a far greater denial still.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Justice Committee member, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.

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

Since October of last year, five people have absconded from Leyhill, which suggests that there are systemic issues around both security and licensing arrangements. I suspect that those are not bespoke to Leyhill, but are used across the wider open prison estate. With that in mind, what has the Minister’s Department done to tighten those arrangements to ensure that this does not happen again, not just at Leyhill, but at any other open prison?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As he will be aware from my previous answers, absconds have actually decreased across our open prison estate: they have come down by 2% on the previous year. However, whenever an abscond happens, a rapid review will take place. A rapid review is taking place into the absconds at HMP Leyhill. It will be done within 20 days and I will ensure that it is brought forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.

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

One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the crumbling and decaying state of our court estate has become a metaphor for the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government. It is why we are opening new courts in Blackpool and putting shovels in the ground in inner London, and why we have increased the court estate budget by £28 million, so that we can improve maintenance and keep as many court rooms running as possible. In the end, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, money alone will not be enough. We need reforms so that we can run the system at capacity and deliver swifter justice for victims.

Criminal Court Reform

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do.

Right to Trial by Jury

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.

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

The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member will know that I regularly engage with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and a range of other stakeholders. In fact, they agree with me that the system is broken. Indeed, whether they prosecute or defend, hard-working criminal barristers are experiencing a sapping of morale as they go into the crumbling buildings—presided over by the Conservatives—inefficient trials that crack, and trials that come three or four years after they were reported, with witnesses pulling out on the day. All that is deeply demoralising. Indeed, there is a huge degree of consensus between the Government and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association on the direction of travel. We must of course address inefficiencies; that is why Sir Brian Leveson and his independent reviewers are considering inefficiencies and productivity in the system. When part two of the review comes, we will take its recommendations equally seriously and look to implement them.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the public recognise that. They might not have visited our prisons, but they know that cuts in our public services are real. They see it in their local authorities. They see it in their local hospitals. They see it in their local schools. They know that things like Sure Start were decimated. I am afraid that our Prison Service, which the public do not see, was one of the worst-hit public services.

It is my job to minimise that risk to the public, which is why I am introducing new measures and have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue very carefully. She is a former head of the National Crime Agency, and I know she will do a forensic examination. I will implement her recommendations so that we can bear down on this problem, but it is a paper-based system. Coming into this job, I did not realise that it was a paper-based system. I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary has realised that since he has been doing his job, but former Conservative Justice Secretaries know that it is a paper-based system, and they know that that is why errors happen.

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

Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?

[Mr Lammy]

Previous Governments did not have that data, and I am pretty confident that I do not have that data. If it exists, it exists in the individual police forces that deal with these issues operationally. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right that every prisoner released in error has to be found by the police. I thank the police for all they have done, and I particularly thank Haringey police for finding the two high-profile cases.