Pam Cox
Main Page: Pam Cox (Labour - Colchester)Department Debates - View all Pam Cox's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy
The Institute for Government has made it absolutely clear that the figures that the Government have produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who knows what we are talking about.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Would the hon. Member agree that legal judgment by peers or equals can include legal judgment by magistrates, and that indeed there is no ancient right to jury trial? To say so is to misrepresent the case.
Nick Timothy
Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance, and to public confidence in the criminal justice system.
If the reason is not efficiency, why are the Government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first is that this left-wing Government—determined to censor free speech, and indifferent to public concern about two-tier justice—simply want to do away with the hassle of juries. The second is that the civil service has long sought to do this, and after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Secretary of State foolish enough to go along with it.
We can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice. A reshuffle is under way, and the Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials and asks them what the new Justice Secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of “Celebrity Mastermind”. “What blue cheese is paired with port?”, asks the quizmaster. “Red Leicester”, says the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey’s eyebrow arches. “Which Marie won the Nobel prize for physics?” “Antoinette”, comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. “Which English King followed Henry VIII?” “Henry VII,” cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around at his trusted officials, and says, “Finally, I think this time we’ve found our man.”
For this is not a new idea. Officials have been itching to do this for years, but wiser Secretaries of State have always said no. Under this explanation of events, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed.
Nick Timothy
I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. [Interruption.] To suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) should withdraw that comment.
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I was concerned by the Justice Secretary saying that he is proud of the fact that his party does not just look to the past and to how things have been; I think one of the problems with Labour is that it is too careless with how things have always been. This is exactly what we are talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right, and Labour is being careless about it.
Nick Timothy
I will not give way again.
We are talking about a fundamental change in the way that we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor; they are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison. Before Government Members decide how to vote this evening, they need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this Bill just? Is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient? If they are honest with themselves, and if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step—not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson, and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed. As Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe, deep down, to be wrong—and, as I understand it from the media briefings, neither would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
Government Members know the policy was not in their manifesto, they know that there has not even been a consultation, and they know that it is wrong to rush this through the House after just five days of scrutiny in Committee. They know, too, that in perhaps just a few months, this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe that they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world, all for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted and who they will soon replace. We will vote against this terrible Bill today, and so should they.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am happy to make it absolutely clear for the hon. Member. If I was allowed to get on, I could make that point. Trial by jury is not the problem. We agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but curtailing the right to a jury trial will not achieve what the Government and the Opposition want: the backlog coming down.
Leveson’s report proposed a bench division with a judge and two magistrates. The Government have gone further and proposed a swift court with just one sitting judge. Did they choose to ignore Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal of a Crown court bench division with a judge and two magistrates because, although they agree—I think—that the lay element to a trial is an important part of the system, they know that they do not have enough magistrates and are likely to struggle to find enough willing to preside over lengthy cases? Does the Courts Minister really believe that defendants opt for a Crown court trial because they want their cases to be heard in a Crown court building—because of the facilities or because it might have better coffee—rather than because they want a trial by jury?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I will make some progress.
If the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister believe that this is fundamentally the right thing to do practically and ideologically, why did it not feature in the Labour party manifesto? Like many Members, I take issue with the Deputy Prime Minister’s messaging around the Bill. He chose to describe defendants as “offenders”, rather than applying the principle of innocent until guilt is proven. He also described a case that carries a sentence of up to three years as akin to having a grazed knee and seeing a consultant. I think most of the public outside this building would argue that three years’ imprisonment is a life-changing sentence. If I were tried for a crime that I was arguing that I did not commit, I would like that to be in front of a jury of my peers.
I believe the Government are wasting severely limited political capital on something that will not shift the dial. They stated themselves that they expect all the measures in the Bill to show just a 5% decrease in the backlog by the end of this Parliament and a return to pre-covid backlog levels only in a decade.
Instead of these drastic changes, we are urging the Government to look at alternative options to reduce the Crown court backlog. We should look at measures that have been tried and tested before, such as those piloted during the pandemic to supercharge the Crown courts, when extended sitting hours allowed am and pm trials. Used in select courtrooms, that method can funnel through cases that have been stuck in the backlog for years. In the original pilots, the approach cleared 3.5 cases per courtroom each week, compared to fewer than one in courts operating standard hours. That is how we can begin to reduce the backlog without removing liberties that we should all hold as sacred. Will the Government please give consideration to the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would not only boost efficiencies in the Crown courts but would make the experience for jurors, victims and judges better, and could attract retired judges back into the system to preside over half-day cases?
Another glaring flaw in the Bill is that more serious cases will be heard in the magistrates court, where there is a higher income threshold to qualify for legal aid. Many more defendants who could be accused of crimes that carry sentences of up to 24 months will be unrepresented and defending themselves. That is very likely to drag out hearings, which will lower the overall savings that the Government claim to be making with these reforms. How will the Government respond when magistrates courts start pushing cases with longer sentences back to the Crown court as they struggle to absorb the additional work, as happened with the previous reform of magistrates’ sentencing powers?
The Government are also proposing to abolish the right of appeal from the magistrates court. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that should be done when 42% of appeals from the magistrates court are successful? If the Government are willing to include an important clause on the presumption against parental responsibility in the Bill, why will they not extend the scope of the Bill to address the fundamental reforms needed in the broken family court system?
The Government’s proposals are opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the chair of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Four Bars, the Secret Barrister, Judge Rob Rinder, Jo Hamilton OBE, many Labour Members and 3,200 legal professionals, who have written to the Deputy Prime Minister today. If they will not listen to all those organisations and people who have spent their lives committed to making the criminal justice system, which has been poorly managed by successive Governments, as effective as possible for victims and defendants, who will they listen to?
I have a huge amount of respect for the Courts Minister and for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is why I am disappointed to be here making this speech. It is not too late for them to change course.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen—and some of the longest.
I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances that challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity in the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. Without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say awe, from those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice.
There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens, chosen at random and brought together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces, that strips away ideological and racial prejudice or preconception, and that causes them to focus upon a single question: is the allegation true, or is it not; and can we be sure, or is there any doubt?
Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Not just now, but I will come back to the hon. Member.
We in this House are engaged in ideological strife. Every day of our lives we are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have set. In the course of my legal career, I have been led—when I say “led”, I mean that I was a junior in the courts—by some distinguished Labour Members of Parliament who continued to practise in the criminal courts and regarded it is a noble honour to do so. Peter Archer, the former Solicitor General, led me in the early 1980s; John Morris led me just eight weeks before the ’97 election, when the Blair landslide swept in—oh, halcyon days to those across the aisle, or some of them, anyway; and Bob Marshall-Andrews led me right up to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were.
Those men would never have countenanced—not for a single second—the compromise of principle that Government and Opposition Members are now being asked to make. I knew these people, and I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced it. Bob Marshall-Andrews would never have countenanced it.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Not now—later. I will.
I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.
Pam Cox
We could think of this exchange as Cox v. Cox. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions legal history. I have more than a passing interest in that and am minded to think of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which moved a lot of cases from a jury system into the magistrates system. The architect of that was Disraeli, a former Conservative Prime Minister. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that many politicians across this House have acted to shape jury trials over time?
Sir Edward Leigh
I may give way in a moment.
Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury
“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.
That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting.
The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote:
“Each jury is a little parliament.”
The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental.
As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I rise to speak on a Bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intention to tackle a Crown court backlog that has more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. Let us be clear what the backlog means: as the Victims’ Commissioner has warned, some trials are now listed for 2030. The bench division serves a purpose by enabling judge-alone trials for lower level cases, which means we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take about 20% less time.
I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working-class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from the perspective of my constituents that I must scrutinise this Bill.
Clause 3 removes a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial for either-way offences, replacing it with a judge-alone trial in a new bench division for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot—it contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and perception.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Opposition have chosen to misrepresent this Bill. That is their choice, but it does the delivery of justice in this country no favours. That misrepresentation has centred on one of the Bill’s many provisions—the proposed changes to mode of trial—but this Bill does not abolish jury trials. It moves some cases to the magistrates courts, introduces bench trials for certain other cases, and introduces reforms to either-way proceedings. If implemented, the Bill will mean that the accused in either-way cases will no longer have the ability to overrule the decision of a magistrates court about the mode of trial, namely where their trial should be held.
I want to offer a different perspective on this point. The current right to elect for a jury trial is not an ancient right. Instead, we can think of it as an anomaly—a legal practice created in the 1850s that survived reforms in the 1970s—and court modernisers have been calling for the practice to be closed down for decades. I focus on the history, because it is important for us to be aware of how others before us have used democratic processes to enact judicial reform in the public interest.
In 2001, Lord Justice Auld noted that
“our system is probably unique in that, in a large range of offences…the accused, not the court, decides how and where he is to be tried.”
Lord Auld recommended that this element be abolished, but that is the system that the Opposition are defending. When they defend that anomaly, they are delaying justice and undermining victims.
Last year, more than 4,000 defendants opted for a jury trial. As the Magistrates Association reported to the Justice Committee, some will have done so in the hope that the resulting delay would deter victims from continuing. We know that many stopped prosecutions are caused by victims dropping out—demoralised, defeated and denied justice. This Bill turns that dreadful situation around through a whole package of measures, but in part by ending the either-way anomaly.
This Bill preserves jury trials for the most serious cases. If it did not, I would not support it. It also allows those presiding over a bench trial to reallocate the case to jury trial if new evidence emerges to suggest that the defendant might receive a sentence of more than three years. That is an important point that has been overlooked so far in this debate.
There is more that I could say about the other measures introduced by the Bill, and about the desperate need to do more for sexual offence victims; for example, I would love us to fast-track RASSO courts at pace. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve our courts, so let us take that chance today.