Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

That is the principle that Parliament and the Government are trying to grapple with. In my view, the Government have not gone far enough and are not delivering on their manifesto pledge, but there are some new clauses here that they could support in order to achieve it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I will speak on new clause 6, new clause 25 and, in particular, new clause 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington North. Her proposal represents the genuine structural reform that victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse have long been promised and too long denied—the radical change that the Labour party proposed when in opposition and in fighting the last election. I acknowledge the hon. Member’s extraordinary courage in waiving her anonymity to speak openly in the Chamber. She revealed how long she had had to wait before going to court and mentioned that every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of her trauma played out in public.

New clause 2 would deliver what this Labour Government themselves pledged in their manifesto: specialist courts for rape and domestic abuse, trauma-informed proceedings, fixed trial dates, and proper support facilities for victims. It would create time limits for case preparation, fixed trial dates and prioritised listings, including for cases where the defendant is on bail, addressing one of the most dangerous and distressing features of the current system.

I remind Government Members that the front cover of the Labour party manifesto featured one word: “Change”. The Government’s supporters and their own Members—and even the Opposition—all thought that would be change for good, not for bad. They thought that it would be change of the sort that was in the manifesto, not restricting jury trials, of which there was no mention in the manifesto. Public confidence in this place is at an all-time low. If Governments win elections with manifesto pledges and then ignore those pledges or offer diluted concessions that go not so very far, they lose the confidence of the public. It is so fundamental, and it is such an important moment in our democracy. Governments have to live by what they said they would do. Here is the Government’s chance to do so.

Rather than diluting the right to jury trial, as the Bill’s central provisions would do, new clause 2 proposes a better answer to the backlog: courts established specifically for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with specialist knowledge and resources to handle them properly. The Liberal Democrats believe, as I think do many Government Members, that victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse deserve a justice system designed with their needs in mind, not one that treats their cases as scheduling problems to be managed and uses a pretext for restricting jury trials.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for speaking to new clause 2, the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling new clauses 6 and 23, and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling new clause 25. Before I turn to new clause 2, I will take a moment, as others have done, to acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, and to thank her for having the courage to share her experiences on this issue in the Chamber in order to drive forward change for victims of sexual violence. I think all of us remember the moment when she gave her speech in the Chamber—you could have heard a pin drop. That obviously took considerable personal courage. Hearing from her then, and subsequently when we have spoken about how she feels the system let her down, has been invaluable in shaping my thinking on the issue.

New clause 2 has catalysed the debate about how our criminal justice system treats those who have experienced rape and serious sexual violence. The hon. Member for Wimbledon made a powerful speech about the Labour party manifesto. It contained a commitment, which we have been driving forward, to halve violence against women and girls. Let me be absolutely clear. Our manifesto commitment to introduce specialist courts for rape and sexual offences has never changed. It has not been watered down, and our commitment to it has not wavered. The Minister for Victims and I, as well as others across Government, have been putting in place the foundations to deliver those specialist courts.

It is important to note that that change and the efforts to drive down the delays right across our criminal justice system are not mutually exclusive, because we need to deliver change for all victims of crime. Those two things are not an either/or. While it is true that the proposals, which build on the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts, are not in the Labour party manifesto, I also believe, as I have said before, that to govern is to choose. When we see a problem in any public service—when we see a backlog of over 80,000 cases, and cases being listed into 2030—we could say, “Well, we didn’t specify in our manifesto how we were going to fix it; we’ll just get on with everything that was in our manifesto and turn a blind eye.” I am not prepared to do that.

I want to be absolutely clear with the Committee, and with Parliament in general, that the two things are not mutually exclusive. We can deliver both specialist courts for victims of rape and the necessary changes that I have contended for to drive down the backlogs and delays that are denying justice to defendants and victims right across our criminal justice system.

[Mr Kohler]

While I concede that the black hole might not have been foreseeable, the fact that there was a backlog in the courts was clearly foreseeable. The idea that the Government came into power and then suddenly realised there was a backlog is implausible.

We are two years into this Government. The change that was promised is long delayed and people are losing confidence—we see that. This point crosses political boundaries. The public are losing confidence in our democratic processes, and change delayed is change denied.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will make two points in response. First, the full extent of the crisis in our criminal justice system was not apparent. It was not apparent in prisons, when we opened the car bonnet on day one and essentially found prisons at breaking point. That obviously interacts with courts, because if we are sentencing people and there is simply nowhere to put violent criminals, we have a pretty serious problem on our hands. The full extent of the crisis in our courts was not apparent either, and we need to have a solution that meets the moment. That is what this Bill is.

Secondly, I strongly refute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands; rather, we have been putting in place the building blocks and ingredients of a specialist court. We are rolling out trauma-informed training not just for our specialist judges but for every member of the court staff—that is in train. We are changing the way that evidence is dealt with, as we debated on clauses 8 to 11. We are investing £6 million in the introduction of independent legal advisers for victims of rape as they go through that process. We are committing more than £500 million to victim support, some of which will cover victims of rape and sexual offences. I would argue that that is far from change denied. I would call that change in train, which will deliver a transformation for victims of rape in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

As I have said, we have precedent. The pilots showed that there was precious little improvement. Extending sitting hours might make things worse if, for example, one is stuck in extended hours on one trial, meaning that one is not available to be in other parts of the country.

[Mr Kohler]

Is the Minister talking about extending one trial over more hours? Surely the solution is having two trials in parallel. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been on a jury; I have been on a jury three times. It is very difficult for jury members, particularly non-lawyers, to listen to evidence for more than four hours. Currently they might do five, or five and a half hours in a day, and that is difficult for them. The idea of a trial in the morning and a trial in the afternoon running in parallel, separately, is better for jury members and for the system, and addresses many of the Minister’s concerns, does it not?

[Sarah Sackman]

We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson about how in his earlier years sitting in the Crown court it was not unusual to hear a couple of trials in a day. One of his insights was that part of the changing nature of what we are grappling with here is that Crown court trials are just taking longer. That ability to hear multiple trials within the court day has been impeded by the fact that trials are taking longer because of the nature of the evidence and the procedural safeguards. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about multiple trials. It important to note that the Lord Chancellor has a power under section 78(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to determine when the Crown court sits. The amendment is not necessary with regard to needing to change primary legislation in order to change sitting hours.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

My contribution will be brief, as other colleagues said a lot this morning. Clause 3 is extremely pragmatic and proportionate to the challenges we face. As Sir Brian Leveson made clear in his oral testimony, it is necessary because financial investment and efficiency measures alone, while essential—no one present disagrees with that—are insufficient to bring down the backlog. We all know that structural reform is critical if we are to see a meaningful reduction in the backlog.

Clause 3 comes with context, because the backlogs have more than doubled since 2019. Despite some quarterly variations, which have been mentioned, we see that the backlog is increasing annually. On the current trajectory, we are now entering unparalleled territory, with real, material consequences for the victims of crime. This was all predicted and modelled in the previous Parliament, and it has since come to pass. The current trajectory is 130,000 cases by 2030, and 200,000 cases by 2035. While some may acknowledge that there are decisions that have led to this position, it requires the Government to step in and deal with the consequences.

We need the policy in the Bill to meaningfully reduce caseloads, and we need it today. There is clear evidence from the testimony of many of the witnesses that cases are sometimes taking 80% longer compared with 2019, due to their complexity and the evidence and digital analysis that is required in many cases. Currently, 21,000 cases have been open for a year or longer. Again, that is the current trend and trajectory.

Inequity is undermining confidence in our justice system. I say this as a former police officer: it is not just the victim who suffers, although they absolutely do need justice for the crime committed against them; defendants, some of whom may be innocent, are also having to await outcomes. The police and agencies, while not necessarily being responsive because of their independent nature, have to manage the victim. I know from testimony given directly to me by police that court waiting times and having to manage victims over many years have direct consequences for cases. There are no winners when it comes to inaction.

Today, more than 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrate benches, and in some cases that is with multiple magistrates. The evidence pack indicates that only 3% of criminal cases go to jury trial. Even if the reform takes place, the majority of cases will still be dealt with in the same way as previously. Only 1% of cases will be heard by the new division. Despite the claim that there will be substantial changes for the majority of cases, only a very small number will be affected. The Bill is not about the abolition of jury trials; it is about changing the thresholds at which they are implemented.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I think the evidence is that 3% of trials currently have a jury, and that will go down to 1.5%. That is a 50% reduction. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is a huge reduction in the number of jury trials from the present number?

[Tristan Osborne]

We are absolutely seeking to reduce the number of cases going before jury trials. It comes back to the thresholds. We have seen a long history of changes to thresholds, as well as changes to those serving on juries. In the early part of the 20th century, women were allowed to sit on juries for the first time, and it was only in the mid part of the last century that we allowed people who did not own property to sit on juries. There has, then, been an evolution in both the composition of the jury and the thresholds that are applied. For example, in 1977 Callaghan changed the law so that some cases—including of theft, burglary and criminal damage offences—could be dealt with in magistrates courts, and many of the debates we are having today happened at that time as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I oppose the Adjournment because I want us to make progress. Everyone is here to continue the important work of line-by-line scrutiny. I do not think that anything that I have said, to assist the Committee and Members across the House, should undermine that approach, so we should proceed.

[Mr Kohler]

I think we all agree now, do we not, that allocation decisions are not, on the whole, subject to judicial review if they are in the Crown court. If the Minister conceded that point, we could move on. Why does she not just concede that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I think I did clarify; I do not think I have anything more to say. I clarified it in answer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I am not going to say anything more; I think we should go to a vote.

[Mr Kohler]

To my mind, that would appear to be a clarification.

[Dr Mullan]

I think the Minister is accepting that there is no obvious route to judicial review, which is completely contrary to what she said to us on Thursday. I think anyone would interpret that as a significant reduction in rights compared with the existing status quo, so with that clarification from the Minister, I am happy to continue.

Question put and negatived.

Question put, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

One of the things we have to in order to successfully deliver this court transformation is properly resource our magistrates court. You have heard me say before about what we need to do to increase magistrates recruitment and the steps that the Government have taken in that regard. We are also increasing the recruitment of district judges who sit within the magistrates court. In reality, many of the serious and longer cases currently within the magistrates court would be heard by more experienced magistrates or a district judge.

We had a discussion earlier in Committee about the desirability of having lay magistrates serve alongside Crown court judges as part of the constitution of the Crown court bench division. I have recognised the merit in that. One of the challenges there is not just the number of magistrates you require, but finding magistrates who can sit in longer trials, which inevitably those would be. I understand what the hon. Member for Reigate said, but we already see on a daily basis how serious and less serious matters in the magistrates court are apportioned in that way. We are hiring up to an additional 80 district judges under our current plans, and they will be able to hear those sorts of cases. Part of the capacity also relies on expanding the number of, and support for, legal advisers, who are also critical to delivery.

[Mr Kohler]

Why is increasing resources a legitimate argument in favour of positions that you want to take and a criticism of positions that you want to criticise? We surely need to increase resources, but you are using that point to defend your position and not to address the criticisms we are offering.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am not sure that is right. I think we have all agreed—even those Opposition Members who were responsible for the justice system and deprived it of the resources that were needed—that more investment is needed, and the Government are making that. I make these points about capacity partly to meet the question that was asked, but also to meet the concern expressed. It is a legitimate concern: by following the thrust of the IRCC recommendations, are we diverting some cases into our magistrates court and creating a risk for that court?

People have pointed to the size of the caseload; we need to distinguish between open caseload and backlog. The magistrates court currently has a caseload, which it needs to operate efficiently, but we obviously do not want that to become a backlog, or to simply divert the problem from one place to another, which is why I talk about resources. I am trying to reassure the Committee and the wider public that by empowering magistrates to assume greater sentencing powers, which means dealing with more serious cases, we are equipping them with the resources they need to do that responsibly.

Extending magistrates courts sentencing powers will retain more cases in the magistrates courts, thereby freeing up valuable Crown court capacity. A sentencing increase of up to 18 months is estimated to save 8,000 Crown court sitting days in the 2028-29 financial year. When magistrates court sentencing powers were raised from six to 12 months in May 2022, a review of the impact confirmed that it helped to reduce the pressure on the Crown court at the time, with fewer cases sent for sentencing and trial. In November 2024, the extension of magistrates court sentencing powers was estimated to free up the equivalent of 2,000 Crown court sitting days a year—so it is proven to work.

By increasing magistrates courts sentencing powers, offences such as common assault, the theft of lower-value items and lower-level fraud could be heard in the magistrates court. This will ensure that Crown court resources are rightly focused on the most serious and complex cases. We have confidence in magistrates to exercise higher sentencing powers accurately and fairly. As others have pointed out, in the youth court magistrates already have the power to impose detention and training orders of up to two years in cases concerning serious violence.

It cheers me that the change was welcomed by the Magistrates’ Association and that magistrates are willing to take on the additional challenge with greater powers, aligning with the youth courts. The Magistrates’ Association has stated that this is

“the most effective and straightforward way for magistrates’ courts to further assist in reducing the Crown Court backlog”.

The introduction of the ability to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 or 24 months will address the open case law and provide the flexibility to enable a more proportionate allocation of resources. For the reasons I have set out, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden to seek to withdraw her amendment.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Sackman]

I am going to make some progress.

Both parties will be able to make representations as I have said. We also recognise that cases can and do evolve as they progress through the courts and a number of examples were raised. Clause 3 makes clear provision for cases to be reallocated between the bench division and jury trial where the seriousness changes. That process is set out specifically in the legislation, and for that reason I urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The point is that judges can make mistakes. That is why the Attorney General can appeal unduly lenient sentences. Why are the Government saying there cannot be a challenge in this case when a mistake has been made? Why are they not allowing an appeal when a mistake has been made as to how long the maximum sentence might be?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I am about to come on to, not least to address the very fair questions raised by the hon. Member for Reigate—she knows that I do not mind answering questions, because we have a constructive approach—the assessment designed to take place at the PTPH is to give an indicative assessment of sentence; it is not a final determination of sentence. That final sentence may exceed the estimate that is reached, or it may be lower. This is not intended to be a mini-trial, and that is consistent, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, with what happens in the magistrates court every day.

[Mr Kohler]

Mistakes can be made. All I am asking is why the Government are saying that when a judge or magistrates have made a mistake, there can never be an appeal—mistakes happen.

[Sarah Sackman]

Of course nobody is infallible in this process, and mistakes are made. But I caution that there is a distinction between taking a decision that is totally outwith the legal authority the statute provides the decision maker with and an indicative assessment of likely sentence, which turns out not to be the precise result that we end up with. That does not invalidate the initial assessment or necessarily mean it is mistaken based on the representations that were before the judge at that time. We therefore think that introducing a specific route of appeal to the allocation decision—I am not talking about appeals to the ultimate verdict —introduces a needless interlocutory stage that will only add to delay, in a system where we are trying to bring them down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

We are now being asked to vote in a totally unsatisfactory situation when it comes to the facts of how this legislation will operate in two very important regards. I put it to the Committee that there will be an erosion of the right to judicially appeal an allocation decision that currently exists in respect of magistrates. The Minister said she thinks that that is wrong, but we will have to vote one way or the other on the basis that either the Minister is correct or I am correct. A Member said from a sedentary position—this is not a criticism of him—that the Minister will come and correct the record, but we will have already voted when the record is corrected. The Minister has given a view that there will be a right of appeal through judicial review to an allocation decision in the Crown court, and that is a fundamentally different scenario to one where someone does not have that right. However, we will be asked to vote on that today, without having absolute certainty, and we will perhaps be told afterwards, “Oh no, you don’t actually have that right.” I am not sure how Labour Members are comfortable or confident voting against a right that we are seeking to give people, without having absolute clarity about what the Minister has said and whether she is correct. It is extremely unsatisfactory for this Committee to be asked to vote on that matter without absolute clarity.

Secondly, similarly, the Minister did not clearly answer whether, as a consequence of that, people would be able to pick the issue up in an ordinary court of appeal. To another point raised by Opposition Members, the Minister said that we are not talking about errors in the law or where judges have clearly strayed outside of legislation. How does she know that? How does she know what future mistakes a judge might make? A judge may do exactly that, and allocate a decision completely and utterly incorrectly, outside of the law and what Parliament intended, and the Minister will not tell us whether that could be picked up in a court of appeal.

That, again, has important consequences, not just for the rights of the person who may be subject to that kind of egregious mistake in a legal proceeding without any route of recourse; it will also undermine the whole system if people are appealing and challenging these decisions and there is all this uncertainty.

[Mr Kohler]

I hate to break the consensus on the Opposition side, but I really do not see how we can say that judicial review is an appeal, and therefore why it is caught by this legislation at all. Judicial review is not an appeal of a decision; it is a review of a process. I do not think it is a concern.

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, our preference is for an appeal. The Government could say, “We are not going to add additional rights that do not exist; you do not get a right of appeal on allocation by a magistrate, but you do have a right to judicial review.” But the Minister cannot say with confidence that we do or do not have that. That is extraordinary.

--- Later in debate ---

I have been advised that there is not the same right to judicial review, and that is why it would be important to have a route of appeal.

[Mr Kohler]

Although judicial review of a Crown court decision is limited, Crown court decisions that are not part of the trial by indictment can be reviewed. I am sure an allocation decision can be reviewed.

[Dr Mullan]

We went through this at the start. A triable either-way decision becomes a trial on indictment, but I have been told by a leading KC that in pre-trial hearings—the sort of matters we are considering today—people will not have that same right.

[Mr Kohler]

But aspects of a Crown court decision that are not the trial by indictment can be reviewed. Other aspects of decision making can be reviewed, so I cannot see why an allocation decision could not be reviewed.

[Dr Mullan]

Again, this is why the Minister needs to clearly articulate whether or not we can—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Amber Valley is saying that the Minister said that we can. But what will the Minister do if we all vote tonight on the basis that the allocation decision can be judicially reviewed? The Minister is asking us not to have a view on it, not to consider it, but to vote on the question of appeal in relation to allocation decisions on the basis that she has told us that they can be judicially reviewed. Will the Minister think that that is in any way satisfactory if what she has told us proves wrong? I do not see how she could possibly think that that would be satisfactory.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 10

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 5

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 8

---

Labour: 8

[Mr Kohler]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I want to place on the record an apology to the shadow Minister. I have read some cases and, much to my surprise, I think the allocation process does come with the trial on indictment; it is not ancillary to it. Therefore, my view is that judicial review does probably come within the statutory bar, so I apologise.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Sackman]

The premise of not just these amendments, but amendments that we have already debated, is that other tiers of the system, whether that be the magistrates court or the proposed Crown court bench division, somehow offend the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are essential; they are foundational. They are based on impartiality, freedom from bias and fair process. All those things are guaranteed under our current system in the magistrates court, and would be guaranteed in a judge-only trial, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley; district judges make those decisions on a daily basis.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants me to say that, somehow, this would be a lesser justice. I will not say that. I am recognising that there is something special about jury trials—of course there is; it is why I have said consistently that they are a cornerstone of our legal system—but we have to deploy what is a very particular resource that demands a great deal of jurors. We have not spoken about jurors all too often in this debate, but there is something called jury burden. That is why, as we will hear when we come to the clauses that deal with judge-only trials for long and complex cases, particularly for fraud, which place a huge burden on jurors, often with cases lasting months on end, we have to use that resource and deploy it carefully.

However, as I have said repeatedly, and I will say it again, the state’s obligation at every level of the justice system, at every level of seriousness, is to guarantee an individual defendant a fair trial that upholds the principles of natural justice, which is what the hon. Member’s amendment actually focuses on. I am firmly of the view, and the Government are firmly of the view, that, whether by lay magistrates, by judge alone or by a judge and jury, our system upholds those principles of natural justice and is therefore fair throughout.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I have listened patiently to the Minister’s arguments for two sittings. She said something that I really do want to ask her to reflect on. She has talked about jury burden, and about the fact that it is important for confidence that the citizenship takes part in the system. The Minister and the Government are seeking to halve the number of jury trials, and therefore halve the number of times that members of the citizenship will actually take part in juries and in the criminal justice process. Does she not see that that undermines the whole system? Many people will not now have a chance to take part in juries and that is a crucial thing. Talk to anyone who has been on a jury, and they will say that they hated the idea when they were called up for it and loved it afterwards because they have actually taken part in the system. The Government are halving the possibilities of people doing that.

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not accept the premise or assumption that everybody has a positive experience of the criminal justice system when they participate in a jury. As the Minister for Courts, I do thank all of those who perform their civic duty. However, when asking people to do that, we must ask them to do it in a way that is fair and proportionate to them, as well as to the other participants in the system—not least the defendants in indictable-only cases and those that, under these reforms, attract a sentence of three years or more.

Cases can and do sometimes evolve as they progress through the courts. Proposed new sections 74B and 74C of the Senior Courts Act 1981 make clear provision for cases to be re-allocated to a jury trial, where the seriousness increases even after a judge-only trial has begun. The basis of these reforms is to ensure that cases are allocated according to the seriousness of offending, with jury trial preserved for the most serious cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

We do think this is the right balance, which is why we brought it forward. It is the test that was recommended to us by the independent review and we think it is a considered, objective and balanced test. We are bringing it forward because we think it is the right one. Expanding the test for—

[Mr Kohler]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am going to make a little progress—

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Alex McIntyre]

I have some experience in this, having changed my practice when I was a solicitor from being a banking lawyer to being an employment lawyer. It takes time to build up a level of expertise, and if I were to return from this place to being a solicitor, it would take me some time to re-educate myself and get up to speed with developments in the law to be able to practise again. I accept the shadow Minister’s point that there are some barristers who change their specialty as often as MPs change their parliamentary constituencies—

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

And parties.

[Alex McIntyre]

And parties, which seems to be happening at an increasing rate on the Opposition Benches. Does the shadow Minister not agree that, at the very least, it will take time for those barristers to reskill, retrain and update their knowledge to be able to take on those cases, and that therefore the premise that the Minister is putting forward is the right one?

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q My question concerns appeals. I am looking to see whether there is synergy here. Across your regions, 1% of cases that come from magistrates are appealed, so, accepting that the magistrates system is working, why do you not accept the principle of extending magistrates’ sentencing powers—as we have done in the past from six months to 12 months—from 12 months to three years?

Claire Davies: It is 18 months. The difficulty is the percentage of appeals against conviction, because we take a slightly different approach in relation to appeals against sentence. With appeals against conviction, the success rate is something like 40%. I understand that there is no data that demonstrates whether that is because witnesses do not attend the retrial hearing or simply because a wrong decision was reached in the lower courts. What concerns me is when you have the chair of the Magistrates’ Association giving evidence before the Select Committee that he would like the right of appeal retained.

There are errors and mistakes made, but if the length of sentence is extended, it will potentially increase that risk. The other difficulty that follows is that the number of those who qualify for legal aid will reduce, which means that they will not have access to legal advice as to whether they should be appealing or not, and if restrictions are brought in on the basis on which you can appeal, they will not be adequately equipped to launch what should perhaps be a successful appeal.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q Are you familiar with the argument of the retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses, in The Guardian this week, that a third of the backlog could be cleared if we employed retired judges to undertake a winnowing exercise to clear the cases that will never come to court, and is he correct?

Claire Davies: I have not read that article, but if there is more judiciary, then there is more access for people. A lot of residents are taking the approach of looking at the outstanding cases, looking at the sorts of cases that may not go to trial, and bringing them in. As well as more judiciary to assist in that process, or to crack through the trials that there are, there would need to be the courtroom availability, and of course what has to come with more courtroom availability is staff so that the courts run efficiently. We would welcome retired judges to come back. There are many who currently sit in retirement in any event.

Caroline Goodwin: It would be absolutely brilliant to have these very senior judges come back. They have an absolute wealth of knowledge that they can bring. If they are prepared to operate in that role, it is a win-win situation. If we can instantly recruit more judiciary to deal with these cases, then it is something we should be proactively looking at.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Q It is fair to say that the CPS’s breadth of experience across the criminal justice system is unparalleled, given that it takes cases through the system, from advising the police at charge through to the magistrates court, the Crown court and the appeals court. Is it right that it is in a good position to understand the system fully, from start to finish?

Caroline Goodwin: It might understand the system, but it is about the application of the system. You may have a set of papers that comes in from the police and is sent to a reviewing lawyer—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne]

Q My question concerns the potential issue of judges being identified and targeted because they are dealing with cases at a high level. Clearly, in your situation, judges are dealing with high-level cases and sentences. Have you seen any evidence that judges are particularly targeted if they hand down higher sentences?

Doug Downey: I think we are seeing, around the world, a heightened level of concern about individuals taking things into their own hands, so court security is very important to me. Judicial security is something that we have put a lot of effort into.

As for whether it happens because of a sentence, I cannot say with confidence that that is the driver. I think our societies are becoming more vitriolic, and that is what we need to guard against in protecting individuals. But if an individual judge is presiding anyway, I am not sure that they are going to attract more attention as a result of whether or not there is a jury.

To be honest, the nice thing about judges is that we get written reasons why things happen. In Canada it is very different from the United States: the jurors are not allowed to be debriefed afterwards in a public way. I do not know whether that is the case in Britain, but that provides a little bit of anonymity and protection against people drawing attention to themselves.

[Mr Kohler]

Q In Canada, 96% of your criminal trials are without a jury. In this country, 97% of our criminal trials are without a jury. Would you support reducing the percentage of jury trials even more in Canada?

Doug Downey: It is a complicated piece in Canada, because the criminal code is governed by the federal Government. We are a provincial Government, so although I am tasked with running the Administration, I do not get to set all the rules. If I can be a politician for a second, I think that it is healthy that you are having this vigorous debate. I am certainly not comfortable telling you what you should do, but in our experience, from the perspective of running the system, it is definitely having a positive impact.

[Mr Kohler]

But would you support reducing the percentage even more in Canada?

Doug Downey: We have an anachronism here in Canada with civil juries, which you got rid of quite some time ago. I am supportive of dealing with those civil juries, largely for the same reason.

[Mr Kohler]

Q What about in the criminal context?

Doug Downey: In the criminal context, it is not something that we have broached. I would have to have that conversation with my federal counterpart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

Q You have mentioned a number of ways in which HMCTS is pursuing greater efficiencies in the Crown court. Can you share with the Committee the work that HMCTS is doing with regard to growing capacity in the magistrates court? One of the effects of these reforms, if they make their way through Parliament, will be that some cases that would have gone to the Crown court will be diverted to the magistrates court. One question I have been asked in Parliament is about the important role that legal advisers play. Can you explain what HMCTS is doing to ensure that we maintain efficiency and grow capacity in the magistrates court?

Daniel Flury: One of our biggest challenges in this whole programme is the need to expand operations in the magistrates court, particularly the numbers of legal advisers and magistrates we have. We expect to recruit 100 additional legal advisers every year for the next three years, and the critical thing for us is to make them stay and retain them—we have seen lots of our legal advisers go off to local authorities or the CPS. We are working closely with our trade unions at the moment on potentially improving their pay to improve retention, and we are devising development schemes, so we are hopefully going to offer pupillage to our barrister legal advisers.

We are also supporting them in court. For example, we have recently developed a pilot using AI, where you take a case summary—what is called an IDPC pack, or initial details of the prosecution case—and it essentially summarises that case for the legal adviser. It tells them what the relevant points of law are and what the facts are in the case. These are ways in which we are both improving the efficiency of the magistrates court and improving the working conditions of legal advisers, because they really are critical if we are going to expand the magistrates court in this way.

[Mr Kohler]

Q To return to something you said in answer to the shadow Minister, how effective do you think the prisoner escort and custody service is?

Daniel Flury: I think we all agree that there is room for improvement. We have had lots of testimony, certainly from Crown courts, about late starts and subsequent late finishes. That obviously affects not only the hearing but our staff, who have longer working days. I think we are all seized of the importance of driving improvements—there is now a ministerial board, which HMCTS sits on, to work with the prisoner service to improve the service we get. The service itself will be retendered in the next couple of years, and we hope improvements will arise from that, but it is certainly a factor in court output, and certainly in late sittings and late starts, particularly in the London Crown courts.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Do you think that doing away with jury trials will help that at all?

Daniel Flury: Not really, no.

[Mr Kohler]

Q And you do agree that defendant non-arrival is a cause of delays and of the backlog.

Daniel Flury: It is certainly a cause of delays. As I said, it causes late starts and late finishes. This is why we over-list cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court—to fill those gaps where they arise, but it is certainly a factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of the court day.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q To pick up on Paul’s point about over-listing and capacity, looking at the Bill from an operational perspective, what one aspect of it would you say would make a material difference in reducing the capacity problem you have identified—over-listing and overcapacity making it difficult with staffing numbers?

Daniel Flury: The consequences of the Bill for the Crown court, other than the jury trial element, will be relatively small. It will not really affect its day-to-day workings; there will just be a portion of cases that will be heard without a jury. In terms of the processes in the Crown court—how it operates and how judges list—we are not expecting profound changes at all. As I said, the real change arising from the Bill is the expansion of the magistrates court, and the real challenge for us in HMCTS is the need to recruit legal advisers and magistrates to expand the court and make its operations more efficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Q My last question is about the allocation process. In previous debates, we have heard concern that the judge’s allocation decision about whether it is the Crown court bench division or a jury trial would be a very long process. There would be a lot of work and a lot of written submissions, and it would take the judge a long time to make those decisions. That mirrors the process of the decisions that magistrates make every day, which, in my experience, often take three or four minutes to decide. The system would essentially require a defence advocate to argue for a higher sentence if they are pushing for a jury trial. Does that strike you as an unusual argument for a defence barrister to be making? Do you think the allocation process could actually be quite efficient?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: I have read some of these arguments, and I have been slightly surprised by them. I cannot help the old advocate in me thinking that lawyers are terribly good at finding nine reasons why you should not do something. We all did that; that is what lawyers are sometimes asked to do. I think this one will very much depend upon the procedures that are put in place for dealing with it.

Obviously, if you are going to create a new decision that has to be made, there will need to be adjustments to the practice direction and probably the criminal procedure rules, and I am not sure that detail has been thought through yet. If it has, I am not aware of it. I imagine that most of these decisions would be done on the papers. It strikes me as rather extravagant to suppose that you list it for half an hour for argument to deal with something like that, so I think that one is a bit of a bogeyman.

Sir Richard Henriques: Paper applications seem to me to be fairly obvious.

Clement Goldstone: Judges in the Crown court are very good at paper applications. They are used to them.

[Mr Kohler]

Q We all agree that the backlog is too great. Lord Burnett, in The Guardian this week retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses argued that we could cut the backlog by a third in six months if we employed retired judges to winnow the current backlog. Do you agree? [Interruption.] Richard clearly does not.

Lord Burnett of Maldon: It is a very good journalistic article.

[Mr Kohler]

He is not a journalist, though; he is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.

Lord Burnett of Maldon: Let me give you a sense of how we had to deal with this when we got through covid. There was by then a backlog of 60,000 cases in the Crown court—it is 80,000 now, and it is going up. Critically, the proportion of cases not dealt with within six months and a year was growing, and that continues to grow. We tried to bring to bear every possible judicial resource to sit as many days as we could, because the Government of the day removed the cap on sitting days.

I authorised to sit in retirement pretty well anybody who wanted to come in and help. We changed the system so that magistrates court district judges could sit in the Crown court; we got a cohort of those in. We allowed recorders to sit in retirement, effectively, to enhance the numbers. We did enhance the numbers, but—with the greatest of respect to Sir Alan, whom of course I know extremely well—to suggest that you can solve this problem by the click of a finger is just not right. People have been trying to solve the problems of backlogs and inefficiencies in the criminal courts for pretty well as long as there have been criminal courts. I really can assure you that if there were any simple answer it would have been found long ago.

I set up something called the Crown Court Improvement Group, now the Criminal Court Improvement Group, which does fantastic work in bringing together all the players in the system to improve efficiency, and they are doing so, but those looking at a system from the outside, when they do not live in it—with the greatest of respect to those elsewhere who do that—and think that there are simple answers, are just not right. I would be putting myself in that position if I tried to tell the Royal Navy how to make sure that its ships worked and got around the world. People think they know the answers, but until they live and understand the system in detail, that is not how it works.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Mr Goldstone, given the efficiencies you see in doing away with juries in this number of cases—

Clement Goldstone: You are using that phrase again.

[Mr Kohler]

I am, because you are doing away with them in certain cases. Given the efficiencies, can you remind me why juries are a good thing in any case?

Clement Goldstone: We have already dealt with that. That was the very first question.

[Mr Kohler]

I would like to hear your view.

Clement Goldstone: Because of the involvement of the public and the right of the person to be tried by his or her peers—but something has to give. We are in a situation where something has to change. In fact, a lot of things have to change, because the restriction on the right to jury trial will not work alone, and let nobody think that it will. Someone used the expression, “It’s not a pick and mix”; it is part of a much bigger picture. On the point that you suggested, which Sir Alan Moses had raised, not a Crown court centre in the country of any substance does not already have in existence precisely that procedure of trying to force into the list those cases that have any prospect of—for want of a better phrase—cracking, whether by way of the prosecution offering no evidence or by way of the defendant pleading guilty.

[John Slinger]

Q Sir Richard, you spoke of the importance of correcting the misconception that some have that we are scrapping, or doing away with, jury trials in the round, per se. Do you agree that another misconception or myth that needs to be challenged is that there is an ultimate right to a trial by jury? I ask you to comment on the House of Lords Library note citing Anthony Arlidge and Lord Judge writing about such myths: “It”—Magna Carta, that is—

“did not immediately give us trial by jury, although when jury trial did evolve it came to be regarded as based on the Charter’s guarantee of trial by one’s peers. It did not offer sweeping statements about personal freedoms or human rights or fair trials and, in fact, for the most part did not establish general rights, but rather created or recognised privileges.”

Therefore, as we debate this matter, we ought to bear those points in mind. Do you agree?

Sir Richard Henriques: I agree with those observations without reservation. I think I speak for all of us present: given no backlog, we would not be here at all. We are concerned about this being shameful—a word I used in The Times, I think, in March 2020, and it was shameful then. On trial by jury, I have spent my whole professional life in the presence of juries, save in the very early days—

Restriction of Jury Trials

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend knows, we inherited record and rising backlogs. As I have said, we have a mountain to climb. We are trying to turn around an oil tanker, and we are not going to do that simply by sitting our way out of the problem. That is what Sir Brian Leveson concludes in his report. Of course, we need additional sitting days, and we are already sitting over 5,000 more days than we were when we took over. Sir Brian concludes that that alone will be insufficient to turn the tide on the backlog, and that is why we need system reform coupled with the investment. That will do the job to bring down the backlogs to sustainable levels.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister. We all know that the Tories fiddled, leaving our criminal justice system to burn. As the Law Society president noted earlier this year, we are still not using our courts efficiently, despite what the Minister says. What steps have been taken to increase court sitting days and make better use of our under-utilised courtrooms?

[Sarah Sackman]

First, I pay tribute not just to our judges, but our court staff and our hard-working prosecutors and defence lawyers, because we know that judges in the Crown court are hearing almost 30% more cases than they were pre-covid. In that sense, the system is working harder. As I have just indicated, we have added more sitting days. We have added more than 5,000 more sitting days than were being sat when we took over in government, and I want us to go further. We need to match the system reform with investment, and I hope that we will be able to come back to the House at the conclusion of the concordat process, which needs to take its course, and assure the House that we are sitting at maximum system capacity.

Prisoner Release Checks

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I really think that is a ridiculous question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is no. What I considered carefully was what my predecessors were up to in the last Government to allow the spike and do nothing about it. When I looked at the cases—particularly the case involving someone who was let out and went on to commit a sexual assault—I wondered why no independent investigations were set up then.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As the Justice Secretary admits, there is a staffing crisis in our prisons that his Government inherited from the brass-necked Tories. Over a third of prison officers now have less than two years’ experience. With too many officers leaving the profession and too few joining, is it any wonder that mistakes like this happen increasingly frequently? While the Ministry of Justice has sought to address the prison officer shortfall by recruiting overseas, the Home Office, as we have heard, is undermining those actions by raising the payment threshold for the skilled worker visa. I have a simple question. Is the Justice Secretary asking the Home Office to add prison officers to the skills shortage list—yes or no?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country.

Victims and Courts Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

My new clauses 15 and 16 concern restorative justice. They are supported by the charities Why Me?, for whom I am an ambassador, and Calm Mediation, as well as the Restorative Justice Council and others who work every day with victims and offenders. I thank hon. Members from my own party and from the Labour and Conservative Benches, who asked me to add their names in support.

The need for these clauses could not be clearer. After years of Conservative failure, our justice system stands at breaking point, with unacceptable delays. Our courts are clogged, witnesses drift away or begin to forget, and our prisons are stretched beyond breaking point. The Tories have left us with a legacy of neglect, and the people who suffer most are the victims, whose voices are too frequently ignored. We must do more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process, rather than simply as one of the pieces of evidence to be heard in court. Victims are more than just witnesses to the crime, but too often that is their only role in court proceedings.

Increasingly, when we talk about justice for victims, the debate collapses into retributive justice, as if all victims want is to lock the door and throw away the key. Even David Gauke, the most liberal Lord Chancellor in my political lifetime, in his recent and mostly excellent sentencing review falls into this error with a chapter on victims focusing keeping them better informed about their sometimes unrealistic expectations concerning the severity of punishment. His review, like today’s Bill, makes no mention of restorative justice, which should be at the heart of giving victims access to justice. Victims of crime do not want retribution but closure, and giving them the opportunity to enter into a process that allows them to share their feelings concerning the crime with others, often culminating in a meeting with the perpetrator, has repeatedly been shown to achieve just that.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member accept that, actually, there are some victims of very, very serious crimes who do not want a meeting and a resolution, but want to see a very serious offender spend a long time in prison?

[Mr Kohler]

Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand.

As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares.

That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that?

The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain.

While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve.

These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice.

Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number.

If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her bravery and for the remarkable work she has done in her short time in this place, including on this Bill with new clause 14. I am so proud to be on these Benches with her.

I am going to speak to a measure at the heart of the Bill today. Attendance at sentencing hearings will compel convicted criminals to attend those hearings and provide the strongest of consequences when they refuse. This law is for Olivia Pratt-Korbel and other victims.

In August 2024, two of the most remarkable women I have ever met walked into my first MP surgery. They were my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are with us in the Gallery today. Cheryl is Olivia’s mum, and Antonia is Cheryl’s cousin. On 22 August 2022, Olivia, a little girl—just nine years old—was murdered by a stranger in her own home. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of her mum, Cheryl, before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl fought with her heart and soul to save her baby.

No mother should have to go through such unimaginable pain. While nothing in this world can bring Olivia back and nothing can hold back a grief so great, looking the person responsible in the eye and telling them to their face the cost of their crime, and the effect it has had on the lives of their loved ones, can give victims just a small semblance of justice and closure. But Cheryl never had that chance. Under our current justice system, the ball is in the criminal’s court—criminals can choose to opt out of attending their sentencing, which is exactly what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman chose to remain in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl’s words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward.

However, instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned with their all so that no other family will suffer what they have suffered. That is why I read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement in full on Second Reading. They were the words that the murderer and coward Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I wanted the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House so that they would be on the record in this place forever. I wanted her words to ring out in this Chamber for all the world to hear, as they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.

Sentencing Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [Interruption.] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period.

It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling.

It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing—[Interruption.] Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats. They say one thing but go back to their constituencies and campaign against opening a prison.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

With that, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Kohler]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members that the prison population is a supply-led industry. If we build more prisons, we will just get more prisoners. It does not address the issue. All history tells us that—look at America. We imprison more people in this country than is done in Europe, yet we have a higher rate of criminality. More people are imprisoned in America than here, yet America has a higher rate of criminality. Building prisons is a fool’s errand.

[Sir John Hayes]

The thing that I most admire about the hon. Gentleman is his sartorial style—I glanced across towards him earlier, and I was going to say to him as I left the Chamber, “I love your suit”—but I rarely agree with what he says. We come from very different perspectives. In a sense—I do not mean to be unkind—his view is part of the problem. The problem is the persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. Of course, it is pretty nasty, and most of our constituents think it should be—in fact, they probably think it should be nastier than it is. Our difference of opinion will never be reconciled in a few brief exchanges, but it is important to note that a range of sentences are available to the courts—not just prison—and the key thing, about which I am sure we agree, is that those sentences need to be fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime and fitting to the interests of the victims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said in moving his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss]

I have visited Snaresbrook Crown court and I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a valid point. The pressures on our courts system and our prison system are all interlinked.

It is important that victims get the justice they deserve, that the courts are able to deliver it and that offender rehabilitation does not come at the cost of victim confidence. However, we must recognise that short-term prison sentences all too often do not work and instead merely cause disruption to people’s lives and kick-start a cycle of reoffending. Where the courts believe that justice is better served through community rehabilitation, we must empower them to do put that in place. Amendment 36 would require judges also to consider whether a community sentence was better than a prison sentence or a suspended prison sentence.

I am proud to support this Bill because it centres on victims and allows them the protection and dignity that they deserve. The Bill and the amendment will also allow those on trial a proper consideration for rehabilitation and an opportunity to make amends and have a better life. I urge Members to support clause 1, to support amendment 36 and to support the Bill. It is a vital and crucial step forward for our courts, our prisons and our communities, and for a fair justice system that works for all.

[Mr Kohler]

Government new clause 1 seeks to strengthen the deportation framework by making it available to those given a suspended sentence. I urge the House to pause before we simply nod it through. It may be politically attractive to say that we are toughening deportation powers, but in practice the change risks blurring the distinction between the offenders who pose a genuine threat to the public and those who do not. A suspended sentence is imposed precisely where the court believes that immediate custody is not necessary for justice or public safety. To treat those individuals like those who have served time in prison lacks logic and may well invite legal challenge.

My concern is that we are legislating in haste, as seen in today’s Committee of the whole House, and layering new powers on a system that already fails to use effectively those that it already has. Instead of focusing on headline-grabbing amendments, we should be fixing the operational chaos in the Home Office that allows people to slip through the cracks in the first place, as we have seen in my constituency; the notorious Wimbledon prowler has recently been released but not deported, despite the Home Office vowing to deport him when he was sent down in 2019. What assessment have the Government made of the likely number of offenders who will be deported under the expanded definition, and how will the Home Office ensure that deportation decisions made under the broader power remain compliant with article 8 rights and do not clog up the courts with appeals that could delay the removal of genuinely dangerous offenders?

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am going to speak in favour of Government new clause 1, but I first want to take the opportunity to mention the Conservatives party’s record in government. A lot has been made during this debate about the prisons that were built during the last Government, so let us place it on record that, between 2010 and 2024, there was a net addition of 482 prison places. If that is a record that the Conservatives are proud to stand on, I will happily give it to them.

Secondly, a lot has been said about lefty lawyers. I would like to draw to the Chamber’s attention that, almost two years ago to the day, the then Conservative Lord Chancellor—presumably a well-known lefty lawyer—spoke about suspended sentences. Of reoffending rates, he said:

“The fact is that more than 50% of people who leave prison after serving less than 12 months go on to commit further crimes…However, the figure for those who are on suspended sentence orders with conditions is 22%.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 60.]

It is important that we understand what we are talking about when we are talking about suspended sentences. That point is relevant to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

It is nevertheless a suspended sentence. By passing new clause 1, we are saying that serious offences—whether the sentence is served behind bars or under conditions in the community—carry consequences, including the possibility of removal from the UK.

[Mr Kohler]

Could the hon. Lady tell us why a judge would suspend the sentence?

[Ms Minns]

I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the judiciary or the actions of individual judges. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that a suspended sentence and a sentence that places an individual in prison are both sentences of punishment. We are talking, in our discussion on new clause 1, about how that relates to whether a foreign criminal should be removed from the country.

The new clause is a targeted, proportionate and principled amendment. It does not expand the scope of deportation arbitrarily. It simply ensures that those who commit serious crimes are not shielded from deportation by technicalities. I urge colleagues from across the House to support it.