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 (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 (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?

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
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.

Sentencing Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Domestic violence is a serious issue. That is why having a flag in the system is important to ensure appropriate provision for that particular cohort of offenders who might leave prison and continue to offend, so that they can be recalled. Such provision is particularly important to domestic violence campaigners.

It will be possible to apply new restrictive licence conditions and, as mentioned, tagging will be central to depriving offenders of their freedom while they are outside prison. That is why I am introducing a new presumption in our system, that every offender is tagged on leaving prison. Reoffending rates, as I have said, are 20% lower when curfew tagging is used in community sentences. Today, about 20,000 people in the justice system are tagged. The proposed expansion will see up to 22,000 more tagged each year, and many under curfews and exclusion zones as well. This is punishment that works —not just a spell inside, but strict conditions outside, enforced by technology that we know cuts crime.

For the final phase of a sentence, the independent review recommended an “at risk” period without supervision. I think that that provision would cause concern across the House, so I rejected it. Under this legislation, all offenders released into the community will remain on licence. The highest risk will receive intensive supervision. Others will remain liable for recall to prison, with any further offence potentially leading to recall, even if it would not normally attract a custodial sentence. The prospect of prison must continue to hang over offenders, both as a means of ensuring that they mend their ways and as a punishment should they fail to do so.

In June 2018, there were 6,300 recalled offenders in prison. Today there are more than 13,500 prisoners in that category. Clauses 26 to 30 therefore introduce a standard 56-day recall, which gives prison staff time to manage risk and prepare for release. Some offenders will be excluded from this change and will continue to receive standard-term recalls, including those serving extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern; those referred to the Parole Board under the power to detain; those convicted of terrorism, terrorism-connected offences and national security offences; and those who pose a terrorist or national security risk.

Those under higher levels of multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3—will also be excluded. That includes many of the most dangerous domestic abusers and sex offenders. Finally, those recalled on account of being charged with any further offence will be excluded too. They will only be released before the end of their sentence under a risk-assessed review or if the Parole Board says they are safe. This is punishment that works: breaches met with swift consequences, so offenders know that recall is a real threat hanging over their lives.

For some offenders, sadly prison is the only option. For others, we must ask whether custody is the most effective approach. The evidence is damning. In the most recent cohort, over a third of all adult offenders released from custody or who started a court order reoffended. More than 60% of those on short sentences of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. This is the legacy of the last Government: a system that fails to turn offenders away from crime and a revolving door of repeat offending.

The scale is shocking. Of the July to September 2023 cohort, 21,936 adults went on to reoffend within a year, and for the first time since 2018, over 100,000 reoffences were committed. That is what happens when there is a failure to take the tough choices needed to reform the system, a failure to invest in probation, as has been discussed, and a failure to act on the evidence.

Clause 1 introduces a presumption to suspend short prison sentences, and is expected to prevent over 10,000 reoffences each year. Let me be clear: this change will not abolish short sentences, as I said to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Judges will retain the power to impose them in certain instances, such as where there is significant risk of harm to an individual, including victims at risk in domestic abuse cases; where a court order has been breached—for example, if a prolific offender fails to comply with the requirements of a community order or suspended sentence; and in any other exceptional circumstances.

Similarly, clause 2 widens the scope for suspended sentences, increasing the limit from two years to three, but custody will remain available wherever necessary to protect the public. Clause 41 also updates the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976, clarifying that bail should be granted if custody is unlikely. But, again, the courts will continue to be able to remand offenders where there is a need to do so. This is punishment that works: short sentences and custody reserved for those who pose a real risk, while others are punished more effectively in the community, unlike the previous approach, which left reoffending out of control.

Punishment must apply whether sentences are served inside or outside prison. Just as offenders released from prison will face restrictions to their liberty, similar curtailments will be available for those serving sentences in the community. As I have discussed, that includes tagging, where appropriate, and clauses 13 to 15 will mean that it could also include banning people from a pub, from attending a football match or from driving a car.

Clause 3 will also make it possible to introduce income reduction orders, requiring certain offenders with a higher income who avoid prison through suspended sentences to pay a percentage of their income for the good of the victims, ensuring that crime does not pay. There is community payback, which we will also expand. Working with local authorities, offenders will restore neighbourhoods, remove fly-tipping, clear rubbish and clean the streets. Again, this is punishment that works, with liberty restricted, income reduced and hard work demanded to repair the harm done.

Some 80% of offenders are now reoffenders. Alongside punishment, we must address the causes of crime. Four intensive supervision courts already operate, targeting offenders driven by addiction or poor mental health, and they impose tough requirements to tackle those causes. Evidence from Texas shows that these courts cut crime, with a 33% fall in arrests compared with prison sentences. More than three quarters of offenders here meet the conditions set, and we will expand that work, opening new courts across the country to target prolific offenders, with expressions of interest now launched to identify future sites. Again, we are following the evidence here. Pilots show that intensive courts cut crime, and we will scale them up.

Victims must be at the heart of our system. Too often they have been an afterthought in the justice system, and this Bill changes that. Clause 4 amends the statutory purposes of sentencing to reference protecting victims as part of public protection, requiring courts to consider victims—and we are going to go further. Clauses 16 and 24 strengthen the restriction on the movement of offenders. Current exclusion zones protect victims at home, but leave them fearful when they step outside. For that reason, the Bill establishes a new power that restricts the movement of offenders more comprehensively than ever before.

These new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that the victims can move freely everywhere else. That was campaigned for by the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, who I understand are in the Public Gallery today; I pay tribute to them and to all who have campaigned for this crucial change.

It is vital that we ensure our monitoring is equal to the risk that offenders pose and the protections that victims need. Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which enables probation to identify abusers early, to track patterns of behaviour and to put safeguards in place.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that a huge number of his own Back Benchers would like to get in this afternoon. He might therefore like to think about getting to the end of his contribution.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful and constructive contribution. We are talking about a system that has so many moving parts, and that is why we will not give an instant response to Sir Brian’s review or to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. It is clear that we have got to get the whole system working.

In that vein, let me address our professions and our criminal Bar, who do a sterling job. I have engaged closely with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and we need to do this in collaboration with them. It will be a team effort to rebuild our criminal justice system, and we will continue to engage over the summer as we bring together the necessary reforms to bring down the backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I sympathise with the Minister’s frustration at the Tories’ brass neck. There is clearly a crisis in the criminal justice system, and it is clearly of their making. However, rather than undermining the jury system, we need to invest in our courts. Does the Minister agree that this is all about priorities? Is she going to use her limited budget to build more prisons and simply produce more prisoners, or use that limited money to invest in the criminal justice system and restorative justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I have made clear, we are investing in prison places. Only 500 were added in 14 years under the last Government, but we have committed money to the building of 14,000 new prison places as well as comprehensive sentencing reform. We have also committed £450 million to investment in our courts, whether it is used for court maintenance, additional funds for criminal legal aid, or additional—and now record—Crown court sitting days. However, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, that is insufficient. That alone will not see a reduction in the delays affecting the victims about whom we have heard so much today. We must do what it takes, which necessitates both investment, which we are already beginning to make, and reform.

Independent Sentencing Review

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

All dangerous offenders—those who receive an extended determinate sentence, including some of the serious offenders to which my hon. Friend has referred—will be excluded from this scheme. All other offenders receiving a standard determinate sentence will be within the earned progression model, but they will have to earn an early release. That is why we are ensuring that there is an uplift in probation funding, to ensure that all those individuals are intensively supervised in the middle stage of their sentence. The worst thing that could happen for every type of victim in this country, and in fact for every citizen, would be for us to run out of prison places altogether. We are in this position because of the mess that the previous Government left behind, and it falls to us to fix it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Notwithstanding the predictable nonsense from the shadow Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), it is critical that we focus on the needs of the victim. I welcome the Lord Chancellor making that point in her statement, but we need more than fine words. Can she please commit to giving all victims of crime proper access to restorative justice?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Restorative justice has an important role to play in our justice system, so where it is appropriate and where it can make a difference, we will ensure that it is available. But I want to ensure that victims of crime have other confidence-inducing measures at their disposal, which is why I want to look at exclusion zones in particular, and it is why we want to do the domestic abuse identifier, so that we can track systems, learn from the cases that are going through and make better policy for victims.