Jury Trials
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that it is wrong to abolish jury trials for crimes with anticipated sentences of three years or less because jury trials are a fundamental part of the UK constitution and democracy; acknowledges the scale of the courts backlog and the necessity of reducing it to ensure justice for victims but believes that restricting the fundamental right to trial by jury will have a limited effect on reducing that backlog; calls on the Government to increase the number of court sitting days to help urgently reduce the backlog; and further calls on the Government to publish immediately all modelling it has undertaken and received on the potential impact of the abolition of jury trials on that backlog.
The Government propose to abolish the right to trial by jury for a vast range of offences and for any case where they expect a sentence of three years or less. This is nothing less than wielding a constitutional axe against a centuries-old cornerstone of our liberty. Juries are not some bureaucratic add-on to our justice system; they are the means by which the public consent to and participate in the exercise of the gravest power of the state: the power to convict and imprison our fellow citizens.
Yes, we face a serious Crown court backlog—that is not in any dispute today. That is not even a subject of debate today, because everyone on both sides of the House knows it and acknowledges it. We all accept that its roots did not begin under this Labour Government; it goes back to the pandemic and further than that. We all accept that there has been a lack of investment in our criminal justice system under Governments of all political persuasions, that the criminal Bar is in a weak place, and that young people do not feel they can go into the law or at least not into this most challenging and poorly paid part of it. We all accept that some of our courtrooms are in a terrible state, that the IT system is failing, that the contracts for getting prisoners to court on time are poorly managed and that the private contractors are underperforming. We all accept that the system is in a mess and needs to be reformed, but that is not the question at hand today. The question before us is, what is the best way to resolve this, and is the route to fix our criminal justice system and to deliver swift justice for victims to scrap something that we have known as a country since 1215, if not before?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way; he is always generous with his time. He talks about the length of time it takes for victims to get justice. I speak to police officers in my constituency all the time who say that one of the issues with the backlog, this waiting list, is that people who have been police officers for three years are asked to go to court for cases about things that happened before they were even police officers. Does he recognise that this is a huge challenge that we need to overcome?
Robert Jenrick
I do. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is shameful to our country that victims of serious crimes like rape will have to wait until 2028 or 2029. In fact, I believe the longest listing hence today is 2030. No one in this Chamber could possibly defend that for one moment, but will this policy make a material difference to fixing that problem? I do not believe that it will. I have not heard anyone who really believes in their heart that it will fix the problem, and if it is going to make a difference, publish the modelling and the evidence so we can see it, because Lord Leveson has not published any modelling. Lord Leveson gave a view that it might lead to a 20% reduction in the length of a trial. That is heavily disputed by other practitioners, including—and I do not mean to demean Lord Leveson—people who are closer to the coalface of our criminal justice system: judges and criminal barristers. The Department has not published any modelling. Does it exist? If it does, publish it and then we can have an honest and evidence-led debate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend squares up to lead civil society in a battle against this monstrous measure, may I ask him to have some sympathy for Labour Members, who are about to be led to the top of the hill once again, as they were with the farm tax and the winter fuel allowance, on a measure that simply will not deliver the solution it is designed to? They will all end up having the rug ripped from under them once again after enduring all the political pain.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is right. Having served as a Minister in the last Conservative Government under multiple Prime Ministers, I have been led up a few hills before myself, and I know what it feels like to be a Minister in this situation. This is not a hill to die upon. Let us fix this problem. Let us build a cross-party consensus on how we get the backlog down—I will speak about a few of the solutions as I see them, as we see them, in a moment. This policy is not going to happen. I honestly believe that this is not going to happen.
There is opposition not just from the official Opposition, but from every other party—Reform, Plaid, independents and the Liberal Democrats. There is opposition from Labour Members—good, experienced colleagues on the Government side. There is opposition in the House of Lords from Labour peers of the highest repute like Helena Kennedy—people who have spent careers in the law. This was not in the manifesto; the House of Lords does not have to support it. The last time Jack Straw and Tony Blair tried to do this, the House of Lords stepped in and it failed.
This is a distraction. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary and his Ministers care about swift justice, they should scrap this pointless distraction and focus every hour of the day on the hard yards of government, on doing the difficult things, and on the administrative failures of the Ministry of Justice that have existed for years, so we can actually ensure that the backlog is brought down.
Robert Jenrick
I will come to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I give way to my right hon. Friend.
David Davis
My right hon. Friend is being characteristically overgenerous to the Government when he talks about the requirement for modelling. This is not a “Mastermind” question; it is simple arithmetic. Three per cent of trials are by jury. If we do away with half of them, which is more draconian than even the Government are talking about, and there is a difference of 20%, the maximum difference it could make to the throughput of the court system is 0.3%. It will make no difference whatsoever to one of our most fundamental issues, yet it will throw away the most fundamental tenet of our justice system.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is easier if you look at me because I cannot pick up what you are saying when you are turned the other way.
Robert Jenrick
Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies.
If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.
Florence Eshalomi
The right hon. Member has made some valid points about the situation we face—the fact that 78,000 cases are caught up in the backlog, that many of our constituents are waiting for their day of justice and that justice is being denied, and we know that many people cannot continue to wait—but does he not accept that there was not enough focus on all the issues he has outlined during the last Administration and that they could have done a lot more to resolve them, so that we were not in this difficult situation that we have to find a way to address?
Robert Jenrick
Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not have all sides cross-examining each other. I am listening to just one person at the moment.
Robert Jenrick
I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.
The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.
Karl Turner
It pains me to say that I agree with the vast majority of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying at the Dispatch Box. He referred to Sir Brian Leveson. Of course, none of us would suggest that Sir Brian does not know what he is doing—he is very eminent and skilful, and has taken a great deal of time to come up with his suggestions—but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any situation before when the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, circuit leaders and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system have been as one in their opposition to an utterly ludicrous, unworkable policy?
Robert Jenrick
I rest my case, my Lord. I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he has conducted himself, and the campaign that he has fought and is fighting on this issue. Having campaigned at times against my own Government and having voted against the last Conservative Government, I know that it is not easy to do, and I credit him for the work he is doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Robert Jenrick
Let me answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is making an important point. Lawyers rarely agree—in fact, their profession is often to disagree. This issue has united everyone in opposition to it. The Law Society, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and lawyer after lawyer has said that this policy is wrong and a better way is possible. This is not party political. It cuts across all parties, and opponents include vehement critics of mine. I woke up the other day to hear Anna Soubry on the “Today” programme saying that everything I was arguing was right. This is about getting the right answer for our criminal justice system.
Dr Murrison
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are alternative models for getting to the place where we all want to be—that is to say, for reducing this awful backlog, which is denying people justice? Will he take particular note—he probably already has—of the model introduced in the south-west by my constituent James Ward OBE? He introduced covid resolution courts, which were able to bring the backlog down from 52% to 2% through proper case management in the Crown Prosecution Service. That intervention alone saved 10 sitting years.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me come to some potential solutions. It is important to note that the backlog varies very widely across the country. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is a poorly managed organisation with limited accountability to Ministers, and it has not been performing its function as well as it should. There are parts of our country where the backlog is far smaller than in others. In Liverpool and parts of Lancashire—despite the closure of your local court, Mr Speaker—the court backlog is substantially lower, as it is in Wales. There are significant regional differences because better managers, active judges and good case management of the kind that my right hon. Friend mentioned have made a significant difference.
Robert Jenrick
I will just advance my case a little, and then I will come to my hon. Friend. The most important thing that we could do is get the courts sitting round the clock. There are sitting days on the table that are not being used. The Lady Chief Justice, the most senior person in our judiciary, has said repeatedly that she is able to offer the Government more sitting days. She has said it in the press, she said it before the Justice Committee the other day, and I am sure that she has said it privately to Ministers as well. The Government have been pushed, slowly, to take her up on those sitting days, and I commend them for that.
However, there are still, by the Lady Chief Justice’s measure, at least 2,000 extra sitting days available that the Government are not taking her up on. We need to go back to her, welcome those sitting days with open arms, and say, “What would it take for you to produce more? Can we turn 2,000 into 5,000, or 10,000?” Get the courts actually sitting. That is not happening right now. The principal reason for that is financial: the Ministry of Justice has not been able to secure from the Treasury a comparatively small sum of money. We can argue about the priorities of this Government, and we will differ across the House, but the sum of money that we need for the proper operation of our criminal justice system is relatively small. It must be better to spend that money on this cause than to scrap an ancient freedom that we have enjoyed, generation after generation.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is making excellent points about alternative solutions to scrapping the right to a jury trial. Any MP who has spent any time in their local courts will have seen that the issue is not the juries, but poor administration, which is resulting in about a quarter of trials having to be rescheduled. Does he agree that rather than setting a precedent of scrapping the right to trial by jury, the Government should start by looking at ways to remove the pressure on an overwhelmed CPS? Does he think that giving the police greater charging powers would be a way to move forward on this?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. There are better ways to handle this situation. I do not pretend that they are simple; they are difficult. They involve getting to the heart of bureaucratic organisations that have been poorly managed and are unaccountable. Let us look at some of the solutions. One, which Brian Leveson mentions in his report, is incentivising early pleas to prevent cases dragging on unnecessarily, for example by ensuring that those accused of offences meet their counsel earlier, so that they get good advice about their likelihood of success or otherwise sooner, and changing the fee structure accordingly to achieve that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this issue forward. Just to give an example for when he is looking at options, in Northern Ireland we had cause to use Diplock courts on many occasions. In 2023, they were used on 0.8% of occasions. Terrorist trials and serious criminal trials do not have a jury because of intimidation. However, does he agree that our natural sense of justice demands a jury of our peers, that non-jury trials must remain exceptional, and that justice can be served more efficiently by juries, by increasing court dates, and by cutting the number of ineffective trials that waste time—the very thing he has referred to?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of important points. There is something very special about being judged by a group of one’s peers, and about the wisdom of ordinary members of the public coming together. Juries are basically the only opportunity for members of the public to participate in our criminal justice system. That is important and should be preserved. He is right to say that we need to get the courts sitting around the clock. This week alone, 241 sitting days have been missed because of closed courtrooms—241 in three days! Imagine what the figure is over the course of a year.
We must ensure that prisoners arrive at court on time. The present contract is not working properly, which leads to many trials collapsing or suffering unacceptable delays. We need to drastically improve court IT, ending the technical failures that waste hours of court time every week. As I said, we need to provide proper support for the criminal Bar. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s modest intervention the other day to ensure that there are enough advocates to prosecute and defend cases. Those are the bottlenecks that actually drive delays. Bottlenecks are a problem of resources and management, not an inevitable side effect of having citizens weigh evidence. Jury trials are not the problem. We must ensure that we get to the root of the challenge, not get rid of something that we have enjoyed for such a long time.
Let me mention the degree of opposition to the proposal, which my hon. Friends have rightly mentioned. It is important to note the broad opposition of the legal world, where alarm bells are ringing about the policy. The Law Society, which represents thousands of solicitors, calls it an “extreme measure” that goes too far and fundamentally changes how our justice system operates. Its president, Mark Evans, warns that the plan goes further than the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s review of efficiency, and is not backed by evidence that it will solve the backlog. The Bar Council, which represents barristers, has been equally clear that it sees
“no basis for altering the structure of the court system”
in this way, and warns that limiting the right to a jury trial strikes at a core citizen’s right.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Robert Jenrick
I will, but then I must conclude my remarks, because many colleagues wish to speak.
John Grady
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might clarify one point on the Opposition’s position. In Scotland, there has never been a right for the accused to elect to have a jury trial. The prosecution decides whether a case will go to jury trial. Is the Opposition’s position that such a reform in England should be opposed?
Robert Jenrick
That is the subject of this debate, isn’t it? England and Wales have their own legal tradition, and Scotland has its own. Those of us who represent constituencies in England and Wales are here to defend our constitutional rights and settlement, and we will. It is up to those in Scotland to choose their path forward.
The hon. Gentleman’s point raises another important question: is this debate a technical, bureaucratic one about how to get the backlog down in the most expeditious way, or does he speak to an ideological view that jury trials are wrong or superfluous, and that ordinary people do not know what they are talking about and their views should be casually set aside? I do not know the answer to that question in respect of the hon. Gentleman, but some in our politics do take the latter view. They think that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. As Baroness Helena Kennedy suggested, some in the Labour tradition take the view that led Tony Blair and Jack Straw to take the original decision. Clearly, that is not everyone in the Labour tradition, as we see today—it may be a very small minority—but that view is not one that we support.
We want ordinary people to continue to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is why we have brought forward the motion. This is an Opposition day debate, but opposition to this proposal is not restricted to those on the Conservative Benches, or to those in the other Opposition parties; it is found on both sides of this House and in the other place. It comes from the solicitors, barristers and judges who can speak out, and from those who cannot, when they speak privately at their kitchen table. It comes from ordinary citizens of our country, who want jury trials preserved—poll after poll shows that clearly.
We are talking about 800 years of legal tradition. Let us not toss it aside; let us defend it, because it matters, and then let us unite and find a way to fix the bureaucratic failures of the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we have swift justice. Justice delayed is justice denied; we all agree on that. We can do this without ruining a gift that this country has given the world, and a fundamental part of our constitution and our democracy. Vote for our motion to defend jury trials, and tomorrow let us work together to fix the court backlog.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?
Sarah Sackman
I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.
Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.
To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.
HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for public safety following the admission that two dangerous offenders, including a convicted murderer, absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
A happy new year to you and to all in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On 1 January 2026, three prisoners absconded from HMP Leyhill, an open prison: Mr Thomas, Mr Washbourne and Mr Armstrong. This was discovered during routine roll checks, and their absence was followed up immediately. On 3 January, the police issued a public appeal to assist with their recapture. As you have stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the prisoners, Aaron Thomas, has since been arrested and is scheduled to appear before magistrates today. He will then be returned to closed conditions. The other individuals remain unlawfully at large, and police are actively pursuing them. The Government take every abscond seriously. In line with the prevention of abscond policy framework, the prison group director for HMP Leyhill has commissioned a review, which will be completed within 20 days.
These individuals had been moved to open conditions at different points in 2025 after recommendations made by the independent Parole Board. There was no recent intelligence regarding a potential abscond by these prisoners. When it comes to an offender serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence for public protection, as these prisoners are, a transfer to open conditions will be approved only following a recommendation by the Parole Board, other than in exceptional circumstances. Before making a recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding. At the time these risk assessments were completed, the prisoners were deemed suitable for open conditions. We are continuing to work and engage with the victims and the victims’ families, either through the victim contact scheme or via the police where relevant. Currently, we have made contact with two victims through the victim contact scheme.
Robert Jenrick
So a murderer is on the loose—a murderer and a violent offender. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s strongest ever checks have been a resounding failure, and once again there is a manhunt under way. Precious police resources are being wasted to fix Calamity’s latest cock-up. And where is the Justice Secretary? The Ministry of Justice seems to lose its Secretary of State as much as it does its prisoners. Has his aunt taken him to the January sales to find him a new suit, just in case he gets let loose on Prime Minister’s questions again?
Let me ask the Minister instead: why was someone who robbed and brutally killed a man by bashing him on the head with a brick—a man who led a prison riot and attacked prison officers repeatedly—deemed safe for open prison? Why, as we have just learned, did it take 48 hours for the police to raise the alarm? How many other murderers are there in open prisons? How many more mistaken releases have there been since the Justice Secretary last came clean? Once again, the safety of the public is being compromised by the breathtaking incompetence of his Department.
What a Christmas it has been for the Justice Secretary. On Boxing day, he said he was delighted to welcome into Britain an extremist who hates our country. The following day, it was revealed that he had invited a disgraced ex-Labour politician convicted of spreading homophobic smears to his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor. Days later, he paid an Islamist double murderer thousands in compensation, alongside hundreds of thousands in legal fees, much of it to the Justice Secretary’s own colleague’s spouse. Then the Prime Minister’s mentor, a leading KC who clapped him into Downing Street, slammed his shameful plan to slash jury trials. To top it all off, on new year’s day we learned that these prisoners had been let loose. Well, happy new year from the Justice Secretary. It is little wonder that in his first interview of 2026, he said that he was seeking divine retribution—sorry, he meant to say divine intervention. Well, with more of this, God help us all.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am afraid that it is a new year but the same sad, old Jenrick. The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not done his homework. He does not seem to know the difference between releases in error and absconds. This is a Member who wants to be the Lord Chancellor and the next Leader of the Opposition, and he is deliberately muddying the waters here to suit his own agenda.
We are seeing the deep-rooted issues caused by years of chronic underfunding and mismanagement by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government play out. The crisis that our prisons face today was built up over 14 years and the Tories are the chief architects. This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. It was the choice of the Conservatives, made again and again for 14 years. They abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing our prisons to reach bursting point. He talks about public safety, but they left our prisons at breaking point with not enough room to lock up any dangerous criminals. If it were not for the decisive action that this Government took, the police would have been unable to make any arrests, courts would have ceased to function, and there would have been a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times.
Those who abscond face serious consequences. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and that is one of the reasons why there has been a dramatic fall in the number of absconds over the last 20 years. It is one of the success stories that the Tories actually had in government, and the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that because elsewhere their record is much less rosy.
As the Tories were packing their bags to leave office, temporary release failures hit a 13-year high on their watch. The prison system was in chaos, and they presided over 17 releases in error a month in their last six months in office. They said that they were the Government of security and safety, yet they oversaw violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. To cover up for their failures, they covertly let out 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic early release scheme. The Tories claim to be the party of law and order; instead, their legacy was lawless disorder. Now they have the barefaced audacity to come to this House and make demands as if they had never been in government, as if they had never ever overseen a crisis in our criminal justice system.
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s solution to this crisis? To do nothing—to ignore the evidence that places people in open conditions to help them prepare for life outside and reduce their risk of reoffending, and to turf people out of prison with no support and just hope that everything turns out okay. The Tories are not serious people. They are not serious or ready for Government. They have no solutions to the problems that they created.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the Conservative Back Benches has just said that summary justice is no justice—either they believe in our magistrates or they do not. I believe in our magistrates. Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.
Robert Jenrick
If the Secretary of State maintains that this change will not lead to miscarriages of justice, he must be expecting the same number of cases to be appealed. In which case, there is no point doing it in the first place. The truth, deep down, is that the Government are willing to tolerate some miscarriages of justice to save a paltry sum of money, yet all the while the solution is staring us in the face. Since the Justice Secretary announced his plan on 2 December, 640 sitting days have been missed.
It is the end of term. The Justice Secretary’s report card is marked “improvement required”. Will he reflect over Christmas and make scrapping his plan to slash jury trials a new year’s resolution that we can all support?
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman has more front than Blackpool pier, but let us be clear: we are accepting a permission stage that was recommended by Brian Leveson. What we need are more sitting days and more investment, and we are doing that. We cannot shirk reform, he knows that jury trials will continue to be a cornerstone of the Crown court system, and we need modernisation. All of that was not done by the last Government.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Deputy Prime Minister has set out a five-point plan to deal with the long-standing issue of releases in error in our criminal justice system. There were 800 releases in error when the Conservatives were in government, and never once did they come to this House and give an update. We will release much more of that data over the coming months.
Robert Jenrick
In all the years that I have been in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State fail to answer the first question from his opposite number, but that says a lot about the man. The Justice Secretary was fine answering questions in the media two weeks ago, when the police investigation was under way, but now he says—or his Minister says, in his stead—that it would be inappropriate to comment in the House of Commons. What utter nonsense! Does he seriously think anyone is buying that excuse? He either does not know the details, or he is covering up his failure, both of which are a dereliction of duty. How on earth can the public assist in the manhunts that are presumably under way across our country and clear up his mess if he will not publish the names or mugshots of the prisoners mistakenly released? Once again, he is endangering the British public.
Jake Richards
Utter nonsense! We do not take advice from the Conservative party on the operational challenges that we face when we encounter these issues; we engage with the police directly. We will not give a running commentary on this long-standing issue in a criminal justice system that is failing after 14 years of the Conservative party in government. We have set out a five-point plan, through which we are attempting to grapple with this problem, and Dame Lynne Owens will report back to the Government early next year. We look forward to hearing her recommendations.
Restriction of Jury Trials
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the accuracy of data used to justify the restriction of jury trials in relation to rape victim attrition rates and magistrates court capacity.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts. Record and rising caseloads are leaving victims and many accused who are seeking to clear their name facing agonising delays, while some defendants game the system in the hope that their accusers simply give up on justice. We inherited a system in which, quite truly, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review of the criminal courts. He presented us with his report, and we considered it carefully.
On Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s proposals in the light of that report, following many of the recommendations. In announcing part of our plan to tackle that emergency, he centred victims. He commented that victims of rape are “pulling out” of trials and told LBC that
“60 per cent are pulling out of cases”
before they come to trial. That statement is accurate. It is unacceptable that around 60% of victims who report rape drop out of the criminal system.
After speaking to victims, campaign organisations and those who represent those victims and support them, we know that, for many, the fact that their trial may not come to court for several years is a key factor in their deciding to withdraw from the process or perhaps not even to report the case at all. The system was not designed for a scenario in which victims face such delays for justice. No one in this House thinks that the system is anything other than broken, which means that we are failing the British public.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the vast majority of cases—the less serious but still important everyday cases, which comprise around 90% of all criminal trials—are already heard in our magistrates courts, where cases continue to be dealt with swiftly and robustly. Our magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases a year, and it is not unusual to have an open caseload of more than 360,000 cases, as is currently the case in our magistrates courts. That ensures that there is around six months’ worth of work ready to be heard. We know that our magistrates courts deal with equivalent cases—those trials for either-way cases that can be heard in either the magistrates court or the Crown court—four times faster. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months, and we will continue to recruit at high levels in future years.
Ultimately, we must ensure that the Crown court has the capacity to deal with those who commit the most serious crimes, so that victims do not have to face those agonising delays and do not withdraw before their case even gets to court. Justice is simply not being served in that situation, and the Government will not watch idly while the system continues to fail those victims. It is for that reason that we are bringing forward our bold proposals and reforms, coupled with record investment—to ensure that victims and the wider British public are served and so that we can put to bed once and for all justice delayed being justice denied.
Robert Jenrick
The Government are slashing jury trials under false pretences. Last week, the Justice Secretary suggested that 60% of those who report being raped are now pulling out of cases because of court delays, but Home Office statistics show that this year, only 9% of rape cases were abandoned after a charge was brought. Although that is not good enough, the fact is that the figure is down, and the number of victim-based prosecutions is near its peak. In some parts of the country, the backlog is far lower, and rape cases are rightly being prioritised. The Justice Secretary’s plans will do next to nothing to cut backlogs for rape victims, but his claims are certain to further erode women’s confidence in the justice system.
That was not the only claim that did not stack up. The Justice Secretary said that he will divert cases to the magistrates courts because they
“do not currently have a backlog”—[Official Report, 2 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 806.]
but as of September, there is a backlog—or open caseload, as the Minister now calls it—of 361,000 cases, up 25% on this Government’s watch. He claimed that scrapping juries will cut trial times by 20%, but Sir Brian Leveson’s own review found that figure to be “highly uncertain”, stating that “further detailed analysis” was required.
There are still reams of unanswered questions. The Justice Secretary will not let the Crown courts sit around the clock, when today, 63 courtrooms sit completely empty. He will not rule out applying these changes to those who are already in the court backlog, and he will not publish modelling showing that victims of rape will wait less time, or indeed any modelling whatsoever. Unless the Minister can answer those questions today, we can only conclude that the Government simply do not know. If they want to make a major change to our constitution—something that we have enjoyed for 800 years—they should do so on the basis of facts, not baseless claims. The plan is already unravelling, as did the last such attempt 20 years ago. I say to the Minister that it is not too late to avoid a humiliating defeat.
Sarah Sackman
As I said a moment ago, not a single person who has encountered the system—not the barristers, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the court staff, the victims or the jurors; no one whom I have met—thinks it is working as it should. The shadow Justice Secretary has made a startling defence of the status quo while victims—not just women and girls but of all backgrounds—continue to watch delays creep up and up. Some 80,000 cases are currently in our Crown court backlog, and behind each and every one of those cases is an individual human story—someone waiting to clear their name.
We inherited a broken system. We did not do what the previous Government did, which was stick their head in the sand and hope that the problem would go away, with no solutions, under-investing for years while undermining our justice system. We were not prepared to do the same, which was why it was important to ask an independent review made up of Sir Brian Leveson—one of our leading judges—academics and data scientists to look at the evidence from both this country and comparators from across the world, to consult and to produce a set of proposals for reform that will fix the system. In the meantime, the Government have been gripping the crisis. We have made record investment in sitting days, increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and invested in legal aid and the capacity of our legal community.
No responsible Government worthy of the name would take receipt of an independent review that is carefully considered, evidence-based and informed by experts and say, “Do you know what? We’ll just ignore that.” Responsible government shows leadership, which is why last week, we announced our proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and remove the right of defendants to insist on a jury trial when their case can be reasonably, proportionately and swiftly dealt with in a magistrates court. We followed Sir Brian’s recommendation to establish a Crown court bench division to deal with cases more swiftly. His report says that in his view and that of his expert team, doing so will provide time savings of at least 20%. On that basis, through investment, modernisation and systemic reform taken together, we will begin to see the backlog come down. That is Government offering evidence-based, expert-led solutions while all we hear from the Opposition is what cannot be done, letting down victims, letting down the public and ultimately undermining faith in one of the most important institutions in this country—our justice system.
Criminal Court Reform
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.
His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries
“act as a filter for prejudice”,
but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?
It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials
“would be a wholly draconian act”?
It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a
“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?
Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?
Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.
And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.
The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.
Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.
Mr Speaker
Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.
Robert Jenrick
Apologies, Mr Speaker.
Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?
The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.
Right to Trial by Jury
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the Government’s reported plans to further restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.
That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.
Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.
The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.
Robert Jenrick
While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.
Jury trials are
“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.
The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.
I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?
Sarah Sackman
How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.
Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:
“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.
I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.
I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.
I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.
Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for national security and the management of terrorist offenders following disruption to the separation centre regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. Separation centres are a vital part of our strategy to manage those who pose the most significant terrorist risk. Following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland in April this year, we took immediate action to ensure safety in our separation centres. Today, everyone is safe and a stringent regime remains in place.
Our prison officers are some of the hardest-working and bravest public servants in this country. It is right that they feel safe as they work to protect the public. That is why, following the attack at Frankland, we mandated the use of protective body armour in our highest-risk units, including our SCs, for the first time. The Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced a further £15 million investment in safety equipment, including to roll out up to 10,000 pieces of body armour to up to 500 staff trained in the use of Tasers.
The Abu judgment is very fact-specific and does not threaten the integrity of the separation centres themselves. This Government take the judgment and others that were referenced very seriously. We are clear that any decision regarding segregation must comply with prison rules and human rights obligations, including under the European convention on human rights. We are working to ensure that our referral process is robust and are strengthening our ability to defend against legal challenges. Specialist staff continue to assess referrals rigorously, and placements are made only where the criteria are met.
Let me be clear: the Government will always put national security first. Separation centres remain an essential operational tool, and we will continue to use these specialist units to protect the public from the most dangerous offenders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick
Sahayb Abu is a danger to this country. This is an ISIS fanatic who bought a combat vest and a sword so that he could, in his own words, “shoot up a crowd”, yet this week the High Court ruled that keeping him apart from other prisoners to prevent him from radicalising them was a breach of his human rights. We have reached the perverse situation where a terrorist’s mental health is prioritised over national security and the protection of the very men and women in uniform who are targets for these dangerous individuals with very little to lose. Abu is now in line for a payout from the taxpayer.
This is not an isolated incident; it is the latest in a line, including the double murderer and extremist Fuad Awale and Denny De Silva. Every extremist housed in a separation centre may now be able to deploy this judgment to escape being housed in such a unit and to get a payout. Terrorists are weaponising the ECHR and the public sector equality duty to milk the state, and the Ministry of Justice is signing the cheques. I note that the Minister did not say that she would be appealing this judgment.
The separation centre regime was created to counter highly subversive terrorists recruiting inside jail and to ensure protection for prison officers, which is effectively collapsing. Prison governors are being paralysed just when there is a crisis of extremism and extreme violence in our prisons, necessitating more separation centres and more segregation.
Will the Minister finally publish Jonathan Hall KC’s review of separation centres, which was produced as evidence in court but which has not been published to this House or the country? Will she say that under no circumstances will any terrorist be rewarded in this manner, and bring forward emergency legislation to override this judgment, prevent payout, protect national security and protect our prison officers? I have said many times that it is only a matter of time before an officer gets killed by one of these monsters. Will the Minister bring forward this legislation? If she does, she will have the Opposition’s support; if she does not, we will do so.
Alex Davies-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I am unable to pre-empt decisions that are yet to be taken by the courts. The Government will always ensure that taxpayer money is used responsibly and effectively. On the most recent judicial review, announced just yesterday, the Government are considering all the available options, including the right to appeal. I want to put that on the record.
I find it quite disingenuous that the right hon. Gentleman—the almost Leader of the Opposition—talks about leaving the European convention on human rights. If he feels so strongly about this, why did his party do absolutely nothing on it when it was in government for 14 years? The Conservatives talk about action; this Labour Government are acting. We have been clear that we will not fail to act on reform of the ECHR; in fact, the sentencing Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—is in Strasbourg right now having discussions with partners on a range of topics, including reform of the ECHR.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres. The Government commissioned that following the attack at HMP Frankland, and Mr Hall’s report and our response will be published in due course. Let me just say, for the avoidance of any doubt, that it is the priority of this Government—as it should be of all Governments—to keep the public safe and to protect national security. This Government will always ensure that that is done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself?
Mr Lammy
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always keen to get headlines, but he knows that the consequences of judgments—their impacts on Government and any payments made—have been an issue for successive Governments for the entire time that he and I have been on the planet. He knows that we are committed to the ECHR—offering asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing torture and execution—but he knows, too, that we are seeking to work domestically and with European colleagues on the issues that I referred to earlier, and article 8 in particular. This is not the time to start revising decisions that have effectively been made by our courts.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Currently, if a child sex offender is released from prison, the police and the Probation Service can track them on the sex offenders register, but if a child abuser is released from prison, the authorities have no register to track them with. There is a glaring gap in the system. Paula Hudgell has been fighting to fix the law after her adopted son Tony was abused so badly that he lost his legs. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she says this campaign is the fire in her belly. Paula is truly inspirational, and we are backing her campaign. Will the Secretary of State take our amendment or bring forward his own, and get this change over the line for Paula, for Tony and to protect children now and into the future?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.
Mr Speaker
I call Harpreet Uppal. Not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Last week, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that there was “no doubt” that the Government’s early release scheme would lead to an increase in crime. This followed the news that a man who had been released from prison early had been charged with murder. So this is a simple question: will the Justice Secretary rule out any more early release schemes for prisoners?
Mr Lammy
Can I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just before the general election in July 2024, his Government had three different versions of their early release scheme? We inherited a situation, as he knows, where prison capacity was completely unsustainable. Successive former Justice Secretaries under the previous Government have said this in the last week. We brought forward our early release scheme, and it was important to do that to put capacity into the system, but it is the Sentencing Bill that will begin to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way.
Robert Jenrick
Well, if we strip back all that waffle—the Secretary of State did not deny it, did he? That is interesting, because there has been another accidental release by the Ministry of Justice, and this time it is an email sent in error by his officials to me. It shows that his Department is looking to accommodate criminals in the community instead of in prison. As we would expect from him, it says that the plans are a “finger in the air” approach. It says that the Department is considering spending up to 100 grand a year per person to live outside of prison. That is more than the cost of a prison cell. Can the Justice Secretary really say with a straight face that his latest scheme is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that email, which was sent in error, referred to women. He knows that when we are talking about women offenders, the system must understandably consider the fact that many of them are mothers and many have been the victims of men who have groomed them, who have pimped them and who have abused them. That is why public policymakers understandably look at alternative ways to deal with women in the community. None of us in this House should make any apologies for that.
Prisoner Releases in Error
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
So we are back here again. At least the Justice Secretary is getting some use out of his new suit. But where has Wednesday’s bombast and bravado gone? “Get a grip, man!”, he thundered last week, without even a hint of irony. There was none of that today, was there? Why is that? It is because, like increasing numbers of criminals in our jails, the Justice Secretary just does not know whether he is coming or going. Even his colleagues in government are turning on him, some with unbridled contempt. “The handling is terrible”, was the verdict of a Cabinet Minister; “just rank incompetence”, “cowardly”, and “frankly pretty dodgy” was the verdict of another. Before long, the Prime Minister will be saying that he has full confidence in the Justice Secretary, and we all know what that means.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary told the House that he had put in place the strongest checks ever to stop releases in error. Forty-eight hours later, another prisoner with a history of sex offences was released in error. Seven days later, a fraudster was let out, on the very day he was sentenced to 45 months inside—and today, the Justice Secretary admits that he lost another prisoner on that same day. They are Lammy’s lags, a whole new category of criminal who can just waltz out of prison despite the “strongest ever checks”, introduced by this Justice Secretary.
The public are being endangered as this circus rumbles on week after week, with no end in sight. When will the Justice Secretary put a stop to it? He cannot hide behind the inquiry that he has commissioned. He could not even get the name of the head of the review—Lynne Owens—right last week. “Anne Owens, Anne Owens,” he bellowed. Well, I looked her up, and the only “Anne Owens” I could find was a panto performer who recently appeared in “Alice in Wonderland”. Perhaps she was the one who gave the Justice Secretary tips on his performance at the Dispatch Box last week.
The former chief inspector of prisons says that the issue was caused, at least in part, by the “confusion” created by Labour’s botched early release scheme. Does the Justice Secretary now concede that there is a link between the doubling of the number of prisoners accidentally released in the last year and the introduction of Labour’s standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, or is it just an extremely unlucky coincidence? Do not take us for fools!
When will the Justice Secretary finally come clean? He will not provide details in answer to parliamentary questions. He will not answer even when he is here for Prime Minister’s questions. He will not respond to letters—but perhaps that is because they were not addressed to “the Deputy Prime Minister”. He has now been dragged here, kicking and screaming, to admit that one prisoner has been on the run from this Labour Government for 14 months, and 91 have been accidentally released over the last seven months. However, the Justice Secretary is so clueless that he has literally lost track of how many prisoners he has lost. He has said today that a prisoner “may” have been accidentally released last Monday. Well, has he looked? The prisoner is either in his cell or he is not.
What a complete and utter farce the Justice Secretary is presiding over. As we all suspected, the crisis on his Government’s watch is even bigger than he dared to admit. That is why he would not say anything last week. Prisoners are being accidentally released nearly every other day, putting our constituents—his constituents—at risk.
At this rate, he is on track for 156 prisoners to be accidentally released this year, which would be a record, were it not for the doubling that his Government managed to achieve last year.
In his statement today, the Justice Secretary posed more questions than he managed to answer. How many crimes were committed by those prisoners while they were on the run? Why can he not tell us who these 91 prisoners are? Who is the foreign criminal, and who is this mystery fourth offender whom he “may” have lost? How can he possibly be found if, unlike in the case of Cherif and Kebatu, the public do not have his face or his name?
The public deserve to know the truth, and this situation could not be any more serious. There has been a ninefold increase in the number of violent offenders accidentally released in the last year. On the Justice Secretary’s watch, the criminal justice system has been made to look a total mockery. The public are being put at risk. In his own words, it is time for him to “get a grip”—or go.
Mr Lammy
This is a crisis that we inherited in our prison system. [Interruption.] That is worthy of sober reflection, because the shadow Justice Secretary knows that when the Conservatives were in government, 17 prisoners were released in error every month. He knows that. A former Conservative Justice Secretary said in respect of this issue last Friday: “We essentially run our prisons regime very hot. We are very close to capacity. We have seen a big increase in the prison population over the last 20 years, and resources have not necessarily matched that. That is the first problem.” Another former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, said:
“Part of the issue is we can’t hold on to prison officers…Without that expertise, errors creep in.”
The shadow Justice Secretary himself challenged the Conservatives’ record in office, so he knows that this is a cross-party issue—one which, of course, we have to grip. I said that I had put in place those checks, and I stand by the checks that I put in. I also said in my statement that many of the cases that we are uncovering occurred before those checks were in place, and another case involved an error in the court system. That is why the new query process is very important indeed.
We had to introduce SDS40, and the right hon. Member knows why that is the case: because his Government, just in their last few months in office, made three different changes to their early release scheme, so worried were they about prison capacity—a prison capacity issue that we inherited. In their 14 years in office, they built only 500 extra places in the prison system, while we have pledged 14,000 by 2031.
The right hon. Member also knows that, as night follows day, if Governments cut officers by almost 50%, as the Conservatives did in office, and then recruit new officers, as we have attempted to do, those are then very junior people. They are working hard, and I thank them for all that they are doing, but in those circumstances mistakes will be made.
I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this—that is really important. I have put in place the digital team, because, as the right hon. Member also knows, this is a system based on human beings and there will therefore be errors; only technology will fix this issue over time. I have also now put in place that double check between the court and prison systems.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member is right to put at the heart of his question getting back to historic levels before we started to see the increase back in 2021. That is my intent: to get back to much lower levels than we see now. This afternoon I have set out the measures that we are taking immediately. More will follow the review by Lynne Owens, but of course this will take investment across the prison system.
Robert Jenrick
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back.
Mr Speaker
Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that.
Prisoner Release Checks
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Dear, oh dear, where to begin? This Justice Secretary could not deport the only small boat migrant who wanted—no, who tried—to be deported. Having been mistakenly released, Hadush Kebatu came back to prison asking to be deported not once, not twice, but five times, but he was turned away. The only illegal migrants this Government are stopping are those who actually want to leave the UK. His officials, briefing the press, called it “the mother of all—”. Yeah, they are not wrong, are they? Calamity Lammy strikes again. It is a national embarrassment.
Today the Justice Secretary feigns anger at what has happened. He says he is “livid” that Kebatu was mistakenly let out, but under his plans to abolish short prison sentences, which he forced through the Commons last week, Kebatu would never have even stepped foot in prison in the first place. Let us get it straight: we had the spectacle of the Metropolitan police scouring London to find a man the Justice Secretary is simultaneously legislating to avoid sending to prison. What an absolute farce! I must commend the Justice Secretary’s performance: it is truly BAFTA-worthy. He has perfected the art of performative outrage to a tee.
On Wednesday—[Interruption.] They may be laughing, but let me finish this point. On Wednesday, the Justice Secretary will force every one of his MPs to vote again on the Sentencing Bill, which will see hundreds of sex offenders just like Kebatu avoid prison altogether—sick men who destroy the lives of young girls, who steal their childhoods from them. They will be free to roam your communities to steal the childhoods of your constituents. I will tell you who will be livid then: the British public will be livid and they will know who is to blame.
The Justice Secretary says he has launched an inquiry into what has happened, but he should be able to provide some basic questions to the House now. With respect to the prison in question, HMP Chelmsford, there is clearly a very significant problem. In a previous internal audit at Chelmsford, officials had marked their own homework as “good”, yet inspectors rated it as of “serious concern”. What is the Justice Secretary going to do now to address the way in which problems in our prisons are covered up routinely or wished away?
On the inquiry itself, you will not be surprised to hear that I am—how shall I put this?—sceptical about this Government’s ability to conduct inquiries with any competence. Why are they limiting themselves to this particular security farce and not the other glaring errors, such as the doubling of drone sightings above prisons, the soaring assaults on prison officers or the rampant extremism we are now seeing in our jails?
Shocking as this accidental release is, it is not a one-off blunder. It has come to be the norm under this Government, as the number of prisoners mistakenly let out early has more than doubled. Will the Justice Secretary tell the House how many of the 262 prisoners let out mistakenly in the year to March were violent or sexual offenders? And how many are still at large? There are now record numbers of foreign nationals clogging up our prisons—more than under the last Government. How many of those 262 prisoners accidentally released are migrants, like Kebatu, who were awaiting deportation?
Can the Justice Secretary give the House his cast-iron assurance that this man will be deported from our country by the end of the week, as he promised on the news on Sunday? If he fails, will he take responsibility and resign? Lastly, on Tuesday the Justice Secretary blocked my amendment to release the migrant crime data. Does he now finally acknowledge that there is a link between the small boats and crime in this country? Will he call the small boats out for what they are: a national security emergency?
This man should never have been in our country in the first place. That is the truth. He should have been detained. He should have been deported. Instead, he was put up in a hotel in Epping and allowed to prey on schoolgirls. Now we learn that some Labour officials privately concede that they were wrong to scrap the Rwanda plan. Be in no doubt: from start to finish, the Kebatu fiasco was a creation entirely of Labour’s own making. So, I say to the Justice Secretary, there is no point coming to the House today professing to be livid at the consequences of your own policies. The British people, they can see straight through you.
Mr Lammy
This is a serious issue and that is why there will be a full independent investigation.
The shadow Justice Secretary—I will give him this—is smooth. But as my mother would have said, if he was chocolate he would lick himself. He should hang his head in shame. The crisis in our prisons that we face today is because of 14 years of failure under his Government. As they were packing their bags to leave office—he knows this—there were temporary release failures under his watch. They presided over 17 mistaken releases per month.
This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable; it was due to the choices made by the right hon. Gentleman’s party over 14 years of chaos. The Conservatives said that they were the Government of security and safety, but again and again they oversaw rising instances of violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. They promised 20,000 extra prison places, and they managed only an extra 500—500 in 14 years. They promised to remove more foreign national offenders from our prisons, and they failed. They promised investment and expansion in the prison system, but budgets stalled. They promised investment in the police, but we saw police numbers cut by 20,000. They promised increases in access to justice, but we did not see that; instead, we saw almost the collapse of legal aid. Under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, violence, self-harm and drug abuse went up in our prisons while prison officer numbers were cut, yet he has the brass neck to come here and give the impression that this problem started just 14 months ago.
Let me just pause there. William Fernandez, a sexual predator, was released in error in March 2021. After he was let out of prison, he raped a 16-year-old and sexually assaulted another young woman. Was there an independent investigation? No, not from the Conservatives. When Rayon Newby, another man who was mistakenly released from a category B prison, was released in error in March 2023, was there an independent investigation under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? No, there was not. When Lauras Matiusovas was released in error in December 2021, was there any independent investigation? There was none at all. The right hon. Gentleman has some brass neck.
I have asked Lynne Owens to look at this incident and to do so in eight weeks, and we will of course come back to the House when that is done. All of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—looking at what happened over this period of time—will be subject to that review.
The right hon. Gentleman also says that the sentencing review will let out more foreign nationals, but he is wrong. We have actually brought down the threshold, so that someone can now be deported with just a suspended sentence. He knows that. If he reads clause 42 of the Sentencing Bill, he will understand that properly.