Jury Trials
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(5 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:
“believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”
“Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.
Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.
What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”
Dr Murrison
I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?
Sarah Sackman
The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.
Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.
No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?
Sarah Sackman
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.
We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Opposition are keen to rely on Magna Carta to defend jury trials, but Magna Carta also states that justice should not be delayed. Sir Brian Leveson reported that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in 2000 because criminal cases are now much more complex and can involve thousands of pages of electronic evidence. We are putting more pressure—financial and otherwise—on jurors, and it is now much more difficult to support and guide them. There is clearly a case for reform. I understand that one recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson was to have jury trials replaced by a judge and two magistrates, so could that be a possible compromise to reduce the delays?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:
“We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”
The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that listing is a judicial function, but the fact remains—this is CPS data—that some 4,000 cases last year could have been heard four times faster. We know that cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates court than in the Crown court, and although magistrates had the sentencing powers to deal with such matters, the defendants elected for a jury trial, which they have the right to do under the current system. Why did they elect for a jury trial? They did so because it would drag the process out longer. If a case can be dealt with four times faster in the magistrates court, then removing the right to elect, which is what we propose to do, is a far more efficient way to free up Crown court capacity so that very serious cases—not just rape, but robbery, homicide and serious drug offences—can be dealt with more swiftly.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.
Sarah Sackman
As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—
Sarah Sackman
I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.
Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.
We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.
We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.
We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.
There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.
People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.
What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.
I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was
“as frustrating as it was foreseeable”
and that
“it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.
Sarah Sackman
I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My first job after graduating was in a magistrates court, which was just making the transition from writing court records in a huge ledger by hand to computerisation; I appreciate that it has modernised an awful lot since then. Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about the impact of persistent drug dealing on local communities. One of the things being piloted in Bristol is an intensive supervision court. We know that a huge number of crimes are committed by people with persistent drug addictions, so if we can divert them from the criminal justice system it will help to free up our courts. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to roll out that programme?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.
One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.
As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.
People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.
Karl Turner
The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Third-party Litigation Funding
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that the Government intend to take action to mitigate the impact of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR and implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements.
Third-party litigation funding plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice. It enables people to bring complex claims against better-resourced organisations that they could not otherwise afford. Sir Alan Bates, for instance, has spoken openly about how without such funding he could not have brought his claim against the Post Office. The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR introduced significant uncertainty about whether LFAs remain valid and about the regulatory regime that applies to them. This uncertainty could be preventing significant numbers of claimants from accessing justice.
LFAs are also used in high-value commercial cases where there is a power imbalance between parties or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings. Therefore, this uncertainty also risks undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration, both of which bring significant benefit to the UK economy.
However, concerns have been raised about whether LFAs are always fair and transparent for the claimants using them. This has led to calls for greater regulation of the litigation funding market, which currently operates under a system of voluntary self-regulation. This is why, while it is crucial to act swiftly regarding PACCAR, I have taken the opportunity to consider litigation funding in the round.
I would like to thank the Civil Justice Council for its comprehensive and wide-ranging review of litigation funding, published earlier this year. Since its publication, my officials and I have carefully considered its recommendations.
I am pleased to announce the Government’s intention to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations. First, we will legislate to clarify that LFAs are not damages-based agreements, with prospective effect. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of LFAs. This will improve transparency and fairness for claimants. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.
It is our priority that legislation removes the uncertainty introduced by the PACCAR judgment and ensures that the litigation funding sector works fairly and efficiently for all. Once we have implemented these two changes, we will consider the CJC’s wider litigation funding recommendations in detail and announce any further changes in due course.
[HCWS1192]
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Mediation saves people time, money and stress. It can also help to reduce court delays and save the taxpayer money. Mandatory mediation for small money claims is now well integrated into the county court process and is delivering real results in terms of time savings and cost savings.
Sir Julian Smith
Time pressure is one of the best routes to encourage alternative dispute resolution, as the Minister knows, but in the commercial court in 2024 the median time to judgment was 786 days. The UK law sector is up against huge pressures from Singapore and the middle east, which are offering six months to judgment and six months for appeal. May I urge Ministers to look at the competitive challenges facing UK law against such tough international competition?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Member raises a really good point. Such delays are depriving our businesses of productivity and the ability to resolve disputes sooner. The successes we are seeing on small money claims under £10,000, which tend to affect small and medium-sized enterprises, show the progress that can be made. The other thing I will point him to is the launch of our English law promotion panel, which is looking at competitiveness with other jurisdictions.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Before entering the House, I was an employment solicitor, and I saw the impact that judicial mediation had in our employment tribunals. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the role that expanding judicial mediation could have in bringing down the backlog in our employment tribunals?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s experience in this area. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that important subject.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, otherwise known as SLAPPs, are an abuse of the legal process and pose a threat to democracy. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. That is why we commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 related to economic crime SLAPPs, and we are monitoring how that is operating.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the Minister’s answer, but is she aware that in the space of one week the Solicitors Regulation Authority has lost two tribunal cases relating to SLAPPs? Do the Government consider the SRA fit for purpose in this area? Is further legislation not needed to prevent lawyers from pursuing abusive cases?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome the right hon. Member’s question. We are actively considering where we can further extend the definition of SLAPPs to those that range beyond economic crime. Obviously, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is independent of Government. I welcome its guidance reminding solicitors of their duties and of the consequences of breaches, and I hope that it upholds that guidance robustly.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Our magistrates are the backbone of local justice, and I thank every magistrate the length and breadth of the country who gives their time to deliver that justice. In return, we need to support them. That is why we provide extensive training not just at the start of a magistrate’s journey, but on a continuing basis through mentorship. I recognise that we want to go further and provide stronger recognition for their service, and we will be looking in the new year at overhauling the expenses regime so that we can support magistrates.
Matt Turmaine
I thank the Minister for her answer. I recently had the opportunity to visit the county and family court in Watford, and while there I talked to them about the challenge of finding sufficient staff. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that staffing is what makes magistrates courts and family courts work, and will she outline further what support the Government are offering to them?
Sarah Sackman
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I was glad to visit Barnet court in my constituency, which has newly reopened after a year. I noticed what many who cross the threshold into our courts see: the first welcome from court staff, which often allays nerves and anxiety in an alienating environment. That is critical, and it is why we want to support our court staff, we are investing in legal advisers who support our magistrates, and we are supporting all of them. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s local court in Watford if the opportunity arises.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?
Sarah Sackman
We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.
Mr Speaker
What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis. Whether for a family experiencing family breakdown, small business owners trying to resolve contractual disputes or victims of crime, we inherited a system in crisis in every jurisdiction. We are beginning to turn that oil tanker around. We are sitting at maximum or close to maximum capacity in every single jurisdiction, while investing up to £450 million in our courts every year.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister will recall that last week I mentioned two cases in my constituency involving juveniles and child sexual abuse. Those cases of alleged sexual abuse have been adjourned a number of times and, as I explained to her, the damage done to the lives of those children cannot be underestimated. I appreciate that reforms are under way, but what urgent steps can be taken now to ensure that those children have the justice that they deserve and can continue with their lives?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking case. I am aware of it and I will be writing to her on the particulars of it. It graphically demonstrates precisely why we need reform of our criminal courts. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just explained, that will take three things: investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid, which we are currently seeing; systemic reform; and modernisation. That third component is about how we can improve efficiencies in the here and now, through better adoption of technology and improving the smoother running of our courts, which will help the victims in the case that she outlines.
Warinder Juss
Justice delayed is justice denied is the harsh reality for the nearly 80,000 cases that are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. I am pleased that the Government are taking action to modernise our justice system and to be reassured that the sanctity of jury trials will be preserved. Considering that only 3% of criminal cases are currently tried by a jury, what assessment has the Minister made on the impact that removing jury trials from certain either-way offences will have on significantly reducing the present unacceptable court backlogs?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that the crumbling and decaying state of our court estate has become a metaphor for the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government. It is why we are opening new courts in Blackpool and putting shovels in the ground in inner London, and why we have increased the court estate budget by £28 million, so that we can improve maintenance and keep as many court rooms running as possible. In the end, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, money alone will not be enough. We need reforms so that we can run the system at capacity and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When this Government came into office in July 2024, magistrates were dealing with cases that had a potential sentence of up to six months, but that has now gone up to 12 months and by next year it could be two years. There is already a backlog of 361,000 cases in the magistrates courts. In my meeting with the Law Society today, representatives expressed deep concerns about whether magistrates would be able to take on longer, more emotionally draining cases, and that some magistrates may decide that they are not comfortable about depriving people of their liberty for that long. What assessment has been done of the ability of magistrates to cope emotionally, and of the magistrates courts to cope with those increases?
Sarah Sackman
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the sentencing powers and the proposal to increase them, rather than the wait time. The fact is that our magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction, dealing with 1.3 million cases a year. The Magistrates Association and the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive have endorsed the Government’s plans, which are a vote of confidence in our magistrates’ ability to deal with the caseload, and cases of this nature, swiftly, robustly and fairly, but she is right that our magistrates deserve support in dealing with emotionally charged matters. We will ensure that that support and training is provided.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?
Sarah Sackman
I met Andrew Turner, who is a tireless campaigner; we were embarking on the work that is necessary to support families like his, and those that he represents. I have personally undertaken to ensure that this work continues, irrespective of which person is sitting in the chair. I will follow up not just with Andrew, but with his very dedicated MP, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne).
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
At the beginning of December, a sapling from the Sycamore Gap tree was planted by Micala Trussler and her family to commemorate what would have been her daughter’s 18th birthday. Since Holly Newton’s tragic murder, Micala has campaigned tirelessly to reduce the age limit at which someone can legally be classified as a domestic abuse victim. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising Micala’s tireless campaigning, and meet Micala and me in the new year to discuss age classification for victims of domestic abuse?
Restriction of Jury Trials
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month 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.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is no reason why the Government should not consider mode of trial as part of their reform of the criminal courts, but they would find more support if they could better evidence the effects of the proposed changes to jury trial. To what extent will they reduce the backlog? What proportion and types of cases will no longer be eligible for jury trial? If courts are to be swifter and have greater sentencing powers, what effect will that have on the prison population?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for his reflection that mode of trial is worth looking at. Of course, the Government will provide an impact assessment when we bring forward the legislation necessary to accompany these reforms, but I suggest that we do have an evidence base, as provided to us by the independent review of the criminal courts. We also have the very real evidence base that the offences we are talking about are not summary-only, which are already dealt with in the magistrates court, nor indictable-only offences, which will always have a jury trial in our Crown court, but triable either way offences. At the moment, defendants can opt either for a magistrates trial or for a Crown court trial. What we know is that where defendants opt for a magistrates trial, those are being heard four times faster on average than those heard in the Crown court. That is a pretty strong evidence base, coupled with that of the IRCC. Of course we will need to present the impact assessment of the package that we are bringing forward, but there is no doubt that the Government are taking action on an evidential basis, provided through an independent review.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.
It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?
Sarah Sackman
I will answer the hon. Member’s last question first. All the bodies that she referred to—victim support, victims’ organisations, the legal community, the Bar Council and the Law Society—have engaged over many months, first with the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, and indeed now with the Ministry of Justice. That engagement is happening all the time.
On those who represent victims, the incoming Victims’ Commissioner has said that the system is broken and there is need for bold reform. The bold reform recommended by Sir Brian Leveson’s review is precisely the proportionate reform—radical, yes; and necessary, yes—that we are going to pursue.
On the hon. Member’s comment about victims and the significant figure of 60% of rape victims pulling out of cases, there are many reasons that victims pull out. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on in a victim’s head at any one time, but we all know how lengthy the delays are in our courts, and everyone is aware how retraumatising the court process can be. We know from Rape Crisis, for example, that one in three sexual offence trials is the subject of adjournment, so there is not just delay but victims thinking they have a trial date only for that to be put off. No one can say that that is defensible. For many, the fact that their case might not come to court for years is key to their withdrawing from the process, at whatever stage, so it is material to the context. That is why action needs to be taken.
As the Crown Prosecution Service data discussed at the Justice Committee has brought forward, one striking statistic shows the need for action: there were more than 4,000 cases that could have been heard in the magistrates court, but our current system privileges the defendant’s right to insist on a jury trial with the greater length of time that that takes. As a result, the person who has stolen a bottle of whisky or a bunch of flowers—a low-value item—has every right to insist on a jury trial, and is then stuck in the same queue as serious crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping. That is exactly how this works. And that is exactly why, on Sir Brian’s expert recommendation, we are seeking to remove such cases from the queue and reassign them to where they can be better and more swiftly dealt with in the system, so that we can come to the most serious cases more swiftly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I have had a number of cases, including two recently. When the Opposition were in power, a woman came to me with her case, which was of historical child sexual abuse; her trial was being adjourned repeatedly, and there was a risk that the perpetrator would die before the case was heard. I now have two cases of children awaiting child sexual abuse cases that have had repeated adjournments. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government’s proposals might help to progress those cases, which are impacting lives?
Sarah Sackman
I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s cases, which graphically highlight precisely why reform is needed and the grave crisis in our criminal justice system, which, as Sir Brian has told us, is on the brink of collapse. We need a holistic approach: reform, significant investment and modernisation. On the earlier question about efficiencies, do we need to improve the time that it takes to bring prisoners from prison to court? Yes, we do. Do we need to improve things such as listing, and look at whether they can be done more efficiently? Do we need to look at productivity in our courts? Absolutely. That is why we have asked the independent review of the criminal courts to conduct part two of its review, and it is why we are looking at these issues very intently with the MOJ. There is no silver bullet, and her constituents’ case illustrates the mountain that we have to climb. Such stories motivate me to work every day to get these reforms through and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
My maths teacher always required us to show our workings. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that only 3% of prosecutions proceed to jury trials. How can marginally reducing such a small proportion produce the savings that have been identified? Will the Minister publish the modelling?
Sarah Sackman
We have the IRCC—Sir Brian Leveson’s review. Over 388 pages of careful analysis, he sets out how his package of reforms will begin to bear down on the backlog. As I have said, an impact assessment will of course be provided in the ordinary way, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and assure the rest of the House that unless we were confident that the package of reform and investment that we are bringing forward was capable of bringing down the backlog, we would not be pursuing it. Of course, that is exactly what we are aiming at: to see the backlog coming down by the end of this Parliament, so that we can deliver swifter justice for victims.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister recall that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was chastised by the Office for Statistics Regulation when he was Housing Secretary? Does she further agree, therefore, that we will not take lessons from him?
Sarah Sackman
I was not here when the right hon. Member for Newark was failing to show his working out. What I have observed, however, both in my professional life before I came to this House and since I have been the Courts Minister, is how the previous Government presided over an absolute collapse in criminal justice. The so-called party of law and order allowed the prisons to run boiling hot, with backlogs spiralling out of control, and caused a collapse in confidence in our courts system, not only in the legal community, but in the victim community. Unlike his Government, we will do the serious work of looking at where the evidence takes us. We identify the problem and do not stand idly by. We get out there and make the argument for how we will fix it.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?
Sarah Sackman
If the right hon. Member had attended earlier debates, he would know that I have been clear that the state’s obligation is to guarantee everybody who comes before the court a fair trial. The essence of a fair trial is a swift trial—not one that might be two years away. It is not a guarantee of a jury trial, because 90% of cases in this country already take place without a jury trial. I have also made it clear that we believe in jury trials. I do not believe in jury trials that are delayed for a couple of years, where witnesses and victims pull out of the system, but I do believe in jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice. As I have said, the quantitative and qualitative analyses have been happening not just within Sir Brian’s team, but within the Ministry of Justice. We will be publishing an impact assessment at the requisite time.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased, if not a little surprised, to see how keen the Conservatives have been to talk about issues of criminal justice in recent weeks, considering they showed next to no interest when they were in government and I was working in the prison system. I believe that the last Government stated that they would bring the Crown court backlog back to 53,000 by March 2025. Can the Minister therefore outline what the backlog was when we took office in July 2024? That figure is incredibly important when we are looking at why we need to take the bold action that has been announced by the Government in the past week.
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.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is horrific that victims of rape and sexual assault are waiting years for justice, and we should never forget, in these conversations or decisions, the toll that that process takes on a victim’s life. Can the Minister please confirm that victims will be kept at the heart of the justice system, and that this Government will deliver timely justice for survivors?
Sarah Sackman
As she so often does, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We have in focus, at the heart of all that we are doing, the goal of delivering swifter justice for victims. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced a package of £550 million to be put towards victim support and keeping victims engaged in the process, which, as it takes longer and longer, is harder to do. Ultimately, the best thing that we can do for victims is deliver on the promise of bringing down the backlog so that they do not have to face these agonising waits to see justice done. If victims pull out—and, in these cases, the victim is often the only witness to the crime—the worst aspect is that it is not even a question of “justice delayed is justice denied”; justice simply is not served at all.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I think we would all agree that it is a tragedy when any rape victim withdraws from the criminal justice system, but I do not buy the faux outrage from the shadow Secretary of State. I was the chief executive of a rape crisis centre when his party was in government, and every single day I heard victims talk about the delays in the system causing them more trauma, about the police’s poor interviewing techniques and about the lack of understanding in the criminal justice system of the effects of the trauma that they had been through on that Government’s watch, and nothing was improving. We know that rape trials will not be affected by this decision on jury trials, so I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to use that as a justification for changing the jury trial process, but have the Government given any consideration, or will they be giving any consideration, to a specialist court system to deal with rape and sexual violence offences?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she did before coming to the House. I respect her experience, and it is not clear that experience of that kind and range is shared by all Members, including those who are so quick to criticise the attempts to reform what is a failing system. As she has said, the best thing that we can achieve for victims of sexual offences—not just rape, but other sexual offences as well—is reducing the backlogs. We know from charities such as Rape Crisis that some 17% of cases in the backlog relate to sexual offences. If we can get hold of this problem—if we can get a real grip on it across the piece, from the magistrates all the way to the Crown—that, more than anything else, will deliver swifter justice for the victims whom the hon. Lady once supported.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Jury trials allow ordinary citizens to participate in the justice system—which many groups simply do not trust—ensuring community representation and transparency. Can the Minister explain how citizen involvement can be continued, so that we do not see additional miscarriages of justice as a result of influence from personal bias or external pressures that can potentially lead to unfair outcomes?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend has asked a very important question. Equality before the law is, of course, a fundamental principle, but so is the need for all our communities to have confidence in our justice system. One of the worst symptoms of the broken system that we have today is the fact that so few people now have that confidence.
Let me say first to my hon. Friend that we are preserving jury trial for the most serious cases, and secondly that our proposals represent a vote of confidence in our magistracy, which is increasingly diverse and needs to be more diverse still. In London, more than 30% of magistrates are drawn from the communities that they are serving and come from black and minority ethnic communities. In the midlands, where I know my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, the numbers are getting higher and higher, at 15% or 16%, and we want more still. This is how we continue to include that very important democratic and community component in our justice system, so that communities such as hers can continue to have confidence in it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am afraid that the Minister’s treatment of the 60% figure only tends to confirm my belief that one is better off with the common sense of 12 ordinary people than with one legal professional. [Laughter.] Even she is smiling—good for her. Can she look again at this point? Yes, it is disastrous if 60% of women who allege rape drop the case before it proceeds to a conclusion, but if only 9% drop the case after the alleged criminal has been charged, the overwhelming reason for their dropping the case is not the length of the trial by jury, but the slowness between the reporting of the allegation and the criminal being charged. Will she accept that, in this case, she is looking at the wrong target?
Sarah Sackman
I smile because I know the spirit in which the question is asked. I know that it is asked in good faith, but I also say this: as well as being a lawyer, I am also a Member of Parliament and I am also a woman. The question that was asked earlier was put very well: a single victim of whatever crime—rape being one of the most agonising that we can imagine—is one too many pulling out of the system. We do not know exactly what is going through every victim’s head, and it is right to say that the 60% figure was accurate on its own terms. We do not know exactly why people might pull out of the system, but we do know that everyone is aware that the system is broken. Even when they come to consider whether to report a crime, they are aware of what that might entail, knowing the delays, the agony and the bureaucracy that lie ahead. Quite honestly, if something were to happen to me or a loved one today and I was advising them or asking myself, “Would I want to go through with that, knowing what I do about the delays?” I would have to think long and hard about it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
On Friday, I met senior detectives in Bradford who investigate and bring prosecutions for historical cases of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based abuse. They do all they can to support victims to get justice—in fact, West Yorkshire police were commended by Baroness Casey for its work—but it was clear to me that court delays add to the trauma experienced by victims and survivors who bravely come forward. That is true for those I have spoken to. How will these reforms speed up justice for victims of rape, serious sexual offences and vile grooming gangs?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for all her tireless work for victims in her community who have been seriously impacted by some of the crimes that she outlines. My job is to take a look at the whole system and how it is functioning for all victims, for those who are accused and for all participants in the system who are currently being let down. The package of measures that was announced last week includes an increase in sitting powers, and the removal of the defendant’s right to insist on a jury in favour of having cases triaged by the experts—namely, the court itself. With the establishment of a bench division, which Sir Brian advises, cases could be heard at least 20% faster, and we are taking cases such as fraud out of the list so that they can be heard by judges alone. We believe that, taken together, the package’s measures can deliver swifter justice for victims, including those in my hon. Friend’s own community.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Members on both sides of the House know how important these changes are, and getting them right is absolutely vital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) asked a specific question as to whether the Department has done an impact assessment. Could the Minister clarify whether that impact assessment has been done? If so, will it be immediately published?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Gentleman is right: we should have a robust debate about the best way forward to fix what is undeniably a broken system. As a Department, we have several sources of evidence and assessment, not least the work that was done by the Leveson review. We will bring forward the impact assessment at the appropriate time, and the House will be able to scrutinise it then.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
There is capacity for almost 2,000 more court sitting days that are not being used for rape or other trials at the moment. Why is the Justice Secretary not prioritising funding those days to help reduce the backlog, rather than trying to scrap jury trials?
Sarah Sackman
We are looking, where we can, to invest as much as possible, but I remind the hon. Member that, when we talk about investment in sitting days, we must look at system capacity. That requires not just judicial time, but sufficient numbers of barristers—both defence and prosecution—and as the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, we cannot simply 3D print those. We have to invest in the professionals, and that is exactly what we announced last week, with £92 million in legal aid for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for barristers. I should also mention match funding for criminal law pupillages to develop the talent pipeline. All of that increases the system capacity, so that when we add on sitting days, it is not just a judge sitting there waiting for a barrister to turn up, which sometimes does not happen and leads to the trial being adjourned, but we have enough system capacity to run at the maximal and most productive level possible.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In Shropshire and wider West Mercia, victims of rape and other serious offences are being told to wait for their jury trials into 2027, 2028 and even later. Meanwhile, defendants of some other offences are opting for jury trials, the magistrates having already accepted jurisdiction. Is it not time that we back, trust and empower our magistrates and district judges up and down this country?
Sarah Sackman
Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, when I came to visit the justice centre in Telford with him we spoke a lot about the role that magistrates play, and I want to pay huge tribute to them. The proposals we brought forward last week are, as his question suggests, a huge vote of confidence in our magistrates and in our magistrates courts system to hear cases swiftly and robustly, and we should back them.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member can get hold of Hansard and read my previous answer, which is that there will be an impact assessment at the requisite moment.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I find it heartbreaking to hear that there are victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual violence who feel that they are tackling a system that is absolutely broken. From a piece of casework I have dealt with, I can tell the House about a young lady, the victim of domestic violence, who had to wait so long for justice to be served that she actually returned to the perpetrator. To me, that is not only terrifying, but obviously it had a huge impact on her family. Can I ask the Minister, working with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to promise me that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape get the justice they deserve as soon as they can?
Sarah Sackman
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Under-Secretary of State and I are working incredibly hard. This is central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, and we have to look at how not just the delays in our criminal justice system but the processes in our courts are often retraumatising women and girls. We are resolute in our efforts to tackle exactly what he has described.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Government’s proposals on jury trials are causing concern and consternation in my constituency, and my mailbag is quite full of people’s messages opposing the Government’s proposals. Just so we understand where the Secretary of State is on this, could the Minister please explain to us what he is doing right now such that he could not come and answer this urgent question himself?
Sarah Sackman
At the moment, the Secretary of State is giving a very important speech launching the Government’s anti-corruption strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?
Sarah Sackman
Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.
Mr Speaker
It is very helpful to get through the questions and the Minister has done very well. Justice does matter and I think all of us represent victims of crime. The more quickly we can get through, the happier we will be. As I say, Chorley magistrates court would love to be reopened in order to help.
Criminal Legal Aid Solicitor Fees Consultation: Government Response
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Criminal Legal Aid: proposals for solicitor fee scheme reform”.
Criminal legal aid lawyers play a crucial role in our justice system, taking on some of the most complex cases that go through our courts and ensuring the most vulnerable people in society can access justice. The consultation invited responses to fee scheme proposals that would allocate an additional £92 million per annum investment once fully implemented.
The consultation paper was published on 9 May 2025, with proposals that covered work carried out by legal aid providers at police stations, in magistrates’ courts, in the Crown Court, and in prisons.
After considering the responses, we have decided to implement the majority of the proposals put forward. These involve harmonising police station fees, a 10% increase to magistrates’ courts fees—including youth court fees—and a 24% increase to fees for work done in prisons. In line with our initial proposals, we will also increase some litigators’ graduated fee scheme trial basic fees for the lowest paid offences and will introduce a fixed ratio between guilty plea, cracked trial and trial basic fees.
As a result of some of the responses we received during the consultation period, we will be making some changes to our final proposals, so that we can ensure these measures support providers as effectively as possible. We have amended the escape fee threshold in the police station fee scheme to enable more cases to qualify for the fee, and we will additionally uplift fees for all solicitors’ appeals work by 10%.
This significant investment, once fully implemented, means that criminal legal aid solicitors will have received a 24% overall uplift in funding since the criminal legal aid independent review. This investment will support a stronger and more sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and retains the brightest and the best practitioners. It is part of this Government’s plan for change to ensure justice is done and our streets are safe.
We announced these fee uplifts in December 2024, before the Legal Aid Agency was subject to a cyber security incident in mid-2025. The LAA has swiftly responded with comprehensive measures designed to maintain access to justice and protect provider cash flow during system disruption. Throughout this disruption, we remain committed to delivering these important uplifts for the sector. We are pleased that we remain on track to deliver on our commitment to invest in the legal aid system.
We intend to bring forward statutory instruments to amend the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the changes and fee increases. Our intention is that the first statutory instrument will come into force from 22 December 2025. This will cover the crime lower fee increases set out in our response, relating to work in police stations, magistrates’ courts, prisons and for some appeals work. A second statutory instrument will be laid as soon as the required changes to uplift fees can be delivered through Legal Aid Agency digital systems. This will cover the crime higher fee increases set out in our response, relating to the LGFS and remaining areas of appeals work.
As well as our investment in criminal legal aid, the Government are also today announcing implementation of our fee uplifts for immigration and housing controlled work in civil legal aid confirmed earlier in the year.
[HCWS1110]
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Sackman
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.
It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
The draft statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which outline the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission’s board of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the commissioners. I will refer to the Judicial Appointments Commission as the JAC.
The 2013 regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and to ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment. The amendments in this draft statutory instrument will change the total number of JAC commissioners from 15 to 16 by increasing the number of persons practising or employed as lawyers, referred to as professional commissioners, from two to three. It also expands the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers.
As the draft statutory instrument relates to the composition of the JAC board, it may be helpful to outline briefly the role of the JAC and its board. The JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.
The JAC is governed by an independent board of commissioners appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. There are currently 15 commissioners, including the lay chairman; the other 14 are drawn from the judiciary, the legal professions, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. Twelve are recruited and appointed through open competition, while three senior judicial members, including the senior tribunal commissioner, are selected by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals Judges’ Council.
A key objective of the board is to ensure that the JAC is upholding its statutory functions and duties, which include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, through fair and open competition, and with regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies, and make final recommendations for judicial appointments to the appointing authority.
The proposed amendments relate to the number of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner. I will address each in turn. On the number of commissioners, as noted, under the existing statutory provisions there are 15 commissioners, including the lay chair. That includes two professional commissioners, who must hold different qualifications, being a barrister, a solicitor or a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives or CILEX. Currently, as only two of the legal professions can be represented at any one time, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner. The draft instrument increases the number of commissioners to 16 by adding a third professional commissioner and retaining the requirement that they be from different professions.
The purpose of that is twofold. First, it will strengthen the JAC’s capacity to efficiently manage high levels of judicial recruitment. Secondly, it will ensure all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board. Creating a more certain route for the appointment of a CILEX fellow will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments. The approach will bring an additional sector perspective to the board and a commissioner to lead on outreach in the field. That is important because CILEX membership is generally more diverse on two characteristics than the other legal professions: 78% of CILEX fellows are women; and, as CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members are from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Under the statutory provisions for eligibility to be the senior tribunal commissioner, this role is open to upper tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal, chamber presidents of the upper tribunal, and presidents of employment tribunals for England and Wales, and Scotland. That means that not all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure are eligible. To address the inconsistency, an amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the upper tribunal, certain judges of the employment appeal tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the upper tribunal. The extent of this statutory instrument is UK-wide, as is its territorial application.
I will turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. The 2013 regulations were the result of public consultation completed in 2012. A further public consultation for these amendments was not considered necessary, given that the changes increase the number of commissioners, strengthening the JAC’s capacity for judicial recruitment, and address anomalies in the senior tribunal commissioner eligibility criteria. We formally consulted the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the JAC chair, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland. All were supportive of the changes.
I assure the Committee that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provider greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners, and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.
It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Right to Trial by Jury
Sarah Sackman 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.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, of course, I will not be commenting on a leaked document. No final decisions have been taken. What I can say is that we are giving very careful consideration to Sir Brian’s blueprint. We are giving very serious consideration to his conclusion that the current system, as my hon. Friend says, is broken and that we need structural reform. That requires that we countenance the idea of judge-only trials and a thorough review of what magistrate courts’ sentencing powers should be. It also requires that we ask the question that Sir Brian invites us to answer: when is it proportionate to have a jury trial, with all the rigour but also with all the expense and delay that can entail? Is it right that we ask somebody accused of stealing a bottle of whisky to be ahead in the queue of the rape victim waiting for her jury trial? That is the question he poses, and that is the question that when we come forward with our detailed plans, which need to be considered as a whole, it will be necessary for this House to consider.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials
“a success story of our justice system”.
Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should
“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”
in order to clear the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.
Sarah Sackman
What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.
We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.
I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.
Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member will know that I regularly engage with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and a range of other stakeholders. In fact, they agree with me that the system is broken. Indeed, whether they prosecute or defend, hard-working criminal barristers are experiencing a sapping of morale as they go into the crumbling buildings—presided over by the Conservatives—inefficient trials that crack, and trials that come three or four years after they were reported, with witnesses pulling out on the day. All that is deeply demoralising. Indeed, there is a huge degree of consensus between the Government and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association on the direction of travel. We must of course address inefficiencies; that is why Sir Brian Leveson and his independent reviewers are considering inefficiencies and productivity in the system. When part two of the review comes, we will take its recommendations equally seriously and look to implement them.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2014, 8% of those on trial for an either-way offence opted for a jury trial. By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, we know that the Crown court backlog is growing, that there are delays in those cases going to trial, and that more people are therefore dropping out and being denied their justice and their day in court. Is it not clear that some people are gaming the system to deny victims justice?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last week, I visited Wood Green Crown court, which has some of the deepest backlogs in the country, and met judges and barristers. They said that it was not uncommon to watch career criminals opt for a jury trial—their matter could be heard in the magistrates court, which has sufficient sentencing powers—and literally laugh in the dock. Why? Because they know that this Christmas and the one after that they will still be with their families without having faced trial, in the hope that witnesses pull out, the trial cracks and justice is not served. There are people gaming the system. That is the consequence of the delays, and we must do whatever we can to fix it.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Another day, another leak from the Government. The Minister says that no final decision has been made—we just have speculation—and suggests that we wait, so why does she not use this time to reflect on the comments from Conservative Members and bring back the courts used during covid, to speed up the process so that people continue to have the right to a trial by jury?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady is right that we need to increase capacity. That is why, since we replaced her party in government, we have increased the number of sitting days by over 5,000—we have record sitting days. The fact is, however, that we must build system capacity; we need enough judges, enough prosecutors, enough court ushers, enough court translators. We need more magistrates, and we are embarking on an ambitious programme to recruit more of them. All that must happen. Unlike her party, we are investing in the system and looking to bring more courtrooms back into use, but ultimately, as Sir Brian Leveson reminds us time and again, spending our way out of trouble will not, on its own, fix the system. Former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk —one of the Conservatives’ own—said that the system would become “irrecoverable” unless we act, and, unlike the Conservatives, I am prepared to do so.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the racial disparities right across our criminal justice system. Sadly, there is nothing new about that issue, which runs from issues with policing to prosecutorial practices, and of course, our courts are not entirely free of that. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to public confidence in our justice system, and any differential treatment on the grounds of race or ethnicity is unacceptable. Regardless of which options we take forward to tackle the crisis, that principle—equality before the law—will run through them; I can assure her of that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Quod erat demonstrandum. Yesterday, it was made abundantly clear that the Government’s priority is the recipient of benefits, way ahead of any consideration of victims, was it not?
Sarah Sackman
I am not quite sure how to respond to that. Was it a question? Was it a statement? Was it a rant? It displays a serious lack of seriousness. We have a backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. As I said, a victim of rape reporting her case in London today is told she has a trial in 2030. Does the right hon. Member think we should just sit back? Does he think that any responsible Government would take receipt of an independent review—detailed, carefully considered, evidence-based—and simply say, “We’ll just leave it on the shelf”? Forget it; we are going to respond to it, we are going to implement it, and we are going to act, because we care about one thing: swifter justice for victims. I am sorry he cannot say the same.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach, and therefore we need to get on with the job of reform?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—
Sarah Sackman
So do I. I spoke to a victim of child sexual abuse who had waited years for his day in court. A couple of weeks before his trial date, he was given the devastating news that the trial had been adjourned for another year. I regret to say that he sought to take his own life upon hearing that. Luckily, his attempt did not work, but if we ever needed a more graphic illustration of the weight that these intolerable delays place on victims —on real people’s lives—that is it. That is why we have to do whatever it takes to bring down these backlogs.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment? There is a fundamental point here: are the Minister and the Government aware that victims and the British people have more confidence in juries’ decisions than the decisions of judges?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to focus on efficiencies and the use of technology, which is why the Ministry of Justice is looking at greater use of artificial intelligence for transcription tools and case summarisation—that is all to help us bring down these delays. We have to give a guarantee to everyone in this country that if they come before our criminal courts, they will have a fair trial. As I have said, 90% of people who come before our criminal courts are currently tried without a jury, and that is done fairly and with integrity. I stand by the idea that what we have to do is offer people a fair trial. Waiting four years for a trial simply is not fair, so we have to get the balance right, but the hon. Gentleman is right that efficiency, investment and structural reform are what will get the backlog down.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s serious approach to dealing with this difficult issue. Like many other Members, my inbox is full of heartbreaking casework. Some of the most heartbreaking is from victims of crime who are anguished, hurt and deprived of justice because of delays in the system and because the system is broken. Most of those delays started under the last Government, so the Opposition have some brass neck to talk about a broken system. Can the Minister confirm that when she and the Government consider reforms, they will put those victims in my constituency first and seek to end the delays, and that the motto of our Government will be that a justice system broken is justice denied, and it is our job to fix it?
Sarah Sackman
I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work, flip open the virtual or real ministerial red box, and think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog. I will bear those victims’ stories in mind as we approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?
Sarah Sackman
Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial. There is no right in our constitution to a jury trial—it is not there—but jury trials are a fundamental and important part of our legal tradition, and they will remain so after any reforms are brought forward. That simply does not change. However, 90% of people are tried without a jury, and that is done fairly. What we need to guarantee is a fair trial, and I have been mindful of our legal traditions, descending from Magna Carta and many constitutional documents since, as we approach these reforms.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I recently met the local Crown Prosecution Service in Exeter, which informed me that, as has been discussed, defendants who have the choice often choose a jury trial to delay their case and game the system. Because of that, 10% of adult rape cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged, as the victim no longer supports prosecution due to the long delays in their case. With the backlog at 78,000 and rising, victims are waiting years. Does the Minister agree that we need this bold action to get the court system back on its feet?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rape and serious sexual offences are one of the most poignant and difficult areas, and it is in our minds in these 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Rape Crisis published a report last week in which it reported that one in three rape victims faced delay to their trial. I am told that 60% of rape victims are pulling out of the process because they simply cannot live with the spectre of the trial hanging over them, and they doubt that justice will ever be done. What is the consequence of that? It is not just heartbreaking for the victim; it means that justice is not served. That is something that no one in this House can abide.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that I utterly reject the premise of that question. First, the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will other Members, for the Government’s detailed response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and to see which cases will be affected by the reforms. I utterly reject the suggestion that this is somehow an authoritarian gambit—far from it. I cannot think of anything more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee fair trial, which is currently being undermined as a result of under-investment by the last Government and by the backlogs. I am ensuring that we work towards guaranteeing a fair trial for every victim of crime in this country, and I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than that.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?
Sarah Sackman
Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. That does not mean that they always get it right or that they are beyond reproach, but they are all subject to the principle of acting without fear or favour. They undergo comprehensive judicial training, which rightly includes rigorous training in bias, including racial bias. In our magistracy, which is so reflective of the principles of local and democratic justice, we are moving towards a more diverse magistracy, so that in London, one of our most diverse cities, over 30% of magistrates are currently black, Asian or minority ethnic. We need to go further, but I assure my hon. Friend that whether it is our judges, our magistracy or the involvement of juries for our most serious cases, that democratic element will always be retained.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister rightly calls out the issues for rape victims, and she might want to have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is closing down police stations so that there is nowhere for people to report. I recently visited Harrow Crown court, which is temporarily placed in Hendon magistrates court while the building in Harrow is rebuilt. I asked the judge, “Why are the courts all empty?”, as only one court was operational. He said to me, “The biggest problem is finding lawyers for defendants to enable the trials to take place.” While the Minister is considering this issue, will she look at the investment that needs to take place to encourage lawyers to take on criminal justice cases?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow. I would push back on the suggestion that the Mayor of London has not led on tackling violence against women and girls in our city, because there are greater policing numbers and there has been a real drive on that.
On supporting the sustainability of lawyers to both prosecute and defend these cases, the Government have announced an injection of £92 million for criminal legal aid solicitors who defend such cases. We are making that investment and looking to see whether we can go further, particularly in relation to advocates. We are making that investment, and it is a shame the hon. Gentleman’s Government did not do it a little earlier, as we might have been in a rather different position today.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not going to comment on leaks or the circumstances of leaks. I can say, however, that no one was more irritated by the timing of this leak than I was. The issue of our Crown court backlog and the impact it is having on victims has rightly been well ventilated in debate in this House. It is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his expert review to engage with and consult a wide range of stakeholders. We have been very open about the issues and the need to have that debate, but I am simply not going to comment on leaks.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is, I think, the third attempt by successive Governments to reduce the right to trial by jury. It is a fundamental right in our system that should not be undermined, and particularly not because the Government have a current and, hopefully, temporary problem with capacity. In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister recognised that the Lammy inquiry of 2017 found that jury trials are more objective than judge-only trials, less likely to be racially biased and likely to give a fairer outcome. Is the Minister really content that we should be walking away from the jury trial system because of the current problems? Instead, is the answer not, as other hon. Members have suggested, to invest more in the system to deal with the appalling backlog, which she rightly says we have?
Sarah Sackman
We are putting record investment into sitting days, our lawyers and legal aid, and we are investing in technology. However, as Sir Brian Leveson’s review concludes, investment alone is not going to fix the problem that is undermining the fairness of those trials. In many cases, by the time jury trials are being heard, the evidence is years old, witnesses’ minds are no longer fresh in their recollection of the events and people are pulling out of the process. That is fundamentally unfair and not at all progressive, because we cannot guarantee the fundamental right to a fair trial. It is right that we look, as Sir Brian Leveson has indicated, at both structural reform and investment to ensure that we can guarantee a fair trial and, rightly, equality before the law for all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. I have taken note of what she has said and, if I may, I will quote it back to her:
“a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness”,
a three to four year delay is “deeply demoralising”, and “justice delayed is justice denied”. How does she square that position with her support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right to quote back to me the headlines of the arguments that I am making in response to the urgent question about the backlogs in our criminal courts in England and Wales. On his question about my support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, it is a fair piece of legislation and one that I stand by.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. At the end of December 2024, there were 11,850 outstanding cases at our magistrates courts and 2,663 outstanding cases at Crown courts in Wales. Of course, some 23 Crown and magistrates courts have been closed across Wales since 2010. Does the Minister agree that fewer courts and their distance from communities are significant factors in reduced and delayed access to justice, and that that must be addressed as a priority?
Sarah Sackman
I pay particular attention to the regional disparities in the Crown court crisis and in the delays. We have to look at different regions and see what the right solutions are for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a particular issue in Wales is the distance that we ask magistrates to travel to perform what is, frankly, an amazing public service. The fact that we have an army of local volunteers who both reflect and serve their community is really important, and I have engaged closely with Welsh magistrates on this subject. She is right that to bring down the backlogs we need—I will not grow sick of saying it—investment, structural reform and modernisation. If we get all three, then regardless of where people live in England and Wales, we will bring down the backlogs and get swifter justice for victims.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cases and appeals of asylum seekers are heard in the immigration and asylum tribunal, not in our criminal courts. We are not only making investment in immigration legal aid so that those cases can be heard at a swifter rate, but sitting at close to maximum capacity sitting days to process those cases. When we talk about swifter justice for victims in our criminal courts, that must be our real focus and the real focus of the debate today.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about the importance of swift and fair justice, but I feel this decision will set a very dangerous precedent that the state will become addicted to. I sincerely hope the Government do not go down this path, but if they do, I urge the Minister to ensure that this measure is in place only for the duration required to clear the backlog and is then abandoned. It must not become a central tenet of the justice system.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this decision has been prompted by a crisis, and the crisis we inherited from the previous Government is acute indeed. As we speak, day on day and month on month, that backlog heads in the wrong direction. As I have said, we need to do whatever it takes to bring it down to a sustainable level; the way we will do that is by investing in the system and through structural reform and modernisation, but we have a very long way to go. There is no doubt that we have a mountain to climb, and it is only when we are in a sustainable position and can say we are delivering swift justice for victims that we can revisit whether this measure is right for our country.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Trial by jury may be more expensive than trial by judge and magistrates, but does the Minister agree that, as we have heard today, this decision goes beyond just finances? The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is fundamental and essential to safeguarding justice, and it must be protected for all cases.
Sarah Sackman
The constitutional right that British people have is the right to a fair trial. People are waiting years for their day in court and seeing some defendants whose trial could be heard gaming the system. I believe that the Justice Committee paper says that there were more than 4,000 cases last year alone in which magistrates had sufficient sentencing powers to address the case swiftly. People opted for a jury trial, in some cases deliberately, because they wanted to drag it out, put their victim through that, see witnesses pull out and perhaps get away with it all. That is simply not fair.
We have to guarantee jury trial, especially for the most serious cases—rape, murder and serious drug trafficking—but I am not prepared to ask a victim of rape who has been waiting years for her day in court to get behind someone in the queue who has perhaps stolen a Mars bar but elected to have a jury trial to drag the matter out. That is simply not fair, and that is simply not British justice.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?
Sarah Sackman
No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman puts his question very well, as is typical of him. I agree that the British public have confidence in jury trials, and rightly so—they are a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so, whatever the exact nature of the plans we put before this House.
However, as I have said, it is not fair to ask victims to wait years for their day in court, undermining the fairness of the trial in so doing. We have to be mindful of the confidence that British people have in the outcomes of this process, which is why we asked an independent expert to look at this matter and looked at international comparisons. In Canada, for example—a common-law jurisdiction and society not so distinct from our own—where I met judges and visited courts, they use types of judge-only trial, and do not see any difference in the quality of justice that is delivered or in the outcomes. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and it is why we are considering this matter as carefully as we are.
Domestic Abuse: Children
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing a debate on this important subject. I thank all Members who contributed to this wide-ranging and incredibly sensitive and important debate; their contributions were outstanding. I also thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for sharing her story, which takes courage, and all those who shared personal stories.
I want to make absolutely clear how seriously I take the matters that have been raised today. Every child deserves to grow up in a home filled with love and safety, yet, as we have heard, for too many children a home that is meant to be a place of sanctuary can become a place of fear. It is the Government’s mission to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. The Ministry of Justice is working with partners across Government to strengthen protections for children from domestic abuse. Many of today’s questions and interventions touch on the need for not just cross-Government working, but working across multiple agencies and interaction between central and local government. It is critical that the whole system works together in the endeavour of stamping out domestic abuse and protecting children.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West says about our laws, reflecting the experience of children and young people who have suffered domestic abuse. He is, of course, right that we must ensure that those children, who are among the most vulnerable in society, are properly served and protected by the law. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), have mentioned the importance of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; I pay tribute to the previous Government for that legislation, which already recognises the profound impact that domestic abuse can have on children.
Section 3 of that Act makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse themselves. That is vital, because it makes it easier for children to access support such as mental health services. Looking more widely, the statutory guidance recently published by the Home Office on coercive and controlling behaviour clarifies that controlling or coercive behaviour has a significant impact on children and young people in relation to parental or other family member relationships. Taken together, those measures provide a clear recognition that abuse, even when it is not directed at them, can have a severe impact on a child. That is critical in underpinning the Government’s response to these crimes.
I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), who is a tireless champion on these issues. The murder of Sara Sharif is remembered with profound sadness. Although Sara’s father and stepmother are rightly serving life sentences for their appalling crimes, it is clear that the Government’s response to that tragedy cannot stop there. The local child safeguarding practice review into the case by Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership is an important part of that process. The hon. Gentleman will understand the importance of considering the findings of that review with care and delicacy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already begun to set out the detailed steps the Government are taking to strengthen safeguarding and to keep children safe. The hon. Member for Woking will know that some of those measures are making progress in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such as obligations on local authorities to set up registers of children who are not educated in school and to consider the home environment when considering whether children should be permitted to be educated at home. I assure him and colleagues that we will continue to look at the recommendations of the review and identify ways to improve child protection in this country to mitigate the risk of such a tragic murder happening again, and I thank him for his tireless work in that regard.
Turning to the reform of the family justice system, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly brings to our attention the many vulnerable children in the family court system who have been harmed or are at risk of being harmed by domestic abuse. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who raised important points on family courts. As others have said, family judges and family courts have a very difficult job to do and for the most part do that job well—but no child should miss out on the chance of a safe and stable childhood because the system is too slow or complicated, or does not provide the right help at the right time. The Government are acting to make sure that when families struggle, the services around them respond with compassion, speed and fairness.
At the heart of our family justice strategy is putting children first. That means making sure that their voices are centred and their safety is protected, and that decisions are focused on giving them the best possible chance to grow up in a stable and supportive home. I am pleased to hear others welcome the Government’s announcement on the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement; I recognise that many Members and the people they represent have been campaigning for that for a very long time.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in paying tribute to the incredibly brave work, for some 11 years now, of Claire Throssell to vindicate the legacy of her sons Jack and Paul, who were murdered. Claire’s story is a heartbreaking reminder of what is at stake when the system fails children. Her courage and tireless campaigning demonstrate the need for the family courts to protect children from abuse. It has been an honour getting to know Claire, and I hope that this change in our law will mark a culture change in our family courts.
Of course, achieving that culture change is not just about the presumption, and it is important to recognise the centrality of the welfare checklist in the Children’s Act 1989. That looks at the wishes and feelings of the child concerned, the impact on the child of any changes in circumstances, how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs, and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.
As well as those changes in the law, we are not stopping at that announcement. As a Government, we have chosen to continue to build on the excellent results of the pathfinder model in private law children’s proceedings to improve the experiences and outcomes for all survivors of domestic abuse, including children. That work built on the findings of the harm panel report, and the feedback we have had from practitioners, and particularly from children and parents, is that they feel better heard and supported under this new approach. Alongside that, referrals to independent domestic violence advisers for a risk assessment, and better join-up between the court and local authorities and police, give the court a clearer assessment of the risk to children when they are making decisions.
Pathfinder courts are already operating across Wales, Dorset, Birmingham, West Yorkshire, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent and Worcester, and we want to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West will be delighted to hear that pathfinder courts will commence on the Isle of Wight in January 2026, and we hope that that will make a real difference.
I want to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to Jade’s law and parental responsibility. We are working with partners across the criminal and family justice system to implement Jade’s law, which would provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent has killed the other. We are currently working through the details of implementation with a wide range of family justice stakeholders. The mechanism is novel and it is important that we take the time to get it right.
Hon. Members will know that we are going further as part of the Victims and Courts Bill. That Bill includes two critical measures: first, we will restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment for serious sexual abuse against a child, and secondly, we will ensure that, where a perpetrator is sentenced for rape and that crime has led to the birth of a child, they will have their parental responsibility for that child restricted from the moment they are sentenced. I appreciate that that does not go as far as the hon. Member for Chichester urged, but these are novel pieces of law, and we need to see how they operate before going further. I feel assured that, taken together, the measures will protect thousands of children, ensuring that perpetrators who have committed some of the most serious crimes cannot continue to insert themselves into children’s lives and seek to exercise their parental responsibility from prison.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), asked about spending on domestic abuse specialist services. I echo the comments made by hon. Members about the importance of charitable and third sector services in that regard. We know the sterling work that those services do, and that they fill a gap all too often left by shortcomings in state support. I pay tribute to them, but it is not right that they work in an environment where they have to pick up so many of the pieces, so investment in specialist services and in child protection is important.
The Department for Education is rolling out the Families First partnership programme—which will be important—with an investment of £541 million in ’25-26. It will give families and children access to better local support services to enable earlier intervention, which we know is so important to enable families to stay together, where it is safe to do so. The Department for Education is also developing post-qualifying standards and social work induction to further strengthen early career support. That will help improve the quality of practice, and the retention of children and families social workers. We expect that domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, will feature prominently in the new programme. That work is coupled across Government with a £5.3 million investment by the Home Office into community-based support for children affected by domestic abuse.
I reassure hon. Members that the announced abolition of PCCs will not disrupt the provision of those community-based services. The structure may change, but the support and the investment in that support will not. In response to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, I note that the Government are committed to consulting on the establishment of a child protection authority before the end of this year.
Finally, I note the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire about the campaign by the shadow Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—which she makes on behalf of her constituent and Tony Hudgell—for a child risk register. The Government have heard that case loud and clear; while we were not able to support a specific amendment in the Commons, we are considering it with great care because we recognise that there is a gap there.
All of us, as I have heard this afternoon, share a deep commitment to safeguarding children and ensuring that they are fully protected and supported. That is why we will continue to work with partners across Government, with frontline agencies, with the courts and with third sector groups to protect children affected by the scourge of domestic abuse. I hope my remarks have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West, and all hon. Members who have made such thoughtful and sensitive contributions to the debate, that we have a legislative framework in place that recognises the impact that domestic abuse has on children, and that Departments across Government are taking action to make sure that the right support, help and protection is in place for them. We need to keep doing that, and I know that everybody here will continue to hold us to account, and to push us to go further and do better.
I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. Quite simply, all children deserve to grow up free from fear and abuse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West again for securing a debate on such an important subject.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsWednesday 19th November 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Report - (28 Apr 2025)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to open this discussion on the clauses of a focused but important Bill, designed to drive innovation, enhance legal certainty, and strengthen our standing in the global digital economy. Let me turn first to clause 1—an unassuming clause on the page, but one with important implications for the future of our legal system and our economy.
Clause 1 is the engine room of the Bill. It provides a clear and powerful statement: that a thing—including something digital or electronic—can be recognised as personal property, even if it does not fall within either of the categories that our legal system has traditionally recognised. For centuries the law has drawn a simple line: personal property was either a “thing in possession”, that being a physical object such as a car or a watch, or a “thing in action”, something that exists because the law says it does and is enforced through legal action, such as a debt or a contractual right. However, the world has changed. Technology has leapt forward, and our law must keep pace. Today we have assets such as crypto-tokens. They are not physical objects, yet their existence is not reliant on the law. They do not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories.
Our courts have begun to acknowledge that such assets can and should be the subject of property rights, but without a clear, binding legal foundation, uncertainty remains—uncertainty that could stifle innovation, deter investment, and push the digital economy elsewhere. This Government will not allow that to happen. Driving sustainable growth is a top priority for us, and that means giving businesses and investors the certainty that they need to thrive. With this single clause, we are removing doubt and sending a clear message: we are open for business in the digital age.
By removing ambiguity, clause 1 ensures that those who hold or transact in digital assets are better supported to defend their property rights, transfer them and recover them when it matters most. The Bill reinforces our position as a global jurisdiction of choice for legal innovation, emerging technology and the digital economy. We are leading from the front. To be clear, clause 1 does not attempt to draw rigid lines around what qualifies as property—that is a deliberate choice. It rightly empowers our courts to continue developing the common law, case by case, applying centuries of legal wisdom to the frontiers of a digital economy. The reference to “digital or electronic things” in the Bill simply reflects where the issues most commonly arise today, without boxing in where the law might go tomorrow. The clause paves the way for fairer outcomes in cases of theft, fraud, commercial dispute or insolvency involving digital assets. It will reduce litigation costs, promote market stability and underpin our reputation as a jurisdiction of choice in a digital world. This is a small clause with big consequences. It is a bold, forward-looking step that reaffirms our commitment to legal certainty, technological progress and global leadership.
Clause 2 sets out the title, territorial extent and commencement date. Once granted Royal Assent, the legislation will become the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. That title—Digital Assets etc—is no accident. It has been carefully chosen to capture the technologies of today, such as crypto-tokens, while keeping the door open to future innovations. This is a law built not just for now but for what may come next. The Act will extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. That will minimise legal discrepancies across jurisdictions and help to ensure that the benefits, such as legal clarity, investor confidence and streamlined dispute resolution, are more widely felt across these jurisdictions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, owing to differences in property law. However, the Scottish Government introduced their own Digital Assets Bill on 30 September, confirming that certain kinds of digital assets can be objects of property under Scots private law.
Importantly, the Act will come into force the moment it receives Royal Assent—no delays, no retrospective effect—because the legislation does not create new burdens. It confirms and clarifies the law as it has been developing under common law. As a result, there will be immediate certainty, minimal disruption, and a strong foundation for our digital economy. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Sarah Sackman
With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Third Reading
Sarah Sackman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me I start by reiterating my sincere thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their support and insightful contributions. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster), and all Members who have contributed throughout the passage of the Bill. Their engagement demonstrates strong, cross-party momentum behind modernising our personal property law.
I also pay tribute to the former Special Public Bill Committee, which gathered expert evidence and was ably led by Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Law Commission deserves particular recognition for its exemplary work, led by Laura Burgoyne and Christopher Long, and on which this Bill stands. Their engagement with stakeholders has been gold standard and demonstrated the benefits of coherent law reform—transparent, expert-led and deeply consultative. I would also like to thank the former law commissioner Professor Sarah Green for her contribution to this work and for giving evidence at Committee.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this Bill. I thank my policy officials, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear, the Bill managers, Harry McNeill-Adams and Lily Sullivan, and Helen Hall from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my private office, in particular my private secretary, Amelia Overton, and Meheret Ashenafi.
This is more than a Bill; it is a landmark step towards ensuring that the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, not only keeps pace with innovation but leads it. The Bill will give digital pioneers the certainty they need, backed by the legal strength they expect from our country. It shows that our economy is open, our ambition is global, and we are here to support innovation. By supporting the recognition of digital assets as property, the Bill helps establish legal certainty.
The Bill gives industry the confidence to innovate here, knowing that our legal system can support new models of ownership, transfer and settlement. This is how we translate legal reform into economic leadership. It is how we show that we are at the forefront of the technical revolution, and how that can be seen in the real world with the London Stock Exchange’s announcement of a new digital asset platform. This is the first major global stock exchange to implement a blockchain-based system.
This Government are backing growth, backing technology and backing Britain’s future, and as such, I commend the Bill to the House.