Legal Aid Agency Cyber-Security Incident

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

In my previous statements to the House, I have provided updates on the 2025 criminal cyber-attack against the Legal Aid Agency’s digital services and the steps that the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency have taken in response.

I have been clear throughout that this was a significant and complex incident and that our understanding of the information affected would continue to develop as detailed technical and data analysis progressed. The Government committed from the outset to being transparent with Parliament as that understanding improved.

I am therefore writing to update the House on further information identified through that work.

The cyber-attack happened because criminals were able to exploit vulnerabilities in the LAA’s IT systems and gain access to systems containing personal information. They then copied and exfiltrated some data held by the Department.

Our previous public information stated that the attackers had accessed and exfiltrated a significant amount of personal data relating to people who had applied for legal aid, or interacted with its services, between 2007 and 16 May 2025.

Specialist technical and data teams have continued detailed analysis of the information exfiltrated during the attack. That work has enabled us to develop a more complete understanding of that information, which I outline below.

It remains true that the vast majority of the exfiltrated LAA data dates between 2007 and 16 May 2025. However, we have now confirmed that a small proportion of the affected LAA records predate 2007. The majority of these pre-2007 records date from the 1990s and 2000s, with only a very small number extending further back than this. The earliest record currently verified dates from 1978.

Exfiltrated data from the relevant period varies from person to person but may include basic personal details such as names, addresses and dates of birth, as well as information relating to legal aid applications and cases, including in some instances financial or other sensitive personal information. In some cases, the information is limited to a single document or record about an individual, such as a letter sent by the LAA to an individual or their solicitor about their case, or a record of a payment made. In other cases, more complete information relating to an application or bill submitted to the LAA was affected. However, in no case was a complete record relating to a legal aid case affected.

Our analysis has also established that some information relating to HM Prison and Probation Service—specifically, limited probation data, which our analysis indicates does not include information about victims of crimes—was contained within material exfiltrated during the same cyber-attack.

It is important to emphasise that affected data subjects constitute only a fraction of those who have had interactions with the LAA or HMPPS in the relevant period. The MOJ is working at pace and will, where data allows, be able to identify whether any specific individual’s data was exfiltrated in the cyber-attack.

We are updating the public information on www.gov.uk alongside this statement, to provide more detailed information to help individuals understand the data that was exfiltrated. It is important to remember that much of the exfiltrated information was unstructured, fragmented and incomplete, meaning that in many instances the identification of specific individuals will not be straightforward for the criminals who stole it.

The nature and amount of information exfiltrated varies considerably between individuals. Being within one of the periods or groups described in our public information does not, of itself, mean that an individual’s information was exfiltrated or, in the event that it was, that the hackers exfiltrated every category of data itemised for each individual.

We have provided the Information Commissioner’s Office with an update on the exfiltrated information and continue to co-operate fully with it.

As I reported to the House in January, substantial work has taken place since the criminal cyber-attack on the LAA to restore services safely and to strengthen the resilience of its technology. The Department’s objective is not simply to recover from the attack, but to emerge stronger, more resilient and better prepared for the future. We have allocated £200 million for transformation, recovery, and moving legacy systems to a modern and safe technology platform. We are also strengthening security monitoring, technical checks and the way risks are managed, to make LAA services more secure and resilient in future.

Finally, but importantly, we have no indication that the stolen data has been published or shared.

I recognise the concern that this incident has caused, particularly given the sensitive circumstances in which many people engage with the legal aid system. We will continue to be transparent as our work progresses and will ensure that the public information available reflects our best and most accurate understanding of the incident.

[HCWS376]

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Report on the effect of the Act on prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of this Act on proceedings of cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.

(2) The matters the report must consider include—

(a) the effect of the Act on the time taken to dispose of cases;

(b) the effect of the Act on witness participation in proceedings; and

(c) the effect of the Act on the experience of victims during proceedings.

(3) The report must make recommendations to improve each of the matters set out in subsection (2).

(4) Recommendations may include—

(a) recommendations about how the Act is implemented, and

(b) recommendations about further provision necessary to improve each matter.

(5) In this section, serious sexual offences are such offences as the Crown Prosecution Service may from time to time specify.

(6) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of a report under this section,

(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of RASSO cases, and require the Lord Chancellor to respond to these recommendations.

New clause 2—Fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for specialist court capacity for cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”).

(2) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of RASSO cases.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary judicial, administrative and support resources to be made available to operate such court capacity.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of RASSO cases.

New clause 3—Extended sitting hours for Crown Court Proceedings—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, designate specific Crown Court locations or individual court rooms as extended capacity courts.

(2) Proceedings in any court designated under subsection (1) must consist of—

(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and

(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.

(3) Any court designated under subsection (1) will not have a limit on the number of cases that can be heard on the same day.”

This new clause would restructure the court sitting day to introduce a morning and afternoon session, to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on a given day.

New clause 4—Review of the Feasibility of Two Court Sittings per day—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament an independent report into the feasibility of conducting two trials per day in designated court rooms (“the Scheme”).

(2) The scheme would allow for proceedings in a Crown Court to consist of—

(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and

(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the scheme—

(a) on the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings;

(b) on the availability of judges, legal practitioners, and court staff;

(c) the potential impact on defendants, victims, and witnesses; and

(d) the cost and resource implications of the scheme.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must, within three months of the laying of the report under subsection (1), publish a response.

(5) The response must include proposals for a pilot scheme based on the findings of the report including the proposed scope and duration of any such pilot.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources, and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next steps.

New clause 5—Targets for Backlog Reduction—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, set and publish annual targets for the reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales.

(2) There must be a target for the—

(a) overall reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales, and

(b) reduction of the backlog in each HMCTS region.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against these targets.

(4) Any report under subsection (3) must include any steps taken to address the failure to meet the targets.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress.

New clause 6—Victim-led Intensive Case Management—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the implementation of Victim-Led Intensive Case Management in proceedings in the criminal courts (“The Strategy”).

(2) The strategy must outline steps to prioritise the experience of victims in relation to proceedings in the criminal courts.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings.

New clause 7—Judicial training: anti-discrimination—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to discrimination against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the identification and prevention of racial bias, including unconscious bias, and

(b) the impact of discrimination on access to justice and judicial outcomes.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and its impact on judicial decision-making.

New clause 8—Judicial training: violence against women and girls—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to violence against women and girls.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the nature and dynamics of violence against women and girls, including—

(i) domestic abuse,

(ii) sexual violence,

(iii) coercive control, and

(iv) so-called honour-based abuse;

(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls.

New clause 9—Judicial training: domestic abuse—

“(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to domestic abuse.

(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—

(a) the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse, as well as controlling or coercive behaviour;

(b) best practice in the management of cases involving domestic abuse, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.

(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse.

New clause 10—Pilot of trial allocation reforms—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 7 of this Act into force unless—

(a) he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3),

(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) A pilot scheme may—

(a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act,

(b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period does not exceed 24 months beginning with the day on which this section is brought into force,

(c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify,

(d) apply to proceedings in the criminal courts as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.

(3) Before the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must—

(a) commission an independent review of the pilot scheme, and

(b) lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).”

This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact.

New clause 11—Access to free court transcripts for victims—

“(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—

(a) judicial summings-up, and

(b) bail decisions and conditions,

which are relevant to their case.

(2) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

New clause 12—Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system.

(2) A report under this section must—

(a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on—

(i) witness participation;

(ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system; and

(iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system,

(b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii).

(3) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of a report under this section,

(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system.

New clause 13—Duty to provide trauma-informed training—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training is made mandatory for members of all court staff working in the criminal courts on best practice in relation to victims' trauma.

(2) Training under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the nature, prevalence, and impact of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”);

(b) the dynamics and psychological effects of trauma on parties and witnesses involved in proceedings;

(c) the identification and appropriate handling of cases involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and RASSO offences;

(d) the ways in which trauma may affect memory, communication, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings;

(e) best practices for reducing retraumatisation within court and tribunals settings.

(3) Training provided under this section must—

(a) take place on initial appointment to a role within a court, and at regular intervals thereafter;

(b) reflect current best practice and be informed by up-to-date research and guidance; and

(c) be developed in consultation with appropriate experts, including specialist support organisations and persons with lived experience of abuse and trauma.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must keep the training under review and revise it as appropriate.

(5) The Lord Chancellor must publish guidance on the implementation of this section.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that members of the court staff working in the criminal courts receive mandatory, consistent training on trauma-informed practice to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ evidence, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings.

New clause 14—Review of Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 24 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider the impact on the efficiency of the criminal justice system of—

(a) the provisions of this Act;

(b) the wider criminal justice system;

(c) the standard of delivery by court contract providers, including PECS contractors;

(d) the condition of the courts estate; and

(e) the use of technology.

(3) In considering “efficiency”, the review must consider the impact on—

(a) delays,

(b) backlogs, and

(c) the experience of victims and witnesses.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before Parliament.

(5) The report under subsection (4) must include recommendations for further legislative or administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Act has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including impacts on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses.

New clause 15—Expiry of sections 1 to 7 in specified circumstances—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the provisions contained in sections 1 to 7 of this Act.

(2) A report under this section must be laid—

(a) within 24 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, or

(b) within 24 months of the latest date on which any of sections 1 to 7 is commenced,

whichever is the later.

(3) The report must describe—

(a) any time saved in court as a result of the measures included in those sections;

(b) any change in the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court since this Act was passed;

(c) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court at the time at which the report is prepared; and

(d) any other effect of the provisions of sections 1 to 7 on the criminal justice system.

(4) The report must provide a conclusion by the Lord Chancellor on whether the reforms have been effective in reducing the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court.

(5) Where the report concludes that the provisions have not been effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations providing for the immediate repeal of sections 1 to 7.

(6) Where the report concludes that the provisions are effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations making provision for repeal of sections 1 to 7 subject to the condition in subsection (8).

(7) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor reduced to a sufficient extent.

(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause introduces a sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the provisions. If the report finds that the measures are not effective, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to repeal them. If the report finds that the measures are effective, the Secretary of State must set a deadline for their repeal and a return to fully jury trials.

New clause 16—Remote Court Participation: Strategy—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (“the strategy”).

(2) The strategy must include—

(a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings;

(b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload;

(c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings;

(d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and

(e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings.

(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy.

(4) The progress report must consider—

(a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented;

(b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and

(c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “remote proceedings” means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system.

New clause 17—Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint such number of inspectors of criminal court administration as he considers appropriate.

(2) Inspectors under this section are collectively known as “His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration” (“the Inspectorate”).

(3) The Lord Chancellor must appoint one of the persons so appointed to be His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Criminal Court Administration.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may make to or in respect of inspectors of court administration such payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise as he may determine.

(5) It is the duty of the Inspectorate to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on—

(a) the administration and operation of the system that supports the carrying on of the business of—

(i) the Crown Court, and

(ii) the magistrates’ courts;

(b) the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts and their services, having particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims.

(6) Any report under subsection (5) must make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in respect of subsection (5).

(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) any report under this section within one month of receiving it; and

(b) his response to the recommendations of a report within six months beginning on the day on which the report in question is laid.

(8) A response under subsection (7)(b) must describe—

(a) any action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take, and

(b) where the Lord Chancellor does not propose to take any action, a reason why he proposes not to take action.

(9) The Lord Chancellor may not issue any direction to the Inspectorate in relation to its duty under subsection (5).

(10) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make further provision about the Inspectorate.”

This new clause establishes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration as an independent statutory body responsible for inspecting and reporting on the administration of criminal courts, with a particular regard to the experience of victims and witnesses.

New clause 19—Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports—

“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act may not come into force unless a draft of regulations providing for their commencement has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may not lay a draft of regulations under subsection (1) unless they have first laid before Parliament a report, produced by an independent reviewer, based on published Crown Court data, establishing that—

(a) delays attributable to trial by jury are a primary cause of delays to cases being heard in the Crown Court; and

(b) all possible alternative measures that could reasonably be implemented in criminal courts in England and Wales have been so implemented and found by the independent reviewer not to have reduced the Crown Court backlog.

(3) Alternative measures under subsection (2)(b) may include—

(a) increased funding for sitting days,

(b) holding two trials per day in specified court rooms, and

(c) developing and implementing specialist courts to hear cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse.

(4) The Lord Chancellor must appoint the independent reviewer to produce reports under this section.

(5) A person may not be appointed as the independent reviewer if they are a Minister of the Crown, a civil servant in the Ministry of Justice, or an officer of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

(6) A report under subsection (2) must be published without redaction, alongside its supporting data, at least three months before a draft of regulations is laid under subsection (1).

(7) Sections 1 to 7 expire 12 months after coming into force unless a further report under subsection (2) is laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to the end of that period.”

This new clause requires an independent report demonstrating that jury trials are a primary cause of Crown Court delays and that alternative remedies have failed before sections 1 to 7 can take effect by affirmative resolution of both Houses.

New clause 20—Court service providers: performance—

“(1) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must make provision for the collection of data where a Crown Court has reported that a trial has been—

(a) adjourned,

(b) vacated, or

(c) delayed by more than 30 mins

due to the failure of a court service provider.

(2) Court service providers under subsection (1) include—

(a) prisoner escort and custody services;

(b) language and interpretation services; and

(c) video-link and information technology services,

and any other private company that provides a service to a court.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report (a “court contract performance report”) setting out—

(a) the number of trials or hearings delayed due to failures by private service providers; and

(b) an assessment of the impact of such delays on the backlog of cases in the Crown Court.”

This new clause would require all new contracts for court-related services to include a performance-related penalty clause for cases where a failure related to those services impacts the completion of proceedings.

New clause 21—Impact of sections 1 to 6 on domestic abuse victims—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the experiences and treatment, within the courts, of victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

(2) The impact assessment published under this section must include an assessment of levels of uptake of relevant training among trial judges on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and survivors.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill’s provisions on jury trials on victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

New clause 22—Immunity from suit: conduct of police officers in preparation for criminal court proceedings—

“(1) Except while acting as witnesses, no immunity from suit applies to acts or omissions by police officers where these occur in preparation for criminal court proceedings. This includes—

(a) the fabrication, concealment, improper alteration or destruction of evidence;

(b) conduct connected to criminal court proceedings involving dishonesty, bad faith, or negligence;

(c) the reckless or deliberate disclosure, in preparation for criminal court proceedings, of confidential information relating to victims, witnesses, or vulnerable persons; and

(d) breaches of duties owed under the Human Rights Act 1998.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulation make further provision under this section.

(3) Regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would restrict immunity from civil suit for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings.

New clause 24—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions—

“(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by a child to spend time with a party against whom the child, or a party representing the child, has made allegations of domestic abuse constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse.

(2) The presumption in subsection (1) may be rebutted only where the accused party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.”

This new clause provides that, in family court, where a child refuses or is reluctant to spend time with one party as a result of an allegation against that party of domestic abuse against the child, the court must presume the reluctance or refusal is reasonable.

New clause 25—Expiry of sections 1 to 7—

“(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act expire three months after the date on which the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has been below pre-pandemic level in each of the previous four quarterly reporting periods.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is that which is calculated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.”

This new clause sunsets sections 1 to 7 of this Act so that they will no longer be in force once the court backlog has been resolved.

New clause 26—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: application to the magistrates’ courts—

“(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “Crown Court” insert “, or the magistrates’ court where the sentence is in respect of an either way offence,”.”

This new clause would ensure that those affected by any case that was triable either-way before this Act was passed shall still be subject to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

New clause 27—Review of jury composition—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the methods used to determine the composition of juries.

(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of whether there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent verdicts being returned which are influenced by jurors’—

(a) political views,

(b) religious beliefs, or

(c) other demographic characteristics,

in a way that conflicts with the interests of justice.

(3) If a review under this section determines that there are not sufficient safeguards in place, the Secretary of State must publish proposals aimed at introducing sufficient safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of jury composition, with a view to avoiding juries returning verdicts influenced by their politics, religion or other demographic characteristics.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 47, clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert

“except where subsection (10) applies.

(10) Where—

(a) an offence is triable either way;

(b) the court considers that, if convicted, the accused would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but not more than three years;

(c) the accused is of good character; and

(d) the accused has not previously been convicted of an offence,

the accused may elect to be tried on indictment.”

This amendment preserves the right of a defendant of good character with no previous convictions to elect Crown Court trial where the likely sentence is more than 12 months but not more than three years.

Amendment 2, page 4, line 16, leave out clause 2.

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 21, clause 3, page 5, leave out line 27 and insert—

“(4) The trial is to be conducted without a jury in any other case only if—

(a) the prosecution has made a written application to the court requesting that the trial be conducted without a jury, and

(b) the defendant has given explicit written consent to be tried without a jury.

(4A) Where the prosecution does not make an application under subsection (4)(a), or the defendant does not give consent under subsection (4)(b), the trial is to be conducted with a jury.”

This amendment states that a case can only be tried without a jury following an application from the prosecution and where the defendant gives written consent.

Amendment 17, clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”

This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.

Amendment 16, clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”.

This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone.

Amendment 51, clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.

(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.

Amendment 10, clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.

Amendment 4, page 10, line 5, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 52, clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”.

This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA.

Amendment 53, clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

“(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury.

Amendment 54, clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out from “is” to end of line 2, and insert

“a right of appeal against a decision to make an order under this section on the grounds of natural justice

(5A) where an appeal is made under subsection (5), it must not be heard by the judge who made the original determination.”

This amendment would add a right for defendants to appeal against the decision for a judge-only trial for lengthy and complex cases.

Government amendment 24.

Amendment 57, clause 4, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (5)(a).

This amendment would prevent the court unilaterally overriding a reason to issue a revocation order so that a case allocated for judge-only trial under this section could be tried by jury.

Amendment 55, clause 4, page 13, line 11, at end insert—

“(g) the interests of natural justice for the defendant.”

This amendment would ensure that the interests of natural justice for the defendant are relevant to the decision to revoke an order for a judge-only trial for the offences listed in Schedule 1.

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 56, clause 4, page 13, line 30, leave out “trial beginning on or” and insert

“cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”.

This amendment prevents the provisions in section 4 coming into effect retrospectively.

Amendment 6, page 14, line 7, leave out clause 5.

Government amendments 26 and 27.

Amendment 59, clause 5, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) The judgment must be given at the time of conviction, except where an adjournment is necessary for preparing—

(a) pre-sentence reports,

(b) psychiatric or medical reports,

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice relating to sentencing.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Amendment 60, clause 5, page 15, line 8, at end insert—

“(5B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—

(a) pre-sentence reports

(b) psychiatric or medical reports

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice about sentence.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Amendment 61, clause 5, page 15, line 16, at end insert—

“(4B) It is only permissible not to give judgment at the time of conviction if adjournment is necessary for—

(a) pre-sentence reports,

(b) psychiatric or medical reports,

(c) victim personal statements, or

(d) further legal advice about sentence.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

Government amendment 28.

Amendment 7, page 15, line 23, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 11, clause 6, page 15, leave out lines 36 and 37.

This amendment provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months.

Amendment 62, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) In paragraph 14A(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative””.

This amendment ensures regulations to extend magistrates’ courts sentencing powers must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 19, clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

“(1B) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment would make changing the general limit on custodial sentence for an either-way offence in magistrates’ courts changeable by affirmative resolution only.

Amendment 18, clause 6, page 17, line 18, at end insert—

“(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert—

“15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court

(1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where—

(a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and

(b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction.

(2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.””

This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in.

Amendment 8, page 17, line 20, leave out clause 7.

Government amendments 29 to 32.

Amendment 67, page 30, line 4, leave out clause 17.

This amendment would keep the rebuttable presumption of parental involvement being beneficial for the welfare of the child.

Amendment 12, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must include—

(a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective—

(i) advice, and

(ii) representation,

particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised;

(b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including—

(i) the number of judges,

(ii) court staff, and

(iii) available hearing time,

to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J;

(c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including—

(i) training relating to coercive control,

(ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and

(iii) child safeguarding,

(d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure—

(i) the repeal operates effectively, and

(ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.”

This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.

Amendment 22, clause 17, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament on post-separation abuse in the context of decisions of courts under Children Act 1989.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must set out how post separation abuse is identified and understood in proceedings to which this clause relates.”

Government amendments 33 to 36.

Amendment 20, clause 26, page 35, leave out lines 29 and 30.

This amendment is consequential on new clause (Commencement of Part 1: Independent Reports).

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 13, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).

(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until he has published a response to the recommendation of Part II of Independent Review of the Criminal Courts—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment would make the publication of the Government response to Part II of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts a precondition of Clause 1 to 7 of this Bill coming into force.

Amendment 14, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).

(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance with section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment is consequential on NC10.

Amendment 48, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.

(3B) The conditions are that—

(a) the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act,

(b) HM Courts and Tribunals Service has made an assessment that the Crown Court has, so far as possible, used the allocation of sitting days provided under subsection (3B)(a), and

(c) the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided under subsection (3B)(a) has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared to the start of the financial year.”

This amendment prevents the provisions in sections 1 to 7 from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for 130,000 sittings days in the Crown Court; HMCTS has assessed that the Crown Court has used its allocation of sitting days; and the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House that this has not reduced the backlog.

Amendment 49, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has—

(a) undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and

(b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation.

(3B) The consultation under subsection (3A) must consider—

(a) potential rates of fees and renumeration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours, and

(b) the availability of HM Courts and Tribunal Service staff.”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act did not come into force until the Lord Chancellor had reviewed how to increase sitting hours in the Crown Court.

Amendment 50, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.”

This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates’ court decisions until the Lord Chancellor has undertaken an assessment of how many of those appeals are successful.

Amendment 68, clause 26, page 35, line 33, at end insert

“subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)”—

“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the sections set out under subsection (3B) until he has taken reasonable steps to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to—

(a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and

(b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.

(3B) The sections referenced in subsection (3A) are—

(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);

(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);

(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);

(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);

(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);

(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);

(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act could not be commenced until the Lord Chancellor has used alternative means to increase Crown Court sitting capacity.

Amendment 5, page 36, line 2, leave out schedule 1.

Amendment 58, schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out paragraph 20.

This amendment prevents the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations.

Amendment 9, page 38, line 9, leave out schedule 2.

Amendment 46, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Nothing in this section applies to an appeal which may be brought as of right under section 108(2D).””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 45.

Amendment 45, schedule 2, page 38, line 22, at end insert—

“(2C) Subsection (2B) does not apply where—

(a) the appellant was convicted by a magistrates’ court;

(b) the appellant has not previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention for an offence; and

(c) having regard to the applicable sentencing guidelines, the offence or offences for which the appellant was convicted are offences for which the sentence imposed, or likely to be imposed, does not exceed 12 months’ imprisonment or detention.

(2D) Where subsection (2C) applies—

(a) an appeal under this section may be brought, and

(b) and no permission to appeal is required.

(2E) An appeal under subsection (2D) may be brought against—

(a) conviction;

(b) sentence; or

(c) both conviction and sentence.

(2F) For the purposes of subsection (2C)(b), a sentence which is suspended, but which is a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of the applicable sentencing legislation, shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment.

(2G) Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2D) and (2E), the appeal shall be treated as an appeal brought as of right and the provisions of this Part relating to permission to appeal shall not apply.”

This amendment preserves the existing automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court for defendants of good character with no previous convictions where the applicable sentencing guidelines indicate that the offence is likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or less.

Amendment 63, schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert

“the defendant has made one”.

This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one.

Amendment 64, schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert

“jury in the Crown Court”.

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.

Amendment 65, schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert

“jury in the Crown Court”.

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court.

Amendment 66, schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert

“must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.”

This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made.

Amendment 15, schedule 2, page 52, line 7, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert

“to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”.

This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

Government amendments 38 to 44.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied.

Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation.

The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place.

This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral.

Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that.

Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years.

In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes.

Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, including court repairs. We wish to see those repairs make progress at Taunton Crown court. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain that the court, which has been closed since 2023, will be closed for longer. Will she contact me to give us an update on when Taunton Crown court will finally be reopened?

[Sarah Sackman]

I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now.

We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs.

We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard.

Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers.

The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims.

Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system.

I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland.

This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not accept the premise of that question. I do not accept that we have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial caseload. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the magistrates court hear more than 1.5 million cases a year, and it is coping well. What I do acknowledge is that we need to increase their capacity, which is why we are increasing the number of sitting days. In 2025 there were 114,000 sitting days, and we will increase that to 130,000 by 2028-29.

The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous Government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, and the investment that we are putting into recruitment—quadrupling the budget—are already reaping the rewards, and we are on course to meet the 21,000 target. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) is right to say that we need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so.

We are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It is vital that there is a right of appeal, but it is also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds for appeal. By introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, we will avoid a situation in which victims are needlessly put through unnecessary re-hearings where the appeal totally lacks merit. As I said, these reforms must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. That is why we are investing in our courts and in the people who make justice possible, and we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29. We are also strengthening judicial capacity by boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers, who need to see better pay and career progression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration of interests: I am a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about the Bill as drafted, and I am very grateful to the Government for changing their position on clause 3. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably is not critical, but there are two things that are.

First, I support amendment 70 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the importance of the extension of legal aid in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying: the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. As solicitors, we do not attempt to represent ourselves, even in our areas of interest—I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with sentencing powers of now up to two years with no legal advice and representation. When the Justice Committee asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown court backlog, the answer from the MOJ was that no evaluation had been done. I feel strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay.

The second matter I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme only apply in the Crown court. When we double the magistrates courts’ potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentence scheme overnight. Fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and many first-time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years. They will be heard in the magistrates court, and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.

[Sarah Sackman]

We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose.

I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear:

“to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike.

It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform.

I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious.

It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them.

The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant.

The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded.

I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability.

I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do.

To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 General Committees

That the Committee has considered the draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2026.—(Gen Kitchen.)

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft remedial order implements the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SW v. the United Kingdom. The order amends section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that amending section 9(3) in this way is the appropriate approach that ensures we meet our international obligations while respecting the principle of judicial immunity.

The background to SW v. the United Kingdom is as follows: the particulars in the case are that the applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of SW without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant’s assignment within the local authority was subsequently terminated.

In November 2016 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances. In 2021 the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention, which is the right to an effective remedy when read together with article 8. This is because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which has now been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar violations will not arise again in future.

The Human Rights Act contains powers in section 10 and schedule 2 to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 17 July 2025, the Government laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Government consider that this represents an appropriate measure to implement the findings of a breach of article 13 on the facts of this case. In November 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order. We are grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order and address the specific breach of article 13 that the Court identified in SW.

The Joint Committee was of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13 where judicial acts infringe on convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principled exceptions to section 9(3) or considering removing the provision entirely alongside a number of other recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise the Joint Committee’s recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully the Government decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response.

The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further as it has already been five years since the judgment became final. We have taken care to ensure that the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the Court in SW while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. While the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation of section 9(3) separately to the implementation of this judgment in consultation with the judiciary, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I want to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order. We welcome the Joint Committee’s recommendation that both Houses approve the order.

Hon. Members will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity, and I just want to say a few words about that. Judicial immunity is a long-established common-law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. It protects judges from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of this remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans.

Given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this order will apply UK-wide. Officials have been in contact with the devolved Governments during the process of drafting the order.

The draft order will ensure that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirement to procedural fairness under that article.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

How regrettable that the Opposition could not waste an opportunity to engage in the point scoring rather than problem solving that is their ordre du jour. How sad, too, that their memories are so short—David Maxwell Fyfe, the distinguished Conservative jurist, was one of the architects of the European convention, which was such an important part of the post-war settlement and is now a vital pillar of documents such as the Good Friday agreement, which is so important to peace within these isles. It is so sad to see the Opposition seek to ally this country with the likes of Belarus, which is not a democracy in which I would care to live.

[Sarah Bool]

I invite the Minister to acknowledge that the interpretation the ECHR has expanded far beyond what was intended when it was first created in that post-war period.

[Sarah Sackman]

The ECHR contains some pretty basic principles: the right to privacy and the right to fair proceedings and a fair hearing. The Human Rights Act, one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government, brought rights home so that British people could enforce those universal inalienable rights in our domestic courts. How far the Conservative party has drifted. Here we are, seeking to make a forensic but much-needed remedial order, yet instead we hear bombast about ripping up the ECHR, together with the Good Friday agreement, to end up much like Belarus, one of the few countries outside the ECHR.

Anyway, here we are. Those are the political dividing lines and I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Contingencies Fund Advance

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I hereby give notice of the Ministry of Justice’s intention to seek a further advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £1,850,000.

This is the second occasion on which the Ministry of Justice has sought a Contingencies Fund advance for this work. An initial advance of £1,700,000 was announced in a written ministerial statement on 28 April 2026. The further advance would bring the total pre-Royal Assent funding for the interim inquests digital solutions to £3,550,000.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is currently progressing through Parliament and is not now expected to receive Royal Assent before November 2026. The further advance is required to maintain delivery ahead of Royal Assent.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £1,850,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,850,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS344]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of establishing a royal commission on the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

We inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with challenges in prisons and criminal courts at risk of collapse. That is why as an early priority, we launched two wide-ranging reviews—one led by David Gauke, the other led by Sir Brian Leveson—to tackle that crisis holistically. This is a system-wide challenge and requires urgent action from across the whole criminal justice system.

[Brian Leishman]

Just a fortnight ago, the Justice Secretary said that

“we have to build a new criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 86.]

After the damage done by a decade and a half of austerity, I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody knows how far our justice system has fallen better than the hard-working frontline workers who are desperately trying to hold it all together, and who have watched and warned about this dangerous situation coming down the track for years. Will the Department listen to the leaders of the six national justice trade unions, who are calling for a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whether they are powering our prisons, our Probation Service or our Courts Service, our workforce are the backbone of delivering for citizens in this country. My colleagues and I routinely engage with our trade unions, who are vital stakeholders in this matter, but we are not waiting for a royal commission. The state of our justice system requires action now, which is why the Government are making record investment in sitting days in courts, in building new prisons, and in the workforce itself.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I speak as the chair of the new justice unions all-party parliamentary group, which hears from six trade unions representing workers across prisons, probation, policing and the courts. Our first action last week was to write to the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary to highlight a joint statement by six justice trade unions calling for a royal commission. Workers on the frontline see that the current piecemeal approach of narrow, stand-alone reviews can at best only tackle individual symptoms, while the disease and its causes remain untreated. Surely the Minister agrees that end-to-end reform is now essential, and that a royal commission is key to enabling this.

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Member has just heard me say, what we need is action and investment in our workforce now. That is about fair pay; it is also about ensuring that our workforce, whether in prisons or in courts, have the tools to do the job that they were trained to do and want to do properly. That is why we are empowering them with digital tools, and it is why we provided the sitting days to hear the cases that need to be processed through our courts. We do not need a royal commission to tell us what is needed—what we need is action right now.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

3. What progress his Department has made on replacing the water main serving the Onley Park estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

In Croydon, as elsewhere, we are taking a three-pronged approach to reducing the Crown court waiting list. That involves increasing Crown court capacity, removing the financial constraint on sitting days, driving efficiency in our courts through schemes such as every Crown court having a case co-ordinator, and of course the structural reforms we will bring forward in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

[Luke Taylor]

I visited Croydon Crown court recently and saw at first hand the impact that the delays are having on victims. Backlogs across London have increased by 122% over the last decade, which is having a particular impact on domestic abuse and sexual offence victims. Given that, will the Minister consider listening to Liberal Democrat calls to abandon plans to restrict trial by jury and instead create specialist sexual offence and domestic abuse courts so that those sensitive cases can be dealt with as quickly as possible?

[Sarah Sackman]

I speak as a fellow London MP and agree that the waiting lists in our London courts are appalling, because behind each and every one of those cases in the backlog there are victims, witnesses and defendants whose lives are entirely put on hold. That is why we have got to run hard at the problem, but getting the backlog down will involve a multifaceted approach. That is why the efficiencies we are making at courts, unlimited sitting days and the blitz courts initiatives we are piloting in London courts are so crucial. As I said, as somebody with a vested interest in seeing London waiting lists come down, I will be glad to work with the hon. Member to see what we can do on that.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

17. What steps he has taken to ensure the equitable regional distribution of residential properties used by the Probation Service during the early release scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

T3. I recently met a high street law firm that has offices in Whitby, Scarborough and Filey. As a small company, it worries that the Government’s proposals to take a proportion of the interest earned on client accounts could lead it to shed jobs and, potentially, premises. Will the Minister outline what assessment she has made of the impact of these proposals on the viability of high street solicitors?

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

We recognise the vital role that high street law firms play in serving communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, and I greatly valued the meeting that we had, in which my hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to the consultation that is currently being undertaken, in which we are engaging extensively with stakeholders to ensure that the potential impacts of the proposals—which are targeted, by the way, at access to justice—and all views are carefully considered.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

T4. Prison officers do an increasingly tough job that most of us would not want to do or could not do, and the least they should be able to expect is to have their pensions and lump sums paid on time, yet thanks to the incompetence of MyCSP, Equiniti and now Capita, that is not happening. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

T5. I visited Newcastle Crown court before the summer recess, where I learned that the backlog of cases had reached an unprecedented high. As we have heard, measures such as the blitz courts in Teesside, which were mentioned earlier, and specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts can help with this backlog. Will the Minister ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police take ownership of the backlog with realistic reviews, and will she outline what measures she is taking to reduce the backlog in Newcastle?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that cross-criminal justice system working between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary and our Courts Service is vital. I know that steps have been taken in Newcastle. Some agility has been shown on courtroom capacity and case progression, which is starting to bear results, and I encourage more of that right across our Crown court system.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T8. Citizens Advice offices in Bridport and Dorchester are reporting huge demand for their services as a result of cuts to legal aid, especially in housing, welfare and immigration law. What steps is the Minister taking to restore sustainable legal aid provision and ensure that rural advice services are properly funded?

[Sarah Sackman]

Early legal advice is absolutely essential to access to justice, and that is why one of the first actions we took when I became the Minister responsible for legal aid was to give legal aid lawyers delivering immigration and housing advice the first pay lift they had received since 1996—an injection of £20 million. That was precisely because of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

T6. Vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime deserve full and proactive support from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Yet one of my constituents struggled to get clarity about what protections would be put in place should they give evidence in court, and also whether their victim personal statement was even properly considered during the sentencing stage of the trial. Will the Minister outline what is being done to better support victims, particularly vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they get proper advocacy in the court system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

A few weeks ago, I visited Margaret Green Animal Rescue in Wareham, where I was told that the rescue takes in animals when pet owners are prosecuted for animal welfare offences, but that those animals cannot be rehomed during the delay before prosecution. We should be dealing with the court backlog for many reasons, but for the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister look at how we can ensure those animals are rehomed and not delayed in these facilities?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right: a backlog is a backlog, irrespective of the offence. The victims in all these cases might be of a different nature— they might be animals, or they might be humans—but local authorities have a responsibility in this, and if she wishes to write to me, I look forward to giving her a full answer about what the Ministry of Justice is doing on this.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Last week Appeal launched a campaign calling for Trew’s law, which would review the cases of all imprisoned police officers, following the actions of a corrupt and racist British Transport police officer, Derek Ridgewell. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the campaigners to discuss this law?

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Let me start by echoing the thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing time for this important debate. I thank everybody across the House who has contributed so thoughtfully to it. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and ensuring that time has been given for considering this vital subject. It is perhaps all too rare that cross-party consensus breaks out on such an issue, as it clearly has done at this slightly ungodly hour, but it is all the better for it.

Let us be clear: SLAPPs are an abuse of power and the legal system, designed to shut down scrutiny, not to seek justice. As we have heard, they are brought to harass, intimidate and wear down opponents through financial pressure and psychological strain. They are often brought by wealthy individuals or corporations to silence journalists, authors, publishers and academics, and, as we heard particularly powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), to silence ordinary individuals and to seek to exploit the power imbalance that exists in our society.

In this David and Goliath situation, it is not just individuals who lose out. This issue is corrosive to the principle in our society that respects the rule of law and says that everyone should be equal before the law. This is a media freedom issue, but it is not just that; it is about access to justice. When SLAPPs predominate, we all lose out. As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), they pose a threat to our democracy, because the purpose of SLAPPs is intimidation—to silence critics through fear and to deter public interest reporting through the threat of costly litigation.

As the Minister for Courts, I want to underline that the courts should always be a forum for justice, not a weapon of intimidation. The Government’s position is clear: freedom of expression and investigative journalism must never be undermined by abusive litigation. The calls that we have heard tonight from across the House for universal anti-SLAPP legislation are calls that the Government welcome. As others have pointed out, we have begun to take the stepping stones towards that universal framework.

I pay tribute to the previous Government, who put on the statute book the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which this Government began to implement. It was designed to stop wealthy elites from effectively silencing critics, journalists and activists, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, that definition of SLAPPs—defined in statute for the first time to help courts to identify abusive claims—was confined narrowly to economic crime. As we have heard, SLAPPs are used in a far wider context. While it is a vital stepping stone, it is just that. As we have heard tonight, there is agreement that we need to go wider, because many alleged SLAPPs fall outside the current framework, including cases involving sexual abuse allegations, medical negligence concerns, academic research and consumer reviews. Such things are in the public interest, so we need a wider definition of SLAPPs that goes beyond economic crime and adopts an objective test of what is reasonable behaviour in the conduct of litigation. We recognise as a Government that the test needs to be simplified, so that we can deploy that early dismissal mechanism—that cost protection in the 2023 Act framework—in a more refined and effective way. I and the Government find an objective test attractive. A better definition of harassment, alarm or distress is needed, and we will look to work on that with those who bring forward the private Members’ Bills.

Other Members have spoken about the need not just for legislative action, but for a culture change in the legal profession and among our independent regulators. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of solicitors and legal professionals in this country and in this jurisdiction act with honesty, professionalism and a deep commitment to the rule of law. There is a reason why England and Wales is rightly regarded as world-leading when it comes to legal services and as a legal jurisdiction. Lawyers play a vital role in upholding justice and protecting rights, but that should not detract from the high standards that need to be demonstrated right across the profession, because maintaining public confidence requires recognising not just the profession’s strengths, but those cases where legal processes are being misused and abused by legal professionals. That is why I welcome the calls for further action and robustness from our independent regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

We need to look again at the SRA’s enforcement powers and whether it has the tools it needs to charge fines and place disciplinary sanctions on those lawyers who let down the reputation of the profession. That culture change is important, and it needs to be a cross-government initiative. Legislation is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not applied properly. That is why the initiative led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, working with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists—it brings together Government, the media, the legal profession and civil society—to track the use of SLAPPs and how journalists are being targeted is so important.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) asked what work we are doing with the legal profession. I can assure her that I meet regularly with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that this matter is frequently a topic of discussion. She asked, rightly, about the Government’s position on the forthcoming private Member’s Bill from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale). As he acknowledged, he and I are in constant contact. We are working together, because there is much common ground. We see that there can be a good way forward that gets the results that we need on the statute book, and that strikes a coherent balance between the right to access the courts—that must be maintained, so that people can protect their reputation and their right to privacy—and freedom of expression for journalists and individuals, which many have spoken about tonight. Our conversations have been constructive. We are working closely with one another, as well as with Baroness Stowell in the other place. I am confident that we can get a carefully balanced and proportionate approach that the Government can support, and I look forward to continuing that work with him.

To conclude, our focus is on tackling all SLAPPs. This abusive litigation is used to intimidate and silence public participation. It is necessary to tackle it for the integrity of our legal system, to protect freedom of expression and to protect democracy itself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley once again for his championing of this critical issue. I thank not just those in the Chamber, but all those ordinary individuals and brave investigative journalists who determinedly campaign against the abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech, for bringing these matters to the nation’s attention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Alex Sobel to wind up the debate, briefly.

Court Transparency Measures

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Open justice relies on court proceedings being transparent and accessible. This Government are committed to ensuring that appropriate court and tribunal information is available to the public, legal professionals, journalists, and researchers in a way that is both meaningful and secure. I am today updating the House on two actions towards that commitment: the expansion of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s court and tribunal hearings service to include criminal court hearing lists, and the launch of a new data-sharing licence for organisations that successfully apply to analyse court data at scale.

On 10 February 2026, I updated Parliament on our intention to establish court and tribunal data-sharing arrangements, which would support the publication of hearing information while maintaining essential data protection safeguards. I am pleased today to report on the delivery of that commitment.

Court and tribunal hearings service expansion

CaTH is a secure online portal on gov.uk that publishes court hearing lists in an accessible format.

It makes court listing information freely and publicly accessible in one place, replacing fragmented and inconsistent local arrangements in local courts.

CaTH already published hearing lists for the civil and family courts, excluding the Court of Protection; for the first-tier and upper tribunals, excluding employment tribunals; for the Royal Courts of Justice and for single justice procedure cases. Since 1 April 2026, Crown court and magistrates court hearing lists have been added, meaning that all criminal court hearing lists are now available too.

The public can view all these court and tribunal hearing lists free of charge without registering. Authenticated users—such as journalists and legal professionals who are entitled to additional information—can access and receive notifications of enhanced court hearing lists, which include greater detail about cases, also free of charge. During a transitional phase, manual emails from local magistrates courts will continue.

Third-party courts and tribunals data licence

Supported by the recent CaTH service expansion, HMCTS has today launched a new non-exclusive third-party courts and tribunals data licence.

This enables organisations that successfully apply to conduct approved computational analysis of court and tribunal data, including court hearing lists, at scale. While it will be for successful applicants to determine, they might use the data to help journalists track cases and identify hearings of interest, or enable researchers and charities to analyse trends across the courts and tribunals system. This supports innovation, research, and wider public understanding of the justice system, in keeping with the principle of open justice.

Any organisation with a legitimate case for its use may apply for a licence, and multiple licences may be granted, enabling broad access to court and tribunal data while ensuring appropriate oversight.

The data-sharing licence includes robust safeguards. Applicants must satisfy a panel chaired by a member of the judiciary, that their proposed use is lawful and consistent with open justice principles, judicial independence, data protection rules, anti-bias, and computer-generated transparency. They must meet security standards, and access to restricted data is limited to those with an existing entitlement. The licence requires that information must not appear on search engines—and strictly prohibits sharing data into public large language models.

The panel will assess each application, including requested data retention periods that seek to maximise the benefits of open justice while balancing privacy, commercial value and data protection requirements, and the needs of specific user groups including researchers, academics, journalists, legal professionals, or charities.

The licence is launching free of charge, realising immediate benefits for open justice and transparency. The application form and guidance are now available on gov.uk, and I encourage interested organisations to apply.

[HCWS256]

Legal Services Board: Public Bodies Review

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I am announcing today the conclusion of the review of the Legal Services Board as a public body, led by independent lead reviewer Richard Lloyd. The summary and findings can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-legal-services-board-independent-public-bodies-review

It is important that Departments regularly review their public bodies to provide assurance to both Government and the public that these bodies are operating effectively, that their functions remain useful and necessary, and that there is clear accountability without unnecessary duplication. In the context of legal services regulation, effective and proportionate oversight plays an important role in supporting high professional standards across the legal sector and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. This review considered the LSB’s statutory remit, strategic clarity, governance and accountability arrangements, and organisational capability. The review’s focus was on the operation of the LSB as a public body within the existing statutory framework established by the Legal Services Act 2007, rather than on wider legislative reform. That is a subject for another day.

The conclusions of the report are stark. The LSB has, in some respects, lost its way and must take steps to refocus on consumer protection and strategic oversight. Richard Lloyd’s report recognises that there have been a series of regulatory failures across the system which have resulted in significant consumer detriment and are not acceptable. It concludes that decisive action is needed to address these shortcomings and identifies an opportunity to strengthen and support the legal services sector through a more collaborative and effective approach to regulation, supporting both public confidence and the sector’s long-term success. The report identifies this as a critical moment for a reset, driving improvement and renewed focus across the system. It sets out an action-focused programme of recommendations aimed at strengthening oversight of the sector, improving clarity of priorities and accountability, and supporting a more effective, proportionate, outcomes-focused and risk-based approach to oversight and assurance, while maintaining the LSB’s operational independence.

We recognise in the report’s recommendations, which I have discussed with Richard Lloyd, a proactive role for the MOJ as the sponsoring Department to provide clear and robust oversight of the legal services framework while respecting the LSB’s independence. There are already indications of progress at the LSB under its newly appointed leadership, including organisational changes that are aligned with the direction of the review’s recommendations. Going forward we will work with the LSB leadership to ensure their role is effective and that the LSA regime is delivering for consumers of legal services across the country.

The report highlights that consumer protection should remain at the centre of legal services regulation. That includes a greater emphasis on access to justice, effective redress, underserved consumers and emerging risks associated with technology and AI. It sets out recommendations on how the regulatory framework can evolve in a way that maintains public confidence, supports a strong and resilient legal sector, and ensures that lessons are learned and embedded across the system.

I am grateful to Richard for undertaking this review and for his careful consideration of these important issues. It is clear that prompt action is needed, and I will work with my officials and the LSB to consider the report’s findings. I will set out the Government’s response in due course.

[HCWS213]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with record and rising Crown court backlogs. We simply cannot accept the intolerable delays currently faced by victims, witnesses and defendants alike. Sir Brian Leveson’s conclusion was clear and emphatic: it is only with investment, efficiencies and pragmatic structural reform that we can begin to turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims. Those are the measures being brought forward in the Government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill.

[Mr Mohindra]

Will the Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister’s legacy is that he will be the first Justice Secretary in the United Kingdom to restrict the centuries-old right to jury trials?

[Sarah Sackman]

There is no right to a jury trial in this country; there is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient of a fair trial. If someone has to wait years for their day in court, that simply is not fair, whether they are a defendant or a witness. Of course, there is precedent for this, including from someone who is perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hero: the late, great Mrs Thatcher. The fact is that we have always made a policy choice about who can access jury trial, and we are going to make that policy choice again to deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are concerns that the changes the Government have made will give more power to judges to make decisions on their own, so what is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of these changes and ensure that there is transparency at all stages? Can I add, following your comment, Mr Speaker, that we would like to see Harlow magistrates court reopen as well as Chorley magistrates court?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend, as always, is an outstanding advocate for Harlow. Our judges take the judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is why our judiciary is the finest in the world, but of course transparency matters, which is why the recording and transcription of proceedings and the review that we have committed to, to test the impact of our reforms, are so important. I observe directly the training that our judges receive, which is first class.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the Government’s policy, as so many do. We are preserving jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice, but it is no justice at all if someone is waiting years for that jury trial. When witnesses and complainants pull out of the process and those trials collapse, that is no justice at all, whoever is in charge. The dereliction of duty by the Conservatives—the so-called party of law and order—allowed the Crown court backlog to run out of control. They buried their heads in the sand, but we will not do so. We will take on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and make the difficult choices to bring down our backlog and deliver justice for the British people.

[Nick Timothy]

I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to an interview with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield that took place in December, well before this House voted conclusively on Second Reading. Any ministerial team would have to take on this challenge. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not duck it. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield actually said was that we need to pause and reflect. The evidence base is clear. Sir Brian Leveson offered a blueprint. We cannot bring down the backlog without structural reform—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says we can. As so often happens, the Conservatives ignore the experts and the evidence. They crashed the justice system, and we know who suffers: it is the British citizen. We will not allow it.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

4. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to reform the family justice system.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government are reforming the family justice system to better support families and children. We are rolling out the successful child-focused courts nationally. That means that in Northamptonshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Northumbria, north Durham, Cleveland and south Durham, Lancashire, Cumbria, York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire and Merseyside, you have a child-focused court coming to a court near you. We are developing a cross-system family justice strategy and legislating for new child safety measures that ensure child welfare continues to be prioritised.

[Max Wilkinson]

When family courts decide that care is to be split between parents 50:50, we might expect that fair financial arrangements follow. However, when courts make that ruling, and the Child Maintenance Service makes decisions based on which parent is the recipient of child benefit, one parent often finds they are significantly worse off than the other. Will Ministers have a word with their colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the justice system and the CMS work more closely to achieve financial fairness for both parents in cases where courts rule for 50:50 care splits?

[Sarah Sackman]

In individual cases, how those financial settlements are made is a matter for the judiciary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as in so many cases, the family court is downstream of decisions that have been made elsewhere, and it is quite right that there should be join-up between areas of Government. I am happy to take away his direction that we should liaise with DWP colleagues to ensure that child maintenance is addressed fairly.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister reassure me that we remain committed to repealing in this Parliament the presumption of contact in family courts, to bring full justice to the 67 children murdered at the hands of abusive ex-partners with whom contact should never have been granted?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are resolute and committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The campaigning efforts of the likes of Claire Throssell have been little short of heroic, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that the repeal of that presumption comes about through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to help tackle the smuggling of contraband by drones into prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission report entitled “Modernising Wills Law”, published on 16 May 2025.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The law governing wills has not changed substantially since 1837. It is in that context that the Government welcome the Law Commission’s comprehensive and thorough review; we will be taking our time to consider it, and will respond in due course. Innovations such as electronic wills could improve accessibility and increase the number of people making wills, putting them and their loved ones in a more secure position.

[Fabian Hamilton]

In 2018, I began my campaign to abolish the rule that stipulates that in England and Wales, remarriage revokes any previous will. It is clear that such a rule is no longer fit for purpose and opens the door to abuse—unscrupulous individuals often marry vulnerable people, enabling them to inherit their estate upon death. Will the Government now commit to accepting the Law Commission’s recommendation that that archaic rule be abolished?

[Sarah Sackman]

I commend my hon. Friend on his work, looking at how we can combat predatory marriages and those who prey on the vulnerable. The Law Commission’s recommendation that the rule that marriage revokes a will be abolished is well evidenced. We will take a holistic look at the issue, but we will certainly consider carefully.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) back after his operation. It is good to see him again, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps is her Department taking to ensure that the insights and the drafting expertise in the “Modernising Wills Law” report are taken on board by the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure families in Northern Ireland can benefit from similar modernised protections against predatory marriage through updated legislation?

[Sarah Sackman]

As we consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, we will of course consider how they might lead to law changes and law reform across the United Kingdom. However, where matters are devolved, we respect that as well.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people receiving immediate custodial sentences for knife crime offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to make all court transcripts free for victims.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government are committed to greater transparency and access to justice in our courts. Transcripts are an important part of that, and I know that there has been a lot of cross-party campaigning on this issue. Victims of sexual offences and bereaved families of homicide can already request a free copy of sentencing remarks. From spring 2027, eligibility will be extended so that all victims can request them.

[Tessa Munt]

I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye-watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent’s case. Technology in this area is a potential game changer. However, as with all technological adoption, particularly in the justice arena, we have got to ensure accuracy for the very reason she says. The transcript has to be accurate, and redactions have to be made where necessary to protect individual participants in the case and to ensure reporting restrictions. That all has to be done safely, but I can assure her that the Ministry of Justice is progressing at pace with the adoption of AI, which will be a game changer in the years to come.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. Court transcripts are important to a victim’s sense of justice served, but does she agree that access to this very important information should never be dependent on the victim’s ability to pay?

[Sarah Sackman]

Equality before the law should mean just that, and as my hon. Friend says, it is an important principle to bear in mind when we talk about barriers to access to justice, whether we are talking about the cost of representation, which we try to address through legal aid, or about the cost of transcripts. In the current context, the targeted approach that we have taken—prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, and now extending eligibility so that all victims can request court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026 from the spring of 2027—constitutes a big step forward. I hope that developments in technology will enable us to lower the costs and make that freely available to all in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Charlotte Meijer will never have access to her transcript, because her case was heard in a magistrates court where no recording was made. The Government are seeking to address that, but Charlotte has continued to campaign for all victims of crime so that they can gain access to free transcripts, given that some are still being quoted costs of thousands of pounds. Her campaign, Open Justice for All, is calling on the Government to go further and faster to make the justice system fair, transparent and open.

This is a cross-party issue, and I know that many Back Benchers in the Minister’s party feel passionate about it. Will she assure the House that the job is not done, and recognise the desire for all court transcripts eventually to be made free and accessible for all victims?

[Sarah Sackman]

I know that the hon. Lady is a great advocate in this regard. I have had the pleasure of meeting Charlotte on a number of occasions, and I know how important her campaign is. The hon. Lady is right: owing to the Government’s commitment to audio recording and the capital investments that we are making to enable it to happen, change is coming soon and fast. We will seek to go as far as we are able while preserving the accuracy of those transcripts.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T8.  Magistrates are the backbone of the justice system, yet magistrates in Worcestershire increasingly talk to me about the pressures on their workload and the difficulty of attracting new volunteers. What steps are the Government taking to increase the attractiveness of the magistracy?

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our magistrates are the backbone of our justice system. I meet magistrates from across the length and breadth of the land, and I have met the Magistrates Association. We have to make being a magistrate more attractive. That is why our reform of their expenses, allowing for greater flexibility, is so important. We are transforming the application process and the training that magistrates receive to make it more attractive for people to volunteer their time. I want to put on record that we are incredibly grateful to our army of volunteers who keep the justice system going.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Ranby Prison in my constituency is undergoing a £70 million expansion. The main prison car park is across the very busy A620 road. On 1 December last year, prison officer Phillip Tetley was knocked down and killed as he crossed the road to get to work. He leaves behind his wife Eve and seven children. Eve Tetley is campaigning for a crossing to prevent such an awful accident happening again. Will the Minister meet me and Eve to discuss this further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

My constituent is here. Her ex-husband sexually assaulted her children, and attempted to murder them and her by removing the brake pads from her car, yet the court appeared to listen more to the abuser’s allegation of parental alienation syndrome, a concept discredited by the World Health Organisation, than her evidence. The abuser today has unsupervised access to the children. What steps will the Government take to prevent discredited concepts from obstructing criminal justice, leaving children at risk of rape and murder?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising such a moving case, and I pay tribute to his constituent, who is here today. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that parental alienation has no evidential basis and is a totally discredited concept. We are working carefully with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including those who hold that they are parental alienation experts. I hope that will ring the changes and prevent this sort of thing in future.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister today about changing the disparity in sentences for domestic homicide. Carole, Julie and Elaine have campaigned tirelessly for this change, following the murder of their daughters, and it will make a huge difference to how violence against women and girls is treated in this country. The campaigners have met seven Lord Chancellors, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the first of them to commit to doing this. Can I implore him to do it as soon as possible? It is this Labour Government who are committed to tackling violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my constituents experienced horrific abuse at the hands of her ex-husband. Deepfakes were put online on porn sites. This is something he did to other women as well. He is now in prison, but when my constituent tried to divorce him, she could not get access to legal aid for the arbitration service, or to further legal aid, because of his bail conditions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss access to legal aid for people who have suffered domestic abuse in such circumstances?

[Sarah Sackman]

Of course I will meet my hon. Friend about that case. She is a tremendous advocate for her constituent. It is important to say that we have ensured that legal aid is available for domestic abuse victims, and we have also changed the evidence thresholds that must be met in order to access that aid. I will look into the case that she raises, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss it.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Following an attack that led to long-term mental and physical health difficulties, a constituent got a disappointing offer of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, after a two-and-a-half-year delay. It took an appeal and my intervention for her to finally be offered fair compensation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that victims of crime receive a good service when applying for criminal injury compensation?

Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I associate myself with the remarks of those who have thanked the Chairs of the various Select Committees for securing this important debate, and I thank everybody who made incredibly thoughtful contributions to it, although there was the odd exception.

To govern is to choose, and those on the Opposition—[Interruption.] I am coming to it. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) is getting started early. We know what choices the Opposition would make, because the Government’s inheritance in the criminal justice system was intolerable. Our prisons were allowed to run red hot so that the most serious offenders had nowhere to be locked up—a total dereliction of duty from the so-called party of law and order. In our courts, we had record and rising backlogs—there is consensus about that in the House—with both victims and defendants seeing intolerable delays. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that this is one system, and it must keep the public safe and command public confidence. Yes, indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.

We see the brass-neckedness of Opposition Members—there is no apology—but this Government do not duck the choices. As I will come to, in both areas we have grasped the nettle. We have sought expert advice in the form of the independent review led by Sir Brian Leveson into the state of our criminal courts, and from David Gauke in relation to sentencing. We have heard the conclusions of those reviews, and yes, we have been prepared to make the tough choices required to put our justice system first and to put it on a stable footing.

The context outlined by the hon. Member for North Cotswolds and astutely by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) is one in which for several decades justice has been relatively sidelined in public policy terms and in investment terms. That has changed under this Labour Government with the uplift in the capital budget, as hon. Members across the House have rightly acknowledged. That is seen in prison construction, the investment in our court estate, the investment in the technology required to bring our justice system into the 21st century and, indeed, in the vital intervention of uncapping sitting days to salvage our courts from the brink of collapse. That is the choice that the Government have made to put justice first and to fix the mess that the Opposition left us with.

Let me turn first to the crisis in our courts. We have taken a multi-pronged approach to this issue, as is set out in the estimates Bill. In colloquial terms, I would say that we have thrown the kitchen sink at it. We have done that in three ways: investment; modernisation and efficiency; and reform. Let me take each in turn.

First, we have taken the choice that the Conservatives failed to take when they gutted our legal aid system, our court workforce and the capital spend in our courts. We have reversed that. Now, £2.78 billion has been agreed in the concordat with our courts, including those uncapped sitting days, and £287 million in capital spend is literally fixing the leaking roofs in Newcastle and right across the country. I was also pleased to see Harrow Crown court reopened when I visited the other day.

On investment in our workforce, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle speaks of empty courtrooms. Of course we do not want to see empty courtrooms, but that is a reflection of the state of system capacity. We cannot 3D-print judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers or court staff; we have to train them. Those people are skilled. They have to be trained, they have to be remunerated, they have to be retained. That is why this Government chose, early doors, to make the investment of £116 million in criminal legal aid for solicitors, the £34 million pledged to advocates and the record settlement for the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as the investment in our judiciary. It is that that is going to fill and sustain our empty courtrooms.

Many, including the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), have rightly spoken about victims. We have made a £0.5 billion investment in victim support services. The transformation in the availability of transcripts and audio recording of proceedings in our magistrates courts is vital not only to improving the victim experience but, given the intolerable delays, to keeping victims and witnesses engaged in the process, because when victims and witnesses pull out of the process and walk away, they do not get justice at all. That is the situation that the Conservatives left us with.

Efficiency and modernisation are vital too, and it is right that Members across this House challenge the system and challenge those responsible for it to improve matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for referring to prisoner transport and the prisoner escort and custody services—PECS—because this issue has been highlighted by the Bar, by the judiciary and by Members in this House. The Minister for Prisons in the other place and I have set up an oversight board to grip our PECS contracts—contracts that were agreed with Serco by the previous Government—to ensure that we are driving out inefficiency in that operation from end to end.

The judiciary is making a step change through a national listing framework, accompanied by AI data-driven tools, to improve the listing and scheduling of cases and make it more consistent. We are seeing investment in blitz courts in London and other places, as well as a case co-ordinator in every single Crown court centre to progress cases more rapidly. The adoption of remote technology is increasing the amount of remote participation, reducing the need for those prisoner transfers and enabling us to get through the easier cases. All of that is being done to drive the efficiency that everyone quite rightly wants to see.

However, I have to be clear that—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick said, and consistent with the conclusions of Sir Brian Leveson—efficiency and investment alone will not reduce the backlog. It is true that the investment that we have made in sitting days, uncapping them for 2026-27, has resulted in a stabilisation of the backlog, just as we hoped it would, but the backlog continues to sit at over 80,000. Behind each and every one of those cases, there is a victim waiting for justice and a defendant stuck languishing in the remand system, and the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system is waning. That is why we will not duck the necessity of structural reform.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The Minister is absolutely right: it is necessary to have confidence in our criminal justice system. Will she therefore answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan)? Will the Government be letting out rapists and other serious offenders under the early release scheme, and if so, how many?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am talking about courts, but I will turn to sentencing and prisons in due course. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Sentencing Act provisions, which will come into force in September and to which he refers, were made necessary by the Opposition’s failure to invest in prison places over many years. Over 14 years in government, they made their choice, and they added net 500 prison places. In the first two years, this Government have already delivered an additional 3,000 places, and the biggest prison building programme since the Victorians is set to deliver 14,000 additional prison places.

Let me return to the Crown court backlog. Reform cannot be avoided. To bring the backlog down, it is vital we ensure that the right cases are heard in the right place. It cannot be right that defendants can insist on their right to a jury trial in cases that could be heard by magistrates under even the existing sentencing powers. That is not fair on victims, and it is not fair that those cases are in the same queue as other, more serious cases, which have to have a jury trial, but a timely one. We cannot duck those choices.

The proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, remove the right to elect and create a Crown court bench division are sound. When a triable either-way case is heard in the magistrates court, it moves far faster than in the Crown court. We have to take a proportionate and hard-headed approach that balances the rights of defendants, the rights of victims and the entitlement of every citizen in this country to a timely trial. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness.

As I have said, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. To govern is to choose, and we took decisive action: £4.7 billion invested in the largest prison building programme that this country has seen, more foreign national offenders deported than ever before, 3,000 prison places delivered in the first two years of this Government and the Sentencing Act reforms, which will put our prisons on a more sustainable footing. As others have mentioned, we have also made a vital £700 million investment in probation, which is crucial to keeping the public safe and, as others have said, getting reoffending under control. Punishment can take place in prison, but punishment can also take place outside prison. The tough community sentence regime, the presumption of tagging, and the managed, structured and orderly early release system, as compared with the chaotic and opaque system under the previous Government—that is the choice that we make. That is how we get our criminal justice system under control.

[Dr Mullan]

Will you answer the question?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member has had an entire urgent question in which to ventilate these issues, and I am here to debate the estimates and address some of the other points that have been raised. I do not duck the essential point that our early release scheme will apply to some of those guilty of the offences to which he refers, if safe to do so. If they have misbehaved in prison, they will not benefit from those provisions. The point is that this is not a free-for-all. They will be subject to tagging and control on the outside. That is why the investment in probation is critical.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is completely wrong. The releases are automatic. There will be no prevention of a release of someone on a standard determinate sentence, regardless of what the risk assessment shows. The Minister must at least be accurate in describing the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The policy exists, as I have said, critically in the context of a restored probation system, and it is to that which I come right now.

Probation is an indispensable part of the scheme that the hon. Member talks about—a probation system that was, as I have said, absolutely gutted under the Opposition. Probation and community services will receive an additional £700 million by the final year of the spending review. In real terms, that looks like recruiting at least an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March 2027, on top of the over 2,300 who have been onboarded in the past two years. Those hard-working probation officers—not the slackers that perhaps were portrayed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox); far from it— doing some of the most difficult jobs in our public services have been delivered a 6% headline increase in pay, and rightly so, because they do such valuable work. They have been given the tools with which to do that work.

We have the biggest expansion of tagging in British history, with a presumption that every offender will be tagged on release from prison, save in very specific circumstances. All of that keeps the public safe, and staff will be given the technology to enable them to do their work in a more efficient and accurate way with the Justice Transcribe AI-powered tool. These investments and reforms will ensure that probation officers can have the biggest impact by focusing on those who present the highest risk.

A number of points have been made on legal aid, which will celebrate its 80th anniversary in a couple of years’ time. It is one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Attlee Government. It is something that we have put back on a stable footing. As I have said, we have put in an enormous uplift of £116 million for legal aid solicitors, up to £34 million for barristers, match funding for pupillages, building the workforce and, to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), investment in the digital system.

My hon. Friend is right that the particular line in the estimates pack from the House of Commons Library to which I believe she refers does not reflect the totality of the capital investment that the Government have made in this area. We are at £61 million invested in the digital transformation. That is much needed because those in this House will know that the impact that the criminal cyber-attack had on the legal aid system was so detrimental, precisely because there had been so much underinvestment and neglect of the system. It is therefore important that we not just stabilise the system, but transform it so that legal aid providers, but even more importantly, their clients can benefit in the long term.

I am conscious of time, and so I will speak briefly about policing. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is absolutely right that this is one system and it needs to behave as such. I recently had the privilege of visiting the Greater Manchester local criminal justice board, and I saw an outstanding example of cross-working in the criminal justice system. Prevention is better than cure, and so much of the investment we see in policing, but also the reform in the policing reform Bill, which will bring so many officers out from behind their desks and onto the streets in neighbourhood policing, will mean that we can prevent so much crime and intervene before so much of that behaviour becomes problematic.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

On prevention being better than cure, would the Minister care to comment upon the reduction in provision of prison education before she concludes her remarks?

[Sarah Sackman]

Prison education is vital, and I have seen some fantastic examples of it, in particular on a recent visit to High Down. Prison education can take many forms, such as vocational training and education in a conventional sense. In some senses, the bigger question is how do we make our prisons safe? There is no point in having outstanding education—I agree with the hon. Member that it is important; I do not think we disagree on this—if drones are bringing drugs and contraband into prisons, as he pointed out, and if prisons are overcrowded. If that is the case, it is almost impossible to deliver and see the benefit of that education. The fact that this Government are prioritising, through a £40 million investment, a drone prevention programme, that we are building new prisons that are fit for people to live in and receive that education, is a choice that makes sense and that, as I said, prevents so much of the problem.

Violence reduction units, the prison reform Bill, and the workforce plan that the Home Office has put forward are all part of the choice—I return to that theme—that the Government make, whether on policing, courts, prisons, or probation. We choose to fix the mess, and when we see a problem we make the choices required to fix it. Investment, modernisation and reform: the contrast between that and the choices that Opposition Members made when in government could not be starker. We must now give the plan a chance to work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to wind up the debate briefly.