SW v. UK Judgment: Remedial Order

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:

I would like to inform the House that I am laying a draft proposal for a remedial order to amend section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow an award of damages in a new set of circumstances. This is to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v. UK—application no. 87/18.

The applicant in this case, SW, was a social worker who was called as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings about SW in his judgment and directed that his statements be sent to SW’s employer, as well as to other local authorities where she had worked and relevant professional bodies, without giving SW an opportunity to respond. SW was dismissed and suffered various health issues as a result.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the relevant findings on the basis that, if left standing, they would breach SW’s rights under article 8—right to respect for private and family life—of the European convention on human rights. SW was advised she would be unable to obtain compensation under the HRA due to section 9(3) of the Act, which prevents the award of damages in respect of judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances, which do not include a breach of article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR subsequently ruled that article 13 of the ECHR—right to an effective remedy—read together with article 8, had been violated because SW 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 ECtHR also held that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been violated. The ECtHR awarded a sum in damages, which has been paid.

The UK is obliged under article 46 of the ECHR to implement this judgment, which includes resolving the circumstances that led to the violation. In order to address the violation of article 13 of the ECHR, legislative change is required as the violation was the result of the statutory bar on the award of damages under section 9(3) of the HRA.

Subject to approval by both Houses, the order would make a targeted amendment to the HRA which would have the effect that:

in proceedings in respect of a judicial act done in good faith;

where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds, or on grounds including the ground, that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that article;

a financial remedy could be awarded to the person to compensate for the breach of article 8. We are satisfied that damages would be available to individuals in situations similar to that of SW and would therefore satisfy the requirements of the judgment.

The Government consider that there are compelling reasons to amend the HRA via remedial order. We consider that the nature of the article 13 breach, and our obligation to implement the SW judgment, contribute to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change without further delay via remedial order. The alternative approach to a remedial order would be to make the amendment by way of primary legislation. However, we consider that there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future.

This draft proposal for a remedial order is being laid under the non-urgent procedure. It will be laid for a period of 60 days during which time representations may be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will scrutinise the remedial order and report on it to the House. Following that, the draft order, with any revisions the Government wish to make, will be laid for a further 60 days before being considered and voted on by both Houses.

[HCWS846]

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

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

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a pivotal step in the evolution of our legal system—one that ensures that the law remains relevant and pre-eminent in the digital age. As we set out in our plan for change, this Government are fully committed to providing investors and businesses with stability and certainty. This Bill will help to provide that certainty for people and businesses who own and transact with digital assets. This will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology.

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

Does the Minister agree with me that although the Bill is small, it is very much mighty? It is important that we get the Bill on the statute book because we want this country to be ahead of the game on these issues.

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future.

To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements.

The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories.

Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action.

Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country.

Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership.

The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law.

Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient.

We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that.

First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights.

By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved.

As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth.

Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours.

This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as

“a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1695.]

It was also described as a Bill that

“sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets”

that

“London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 1696, c. 845.]

to do business.

In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will

“make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1696.]

Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so.

We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential.

Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as

“future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.]

I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

With the leave of the House, let me say how grateful I am to those who have contributed to today’s debate, in a rare expression of consensus. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). The quality of the discussion, both in this House and in the other place, reflects the significance of the Bill that is before us. As I have said, it is the product of rigorous analysis and wide consultation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its landmark report, and to the many practitioners, academics, businesses and organisations that have engaged so constructively throughout the process.

At its heart, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is about ensuring that our legal system keeps pace with technological change. It is a clear, confident step into the future, one that reaffirms the UK’s place as a global leader in legal innovation, financial services and digital commerce, and it is a central part of this Government’s plan for change and for growth. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Local Justice Area Reform

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) —that was my best attempt at Welsh pronunciation; I hope I did not vandalise it—on securing this important debate on the reform of local justice areas. I agree with her that the contribution of magistrates right across the country, but in particular in north Wales, deserves greater recognition. In particular, the north Welsh magistracy is performing well, and I pay tribute to all those who make that possible.

This debate is a timely opportunity to clarify the Government’s intentions to reflect on our recent consultation and to address the concerns raised, particularly those from Wales. I shall begin by setting out some context surrounding the local justice areas and the case for reform. Local justice areas were first introduced by the previous Labour Government as part of the Courts Act 2003. They replaced petty sessional divisions and were designed to define the geographical boundaries for magistrates court administration.

However, the landscape of justice delivery has changed significantly over the past 20 years or so. The hard legal boundaries of local justice areas create inflexibilities in the magistrates court system, leading to delays and inefficiencies. By abolishing local justice areas and implementing a non-legislative replacement structure, we aim to improve flexibility in the system, reduce bureaucracy and allow for more freedom in the deployment of magistrates.

As the House will be aware, the Government and the judiciary launched a joint consultation earlier this year on what the replacement system for local justice areas should look like. I want to be absolutely clear that that consultation was informed by two key principles: first, a commitment to local justice, of which the right hon. Member speaks; and secondly, a commitment to enhance flexibility for a modern magistracy. I am pleased to announce that we have received more than 1,400 responses from magistrates and a range of stakeholders, including legal professionals, local authorities and members of the public. I was encouraged to see the strong level of engagement with the proposals, and the feedback that we have received will shape the final outcome of the consultation.

I want to stress that we are carefully considering all the responses before moving forward—we do not approach this with a closed mind. This is genuine consultation and the feedback that we have received through it will be vital in shaping the reforms.

Although local justice areas as they are now—a legal administrative boundary set out in legislation—will be abolished, this does not mean an end to local justice. Localism is at the heart of the magistracy. We want to ensure that magistrates continue to feel connected to their local communities, and that local citizens continue to feel that their local magistrates serve them.

At the core of our principles is a new system of so-called benches, a structure of court groups that will be used for the purposes of magistrates’ recruitment, deployment, leadership and training, following the abolition of local justice areas. Unlike local justice areas, benches would not be defined in legislation and would have soft boundaries to allow magistrates greater flexibility to sit in other courts. Such courts might actually be closer to where they currently live, but not accessible due to the current hard, legal boundary, and they might offer magistrates a broader range of cases and work than they currently engage in.

Our consultation proposes to align benches broadly with the boundaries of criminal justice areas, which themselves are based on the boundaries of police force areas. As the core business of the criminal magistrates courts involves prosecutions initiated by police forces, we believe that, in most cases, this is a natural fit. Where a given criminal justice area will be too large to create a workable bench—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very interested to hear the Minister mention police forces, because I suspected that that was partly the driver. On community policing, will she recognise that North Wales police have felt the need to separate the area into three—a highly populous area in the east, a middle area, and one in the west, which has a much more scattered population—because that better reflects what the community needs?

[Sarah Sackman]

That is precisely why we have a consultation—to reflect the variation in different parts of the country. In most cases, the criminal justice area and the area in which a police force operates will be a natural fit for a bench, but that will not necessarily work for everyone. We are taking soundings and engaging with local stakeholders to make sure that these soft boundaries, as it were, reflect local circumstances. As I said, this is such a vital debate, and we hope to reflect local contributions in the final set of proposals.

Where a given criminal justice area would be too large to create a workable bench, we have suggested a different model that retains current local justice area boundaries. For example, creating a bench based on the very large geographical area of the Dyfed-Powys criminal justice area in Wales would be impractical. Analysis suggested that it would result in excessively long journey times for certain magistrates—a point that the right hon. Member made. We therefore propose retaining the current local justice area boundaries in that case. On the other hand, where analysis suggested that a criminal justice area could reasonably be used to structure the boundaries of a bench, we have proposed—it is only a proposal, on which we are consulting—merging certain local justice areas. That is the provenance of the benches for north Wales and south Wales.

To reiterate, the point of the consultation is to seek feedback on the proposed model, and gather feedback from magistrates and other stakeholders, such as local leaders, about what will or will not work. The proposed bench configuration is intended as a starting point for this exercise. We are, if I can put it this way, very much in listening mode.

I am aware that magistrates in some benches, including those within the constituency of the right hon. Member, have raised concerns about the proposals, and as ever, she is articulate in setting out the concerns of her constituents and the local considerations. I very much appreciate that she wrote to me in advance of today’s Adjournment debate outlining those concerns, so that we could take them on board in the Ministry of Justice.

I would like to reassure the right hon. Member that her concerns and the concerns of Welsh magistrates have been and will be heard. While I cannot at this juncture confirm the outcome of the consultation—and some of the matters it covers are for the judiciary to determine, not politicians—these concerns and others expressed in the response to our consultation will inform our decisions on the structure for Welsh magistrates courts.

I turn to the question of Welsh language impacts, which are incredibly important in this context. As the right hon. Member has said, a key concern for Welsh-speaking magistrates is the impact of the proposals on the Welsh language. This concern has also been articulated by other members of the Welsh judiciary. At the heart of it is the potential risk that differences in the percentage of Welsh-speaking magistrates in the proposed bench could limit opportunities for Welsh-speaking magistrates or court users to speak Welsh. Let me take this opportunity to assure the House that this Government remain firmly committed to the principle of bilingual provision of court services in Wales, and to the equal treatment of Welsh and English in the delivery of justice in these courts.

Under the proposals, all magistrates would have the chance to discuss their sitting arrangements with their bench chair. Magistrate’s sitting patterns would be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking account of personal circumstances as well as business need. A Welsh-speaking magistrate’s preferences would naturally form part of these discussions. It is certainly not our intention to force Welsh-speaking magistrates to sit in other locations to the extent that it would limit their ability to use Welsh in court.

More broadly, the proposals are intended as a codification of current practice. Magistrates are expected to undertake most of their sittings at the court closest to their home or work location. The overall intention is to minimise as far as possible the extent of practical change to the day-to-day business of magistrates in their local area. Given the continuity in sitting patterns, and the continued provision of interpreters in Welsh magistrates courts, we do not expect the proposals to impact the availability of Welsh language services for court users in Wales. To answer the right hon. Member’s question directly, and to reassure her, a full Welsh language impact assessment will accompany any final proposals.

We will carefully consider the responses we have received from Welsh magistrates and other stakeholders to see what the impact will be on Welsh being spoken in court, and will put in place any mitigations, should they be necessary. We have committed to publishing a full Welsh language impact test alongside the final set of policy decisions, and we expect to publish our response later this year.

I am aware of the issue of the effect that the proposed bench configuration for Wales will have on travel times for magistrates and court users, and concerns about increased journey times and added difficulties for those who, for example, rely on public transport. That concern has also been expressed in some responses to proposals in England; it cuts across the board. We are keen to draw on magistrates’ first-hand knowledge of their local area before finalising any of these boundaries. The ongoing analysis of consultation responses will help us to identify those areas—such as in Wales—where a proposed bench would be excessively large or result in unreasonably long journey times. As the right hon. Member rightly acknowledged, magistrates volunteer and do a fantastic service. We do not want to put barriers in their way; this is about enabling them to carry out their service and be deployed flexibly. It is certainly not intended to impede the vital work that they do.

As for court users, the consultation does not propose any changes to case listing practices. The abolition of local justice areas will, however, make it easier to hear a case in a court closer to a user’s home. We would not therefore expect the new bench or deployment models to result in longer journeys for users. We are nevertheless continually reviewing any potential impacts of the proposals on protected characteristics. Should the data gathered from the consultation responses uncover any previously unforeseen impacts, we will consider revising the proposals to mitigate those.

I thank the right hon. Member once again for raising this issue with her characteristic eloquence and attention to detail. I also thank those who took part in the consultation process and engaged with the proposals. We received 1,400 responses, which is testament to just how much people are engaged on these issues and how much they value the local justice that our magistrates provide. As with any consultation, the dialogue and feedback we have received will be crucial in driving positive outcomes, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. We are in listening mode, as I said, and we are committed to creating a system that works better for magistrates, court staff and citizens right across England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts, leaving victims in limbo as they wait to see justice done. For that reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a once-in-a-generation review of the criminal courts. We are grateful to Sir Brian for all his work. His report confirms that the system we inherited is broken, and that if we do nothing, it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious recommendations that he has put forward, and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swift justice and a court system that they can have confidence in.

We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations on jury trials, along with everything else, before providing a formal response to Parliament in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims wait years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this Government are committed to turning the tide on the Crown court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st century.

[Robert Jenrick]

All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations.

However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether.

Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?

[Sarah Sackman]

What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It is extraordinary to hear that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency, but where was that sense of urgency in the past 14 years? The so-called party of law of order allowed two things to happen. First, it took our prison system to the brink of collapse. That let down the public, and it let down victims—soft on crime, and soft on law and order. Secondly, it allowed the backlogs in our Crown courts to run out of control to record highs.

For 14 years the Conservatives did absolutely nothing, so let me explain the contrast with a party and a Government who are gripping the crisis and who are tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own—Sir David Gauke—to give us his sentencing review. We commissioned one of our most revered judges, Sir Brian Leveson, who today has set out his recommendations. We will not provide our policy response today, because that demands and requires seriousness—not what we hear from the shadow Justice Secretary, but serious, careful analysis—and we will provide our formal response to the House in the autumn.

But we are not delaying. We are not waiting; we are investing in the system. To take up the challenge from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lady Chief Justice said, we have already done what the previous Government failed to do, with an additional 4,000 Crown court sitting days and a record level of 110,000 sitting days a year—up from what the so-called party of law and order gave us. We also understand that we need proper system capacity. As we heard from the Lord Chancellor yesterday, this is not simply about adding more Crown court sitting days; as Sir Brian Leveson tells us—had the right hon. Gentleman bothered to read the report—we cannot simply sit our way out of this crisis.

We have to build system capacity—more judges, more prosecutors, more defence lawyers, and more court ushers. Of course we need to invest in the system, which is what the Government are doing with a promise of £450 million into our courts, additional to what the Conservative party provided. We are staying laser-focused on our mission, which is to provide swifter justice for victims, and restore public confidence in a justice system that was left to rack and ruin by the Conservative party.

The right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun: we have been very clear that we are going to consider Sir Brian’s careful and detailed report, and we are going to listen to those who represent victims, and to the barristers and judges who do such an exceptional job. We will do what it takes for the victim who, if she reports a rape or serious crime, is told that she will have to wait until 2028, or 2029 in some cases, for her day in court. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will do whatever it takes, with the seriousness that the previous Government simply failed to have.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.

[Sarah Sackman]

As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough. We need to consider once-in-a-generation structural reforms that will run a sustainable, proportionate system that will allow us to deliver swifter justice for victims. Investment and reform: that is what we will be getting on with and that is what we will report on in the autumn.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I said in my opening response, jury trials will remain a cornerstone for British justice for the most serious cases but, as Sir Brian Levenson evidences in his careful report, juryless trials can be swifter trials. To put that into context, 90% of criminal trials in this country are currently heard without a jury—that is how our criminal justice system currently functions. Of course it is right that we listen to those who participate in the system, whether they are prosecuting or defending those in the system, but it is also right that we listen to the voices who have welcomed today’s report: the head of the Met police, former Lord Chancellors, a former Lord Chief Justice and the Victims’ Commissioner. Their voices matter too. Just as Sir Brian has done, we need to consider a package of measures capable of alleviating the acute crisis in which we find ourselves.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that trial by jury is, and will always remain, a fundamental concept of our British justice system, but we also need to ensure that we restore victims’ faith in the system, and do what we can to ensure justice is not denied by justice being delayed?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice quotes Magna Carta, but the state’s obligation is to ensure a fair trial, and essential to a fair trial is timely justice. In circumstances where some victims of crime are waiting two or three years for their day in court, that is not fair. In fact, that is resulting in many victims pulling out of trials, rendering court time wasted and retraumatising those victims. What the shadow Secretary of State for Justice has not read is the entirety of Magna Carta. I quote:

“To no one will we…delay right or justice.”

The right to a timely trial is embedded in Magna Carta, and we need to get back to delivering it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

In his urgent question, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said that “the public knows best”. For once, I agree with him, which is why the public threw out the last Conservative Government after they crashed our criminal justice system.

Yesterday, I made the case for safeguarding the guarantors of our justice system—our jury trials. However, today, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to raise our concerns that reclassifying certain offences and drawing on magistrates to run the new intermediate courts risks putting unbearable strain on the magistrates courts, jeopardising their ability to deliver swift justice, especially for survivors of domestic abuse crimes. Before adopting any new proposals, will the Minister publish an impact assessment of the measures on victims in magistrates courts, and will she rule out any measures that will delay justice, safety or freedom for survivors of domestic abuse?

[Sarah Sackman]

The proposal for the reclassification of certain offences in Sir Brian’s report is just that: it is Sir Brian’s recommendation. As I have said already, we need to take those recommendations away and consider whether they are appropriate for our justice system. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the essential role that the magistrates play in our criminal justice system. Currently, some 90% of criminal trials are heard in our magistrates courts and they do a phenomenal job. That is why we are continuing to recruit 2,000 magistrates annually and we want a more diverse magistracy—all of that will be essential. He is right that these proposals, which Sir Brian has conveyed as a package, need to interlock and to be operable together, so we are taking the summer to engage with stakeholders, such as the Magistrates’ Association, to ensure that we get this right.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

With the Crown court backlog that we inherited at such high levels, and continuing to rise, does the Minister agree that tackling it means not just adding more sitting days but making fundamental reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The crisis that we inherited in our criminal courts, with record and rising backlogs, is intolerable. The human impact of that on people, whether they are victims, witnesses or they serve in the criminal justice system, is simply intolerable. If we do nothing, as the Conservative party was all too willing to do, the system will, in the words of one of its own, former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, become “irrecoverable”. It is not enough to sit our way out of this crisis—we must have radical structural reform as well. That is the abiding lesson of Sir Brian’s report, and we will take it on board.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.

[Sarah Sackman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the comprehensive review that they have undertaken, to which the Government will be giving due consideration over the summer, before we formally provide our response. We have to ensure that whatever package of proposals we take forward knits together with the recommendations from the Gauke review and the outcome of the spending review that the Ministry of Justice has received, with a commitment to make an additional investment of £450 million in our courts. I want to address his point about intermediate courts: they are not about saving money, but about addressing the backlog, delivering swifter justice for victims and having a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence. If this package of ideas is right and will achieve that aim, we will pursue it.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I spent the first 20 years of my professional life in the criminal courts as a barrister. There is no one who loves the criminal justice system, or who has more respect for juries, than I do. However, the courts now are not what they were. The delays are so appalling that defendants just plead “not guilty”, because they know that their case will not come up for years, and the chances of actually facing justice are minimal. It is in that extreme state, which we have inherited from the Conservative Government, that radical action is needed. I know that my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench feel as I do about the criminal justice system and want it to work, so when they are looking at Sir Brian’s recommendations, will they consider a sunset clause? If his recommendations work, there will come a time when we can increase the amount of jury service again.

[Sarah Sackman]

My right hon. Friend speaks with huge authority and personal experience of how our Crown courts operate. Like us, she is committed to restoring and rebuilding our criminal justice system to what it once was, and to a system fit for the 21st century that the public can have confidence in. That means adapting our methods, taking on new technologies and becoming more efficient. All of that will come in the second part of Sir Brian’s review, as we have asked him to do. I will not pre-empty the response or give a running commentary on it, but all those things will be taken into account as we consider our response over the summer.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Last year, I was on a jury. We all know that we need to get the court backlog down, but my experience at Reading Crown court was that the availability of jurors really is not an issue. Many of us sat there for hours upon hours, and several jurors were dismissed on the Thursday, having never set foot in a courtroom. Before we restrict the number of jury trials, what work have the Government done to actually understand the utilisation of jurors to see how many are being used and whether they could be used more effectively?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and all those who perform the civic duty of participating in a jury for their service. As I said, that will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious cases, but that is not the issue. The issue is that demand coming into the system simply outstrips the rate at which the courts are able to address and dispose of those cases. We need to look at the system capacity, the amount of judicial time, the number of prosecutors and defence lawyers, and the availability of suitable court buildings, ushers and criminal legal aid. We need all that system capacity, and we need to get it working together to address the challenges that others have outlined. I remind the hon. Gentleman that not only are 90% of our criminal trials heard in magistrates courts, but it remains a fact that magistrates courts deliver a turnaround of cases on average four or five times faster than in Crown courts. That is swift justice for victims, and that is why we need to look at whole-system reform.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents have a very simple view of the criminal justice system: they want to know that the victims of crime will have their day in court and that the perpetrators will have a punishment commensurate with the crime they commit. That underpins their faith in the system, so they come forward to report crime. While the Conservatives seek to talk down the justice system, will the Minister set out what she and her Department are doing to ensure that victims of crime feel confident enough to come forward to report crimes, hopeful that they will get the outcome they want?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend speaks so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I think the public ask for something really simple: if people are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime, they expect to have their day in court in a timely fashion, not to be made to wait for years, only to find that the trial has become ineffective and is put off for yet another year. That undermines faith in the system, and that is what is so detrimental about the neglect and under-investment under the Conservatives. That has been so corrosive of trust in the justice system. It is not simply that we are not delivering swift justice for victims; it is that the public risk losing faith in our justice system, which to date has been one of the glories of this country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the worst features of the US justice system is the extreme process of plea bargaining, which gives such a huge differential if somebody pleads guilty that it creates a perverse incentive to do so, even if they are innocent but not confident that they will be acquitted? Can she guarantee that we are not going down that route, with a 40% discount for pleading guilty coupled with early release for other reasons?

[Sarah Sackman]

English common law and our commitment to the rule of law with our independent judiciary are part of what make this country great. We are not going to ape the American system, or indeed any other system. We will look carefully at the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, including in relation to the use of Goodyear indications, but we know that our law is robust. Provided that we have a justice system that is up to the task of enforcing that law, that is what we are really focused on.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Under the Tories last year, 60% of rape victims dropped out of their cases because they were left waiting years for justice. We finally have a Justice Secretary who has put victims first and allocated the highest number of sitting days on record. Given all the outrage from the Conservatives at the size of the backlog, I am really keen to know what they did. Will the Minister answer what this Labour Government are doing to get justice for victims quicker?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk about sitting days and backlogs, and it can all sound a little arid and academic, but it comes back to people. The fact that so many victims of rape and serious sexual offences pull out of the process is testament to the fact that the system is not working. That is the direct consequence of allowing the backlogs to run out of control. We have to keep victims engaged in the process, which is why we have invested specifically in victims services and why we are looking to strengthen the victims code. Ultimately, victims want swift justice. That is why we will take a careful look at Sir Brian’s recommendations and do what it takes to bring down the backlog.

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

Magistrates courts are already under significant stress: some 22% of trials do not go ahead on the day that they are listed. Removing the right to choose a jury trial for sentences of under two years under an intermediate court cannot reverse years of underfunding, the closure of local courts and severe staff shortages, from prosecutors to defence advocates. The consultation on the reform of local justice areas proposes to merge three north Wales benches, against the advice of local magistrates. Does the Minister recognise the risk of yet further disruption to justice in Wales?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady has described how important the role of the magistrates courts will be and the importance of whole-system reform. The Government are not looking to tweak one aspect—to tweak what goes on in the magistrates court or the Crown court. One of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link and the fact that it delivers local justice, so we will look at that carefully, but there is no getting away from it: the scale of the problem, and what Sir Brian’s report tells us, means that we need whole-system reform of the criminal justice system, from beginning to end.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the recognition of the importance of magistrates courts. Sadly, Harlow magistrates court was closed by the previous Government—as was Chorley magistrates court, of course. I recently spoke to a police officer in my constituency who has been a police officer for three years. He is being asked to gather evidence to go to court for crimes committed before he was even a police officer. Is it any wonder that victims have lost confidence in the system? This Government need to ensure that we have fundamental reforms to this process to ensure that people in my constituency get the justice they deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

And we can reopen the courts in Chorley—they are available.

[Sarah Sackman]

I come back to the fact that this Government are investing in our court estate. We have invested an additional £20 million in our court buildings for maintenance and to keep the show on the road, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the delays will reach a tipping point if we choose to do nothing about them, and that is simply not an option. The obligation on the state is to deliver a fair trial, and timeliness is critical to that. The longer the wait, the more likely it is that victims will pull out of the system and that the evidence becomes undermined, because people’s memories fade. That is why timeliness and getting the delays down is so critical to the mission we have to pursue.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Here we go again. Labour always talks tough on crime and always goes soft. The Minister talked about David Gauke as one of our own, as if that was some defence—I assure her that I probably have more in common with her than I do with David Gauke. That is not a good way to show off credentials on being tough on crime. I have seen at first hand where the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to cut through all the bureaucracy and backlogs to get tough on crime. In Lancashire, 23 organised crime gang members were being taken off the streets every single week through Op Warrior, with many remanded straight into prison and their cases going through the courts. I plead with the Minister to rule out as soon as possible any of the measures recommended that would see those organised crime gang members potentially not even getting a criminal record.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a bit rich to accuse those on the Government Benches of being soft on crime. The hon. Gentleman’s party allowed the prisons to run hot and added 500 prison places in 14 years—we have committed the money for 14,000. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Conservatives allowed the backlogs in the courts to simply run out of control, to the point where Alex Chalk—again, another of their own—pointed out that the position would become irrecoverable. That is the consequence of doing nothing. Being tough on crime is about rebuilding and investing in our criminal justice system, investing in prisons and our courts, delivering on the tough reforms that will be required to deliver swifter justice for victims and getting tough on exactly the sorts of gangs that the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

After 14 years of Conservative government, victims of rape and serious sexual crimes are waiting years to see justice. It appears that the shadow Justice Secretary has recently discovered that our criminal justice system is broken. When does the Minister think he will discover who broke it?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stuart, I do not need any challenges from you. You should know better; you are on the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs. You really do have to think about what you are saying. Your behaviour is getting intolerable.

[Sarah Sackman]

When the Victims’ Commissioner, the London Victims’ Commissioner and those who engage and support victims through victim services tell me that we have to take this opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform, because we are letting victims of crimes down, I take that more seriously than any other pleas for change. It is absolutely obvious that the delays from running a system with such record and rising backlogs and the failure to invest have real consequences for people’s lives. People are pulling out of the system and out of the process because they have simply lost faith in it. I will be thinking of their voices—of the victims—every day that we consider these proposals and drive them forward. Failure is not an option.

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

I have caution about stripping back jury trials, so I ask the Government to commit to tackling court backlogs by investing in more court capacity, particularly in Bristol and the west country, by supporting rehabilitation to stop reoffending and people coming back into the system so quickly, and by addressing the root causes of crime. Will the Minister consider that under the Leveson proposals, there may be space for some of the best examples of the US courts system? Some states have next-day hearings for domestic abuse cases, where courts can catch perpetrators in the window of remorse, when they will recognise their guilt and accept that they need to change.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right that as we take forward and are ready to announce the package of reforms in response to Sir Brian’s review, we will consider how we can take forward the best of our existing system and, indeed, learn from other systems. Whether that is intensive supervision courts, where we have seen some good results, or tackling the root causes that lie behind crime and engaging in preventive measures, we should be doing all that. This is our opportunity. We have reached a point of crisis. We have reached the point of emergency—no more, no less—as a result of the inheritance from the previous Government, but we have got to take the opportunity to build back better, with a more sustainable and more innovative justice system that the public can have confidence in and that protects the public. That is what we must do. The hon. Member is right: we should learn, we should listen and we should build something better.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

As I think Members across the House would agree, Alex Chalk, the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, was taken seriously in this place, as were his opinions. He recently said that some cases

“could conceivably be dealt with by a judge and two wingers, so reserve the Crown court for the most serious cases… It is helpful to look at which cases should be triable either way and which should be summary only.”

Does the Minister agree that it is worth taking note of serious voices like Alex Chalk, rather than the opportunism of the shadow Justice Secretary?

[Sarah Sackman]

This issue is far too serious not to take seriously. I listen to voices, such as those of the former Lord Chancellor, former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, the Victims’ Commissioner and Sir Mark Rowley. They are all saying that we have got to take these matters and these recommendations seriously. It is that serious work that this Government will engage in, and we will not duck the difficult decisions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister rightly points to the comparative inefficiency between Crown courts and magistrates courts. The clear issue is that we need new technology to be introduced to Crown courts, so that people who are on trial and victims are served faster, quicker and more expediently. The reality is that many cases collapse as a result of the evidence not being sufficient or brought fast enough. Why, then, has the Minister allowed the efficiencies part of the Leveson report to be delayed? That could bring forward much-needed recommendations that we could action to cut the backlog.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member raises an extremely helpful point, which is about how we can improve efficiency in our courts through the use of technology, including technology that is improving rapidly before our eyes. For example, the Ministry of Justice is piloting the use of AI technology in some of our tribunals for transcription. How could that be utilised and rolled out more widely across courts and tribunals? He is absolutely right, but Sir Brian and his team, to give them their credit, have worked incredibly fast to produce a detailed, careful and well-evidenced report today. He will continue with part 2 of his review. Our job in the Ministry of Justice, as we develop our policy thinking, will be to bring those two parts of the review together to improve our criminal justice system.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Some may say we are old school in South Norfolk, but I call it common sense. Criminals should be punished and victims should get their day of justice. Simply hoping that more sitting days will fix the Crown court backlog is not realistic, so I urge the Minister to be radical and ensure that offenders are punished and victims get their day in court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I can tell that my hon. Friend has taken the liberty of actually reading the report, because he has identified the central premise and argument that Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, makes in it, which is this: we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis we have inherited. We need to carefully consider once-in-a-generation structural reform. We have got to combine that with investment, too, which this Government are already doing with the 4,000 additional sitting days that we have added, over and above what the previous Government agreed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about investment plus reform.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that changes to fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, in one part of the United Kingdom could create serious divergence across jurisdictions and raise questions about equal access to justice for citizens in Northern Ireland?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Member well knows, justice is a devolved matter, and it is right that decisions involving justice are taken at the correct level, but I assure her and the rest of the House that the state’s obligation to provide a fair trial is paramount. Whether, as is currently the case, someone’s case is heard in the magistrates court without a jury, or whether, as for the most serious cases—and as will continue to be the case—a case is heard with a jury, the point is that the state must deliver a fair trial. The question of equal access to justice therefore simply will not arise.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Bar Council facilitated a useful conversation with local barristers in the south-west. I think they have some reservations, but I will leave them to make representations. One thing that they did say, which I urge the Minister to feed into the provisions of the second half of the report, is about the efficiency of the forensics service and the transfer mechanism to bring prisoners into the courts. The delays and inefficiencies there, and the contracts that are laid that set out those services, can have a material impact on the efficiency of the court service. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is focused on, because that could have a massive impact. I have grave concerns about where things are.

Finally, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I allowed—against advice—Alex Chalk and his predecessor to make some capital-to-revenue switches in their budgets to deal with the urgency of this problem. I hope that is helpful to the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury going forward.

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck, Minister.

[Sarah Sackman]

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

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

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

As a member of the Bar, I say this plainly: removing the right to jury trials is a reckless constitutional shortcut. As the Criminal Bar Association puts it, is not reform but retreat. Does the Minister agree that the right to choose between a jury and a judge-led trial must never be denied, and that the real solution lies in investing in the system that we have rather than dismantling its very foundations?

[Sarah Sackman]

I respect the hon. Gentleman as a fellow member of the Bar, but I also respect the views of Sir Brian Leveson, the Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, and many other august legal minds who have themselves done so much to preserve our fundamental constitutional principles. What they understand is this: 90% of our current criminal trials do not take place with a jury, but what really is unfair, and what really does undermine fundamental constitutional rights, is a failure to deliver a timely trial. If the hon. Gentleman is asking victims of crime, or even those wrongly accused of a crime who want to clear their names, to wait two or three years for their day in court, that, I believe, is a denial of a constitutional right.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work and applaud all efforts to speed up the system, but what reassurance can the Minister give my constituents, who will see a reduction in access to jury trial as the beginning of a slippery edge leading to an ever greater erosion of one of the fundamental liberties and glories of this country?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are not setting out our policy response to the specific recommendations in Sir Brian’s review today. What we are recognising is his central thesis, which is that at present victims, including those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, are being thoroughly let down by the delays that were allowed to accrue by his own party. With that in mind, I think it is clear that what we have to do is continue to make the record investment that we are already making, but combine it with structural reform—a package of reforms—that will not only drive efficiency but, fundamentally, deliver the swifter justice for victims that I believe we all wish to see.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I share the concern about delays in justice—no rape victims should ever have to wait five years for their day in court—but I am seriously concerned about the limiting of trial by jury and how it could dent confidence. As the Minister considers these reforms over the summer, will she please give some thought to more serious investment in rehabilitation and resettlement work? The LandWorks project in my constituency has a reoffending rate of 5%. If we could roll out that type of work, we would reduce crime, which would relieve backlogs in the courts, and everyone could have their day in court more quickly.

[Sarah Sackman]

The holistic type of support involving the preventive interventions that the hon. Lady has described is exactly the sort of provision that we are considering, in combination with the investment and structural reforms that will also be needed. I know that my colleague in the other place, the Prisons Minister, is taking on board precisely that sort of package of rehabilitation models so that we can break this endless cycle of reoffending.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is.

The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think that the Prime Minister probably is a hard bastard, and I think that we on this side of the House are tough on law and order. We would never allow what the Conservative party allowed to happen, running our prisons to the brink of collapse. At the point when we inherited the prison system, there were simply not enough places for us to lock up some of the most serious and dangerous criminals who had perpetrated crimes in this country. It is absolutely scandalous. What we are going to do—as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out—is engage in the serious business of developing policy and of government. We are going to consider the detailed policy recommendations, and of course we must consider how they interact with David Gauke’s recommendations: it must be knitted together, and it must be appropriate to deliver swifter justice for victims and to protect the public.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Jury trial has been deeply embedded in the British psyche and, indeed, in our constitution since Henry II, who introduced it in order to deal fairly with land disputes. It is also embedded in the United States constitution through the sixth amendment, to protect against biased judges and oppressive prosecutions and to safeguard individual liberties. I have severe doubts about our judiciary at the moment—I am not sure that it is going in the right direction—and when I read the “Adult Court Bench Book”, it gives me even greater concern. As the Minister probably knows, jury trial is already under threat in defamation cases. I have three questions. Why do the Government appear to be so terrified of decent British people sitting on juries? Are the Government intent on further undermining jury trial. If they are, in any way, will they please undertake to hold a full debate in the House before it happens?

[Sarah Sackman]

If the hon. Gentleman had heard my earlier answers, he would know that I made it clear that jury trial would remain a cornerstone of British justice in the most serious cases. In his review, Sir Brian Leveson considers whether a jury trial is appropriate and proportionate when it comes to, for example, some of the most complex fraud cases. He also considers whether it is proportionate when, say, someone has stolen a bottle of whisky. Is it appropriate to hold a full jury trial, with all the expense and delay involved, when it means that someone who is, perhaps, a victim of rape is waiting two or three years for their day in court, or, indeed, that that day will never come? However, as I said at the start, what I can undertake to do is this: when we are ready with our package of reforms and our response to the review, we will return to the House and a full debate can be had.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I said earlier, 90% of cases in this country already happen without a jury, and no one says that that is not delivering justice of the highest robustness and integrity. Let me pick up his comment, and indeed earlier comments, denigrating the integrity and independence of our judiciary. Members will not hear that sort of criticism from this side of the House. Our judiciary is, in fact, one of the prides of this country. It is why people so respect the rule of law, and why the United Kingdom is such a great place in which to do business. I will not talk the judiciary down. We need them and we respect them, and on this side of the House we will adhere to that.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Justice Secretary talks about the need to expedite trials for the sake of victims of crime, and she is absolutely right. As she considers the proposals from Sir Brian Leveson, will she take into account those who are innocent and who stand wrongly accused, who are having to wait anxiously for years for their day in court?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our focus is on victims of crime, who in some cases are waiting years for their day in court, but on the other side of the coin, defendants who are accused of a crime—perhaps wrongly—are waiting to clear their name. That can have a devastating effect. What he describes is the human impact of the delays that have accrued as a result of the backlogs that we inherited from the Conservative party.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

As a barrister working in criminal courts, I have often addressed the jury in closing speeches by saying, “Members of the jury, we have the best legal system in the world, and it is the best because you make it so. You bring your wisdom, your life experiences and your common sense, and you apply it to the facts in this case. Before you decide a verdict of guilty, bear in mind that if you or a member of your family were sat in the defendant’s seat, you would need to be sure before you returned a verdict of guilty. As a peer, that is an obligation on you.” I get the Minister’s point that justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, there is the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Sir Brian Leveson has been given a basic mandate that we need to speed up jury trials, which will eliminate the fundamental principles and the cornerstone of our legal system. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I have said, the jury trial will remain a cornerstone and pillar of our justice system in the most serious cases, but what Sir Brian Leveson tells us in the opening pages of his report is that the current system is broken, and he uses the word “essential”. He says reform of the system will be essential, because although we rightly take pride in the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, the fact is that it is simply not working at the moment. It is letting down those whom it is intended to serve and those who serve within the system, and we have to fix that. We will take our time, and then we will act on the programme of reforms that Sir Brian Leveson has recommended today.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

For over 50 years in Northern Ireland, we have had judge-only trials in terrorist cases, probably for understandable reasons. All non-terrorist cases have been jury trials. In my professional life at both the junior and the senior Bar, I have practised before all those courts, and my experience firmly confirms to me that public confidence is most attainable when we have jury trials. Irrespective of how cautious and diligent a judge is, they can get case-hardened, and that is the source of why public confidence rests most in the jury system. Does the Minister agree that the key determinant in retaining jury trial is whether an offence is indictable or not? If it is an indictable offence, the first port of call must be a jury trial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s wealth of experience before our different sorts of courts, but I also respect the wealth of experience that Sir Brian Leveson has brought to bear in his review. He identifies that although a jury trial will always be appropriate for certain cases—not least for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined—we have to take a proportionate response. If we offered jury trials in all sorts of cases, certain victims and defendants would have to wait far too long for their day in court. As it stands, the vast majority—90%—of criminal trials in this country already happen without a jury. We have to consider very carefully where to draw the line, and that is what the Government will be doing this summer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is held in the highest esteem by all of us in this Chamber—that is never in doubt. The British justice system is the envy of the world, and it probably set the example for justice systems everywhere. I pose my question with the utmost respect. The Minister will understand Members’ reluctance to restrict the right to a jury of one’s peers, and to replace a multi-person jury with a judge-only trial. Does she not believe that we must look at extending court days and at other interim measures, rather than changing the course of justice, which has served us well and which most democracies base their justice system on?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the respect across this House is absolutely reciprocated. Rather than sitting idly, we have taken on the challenge of increasing investment to deliver a record number of Crown court sitting days—4,000 sitting days above the level agreed by the previous Government. We have increased investment in our criminal legal aid system to build capacity, so that we can man all the additional trials and meet the demands on the system. However, the clear lesson from Sir Brian’s report and the key conclusion that he has delivered today, which we will take firmly on board, is that continuing to try to sit our way out of the crisis is not sufficient. It is essential that we make reforms as well, and we will take the time necessary to consider what that looks like.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers will be aware that I have raised concerns about the treatment and detention of Lee Stinton, a British national and the son of Elaine and Edward Stinton, who are my constituents in Lagan Valley. He was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement while travelling to work in Key West, Florida. He has built a life for himself there, but that has all come to an end in the most awful of circumstances at Krome detention centre. I am grateful for the support offered to date by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Are Ministers seeking to make a statement on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

4. What steps she is taking to help provide access to legal aid to people in rural areas.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

People must be able to access legal aid, regardless of where in the country they live, and this Government have made substantial new investments. On the civil side, in housing and immigration, we have announced uplifts worth £20 million; in respect of criminal law, criminal legal aid solicitors will receive an additional £92 million a year. The Legal Aid Agency works hard to ensure that the supply of, and access to, legal aid is secured across the whole of England and Wales.

[Victoria Collins]

From the lack of a rural crime strategy to reduced access to legal aid, our rural communities are being left behind. In Harpenden, one farm alone has reported 56 fly-tipping incidents in five years, with the injustice that the most recent incident is costing the farmer around £40,000. Proper legal support for victims of rural crime could make a world of difference, so how are the Government ensuring fair access for our rural communities, including face-to-face legal aid support?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to ensure access to legal aid for those who live in rural areas. The Legal Aid Agency was satisfied that legal aid services across all categories are adequate in her constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Digital technology is transforming access to justice through remote consultations and Government-funded websites, such as Advicenow. I encourage her constituents to access legal aid through those means, as well as through local providers.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

5. What progress she has made on reviewing terms and conditions of service for prison officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to reduce pre-trial waiting times.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog from the previous Tory Government across every jurisdiction. Whether for a victim of crime, a parent, a business or an employee, backlogs mean waiting years for their day in court. We have taken swift action to invest in our courts, and courts in every jurisdiction are sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity. We have announced record investment this year of £2.5 billion across all courts and tribunals, which will make a real difference to clear up the Tories’ mess.

[John Milne]

In my constituency of Horsham, I have been asked to support a woman left in limbo regarding the trial of her ex-partner on a domestic abuse charge. When she was finally given a date, the trial was pulled as a result of an administrative error as she sat waiting in the courtroom. A new date was set for a whole year later. She suffered emotional distress and had to take time off work, which cost her £500. She installed CCTV at her own expense and endured months of further intimidation. Will the Minister undertake to set clear guidelines about maximum waiting times for trials to solve the problem now and in the future?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am terribly sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Member’s constituent, which exemplifies exactly why we are so determined to grip the backlog in our Crown courts. That is also why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend a once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims such as the hon. Member’s constituent. Ultimately, getting the backlog down so that we can look her in the eyes and say, “We can deliver swifter justice,” will make the real difference.

[Katie White]

I work closely with fantastic local businesses across Leeds North West, and I know they already have a lot to contend with, so I am concerned to see a pattern of crime on our high streets, from burglaries to other forms of vandalism, that leaves owners in Horsforth and Adel feeling unsafe. At the same time, like most hon. Members, I am very aware that the Government have inherited a significant backlog that undermines the sense that justice will be served. How does the Minister plan to address that so the individuals responsible are dealt with and small business owners know that we are on their side?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The impact of the Crown courts backlog is being felt by domestic abuse victims and small businesses, so we have a real job to do to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why we gripped the crisis by putting in place an extra 110,000 Crown court sitting days—a record number. We understand, however, that we will need fundamental reform to address the backlog, and that is what we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the rehabilitation of people convicted of knife crime offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

16. What steps her Department is taking to restore the Legal Aid Agency's digital services.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

As the House will be aware, the Legal Aid Agency suffered a criminal cyber-attack across its systems. It has worked tirelessly to ensure that those who rely on legal aid have not seen that legal aid stop and that providers are not left out of pocket. In short, it has kept the show on the road with a series of emergency contingency measures. Let us be in no doubt, however, that it suffered that attack because its IT systems had been left in a fragile state by the lack of investment from the Conservatives. We will learn from the crisis and build back better with additional investment.

[James Naish]

Two of my local firms—MJC Law and Nottingham Law Centre—have contacted me about this issue. MJC Law said:

“This has left legal aid law firms, often small businesses, to decide whether to take on the risk of cases and hope they will be approved and paid retrospectively”.

Cash flow could become a genuinely serious issue for such firms, so what steps are being taken to support them? For how long does the Minister envisage firms dealing with this situation? Finally, on GDPR notices, is it sufficient that the LAA has simply provided a notice on its webpage?

[Sarah Sackman]

I pay tribute to the legal aid providers across the country who have kept going through this difficult time and who do vital work in the sector. As part of the package of contingency business measures, we have delegated more decision making to providers and we have committed to backdating criminal legal aid applications. I must assure the House that we will turn the systems back on only when we can be sure that they are secure and we can guarantee that we are protecting people’s data.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to ensure she can refer Parole Board decisions in cases of serious offenders to the High Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T2. Last month, a devastating report by Women’s Aid revealed that a total of 67 children have been killed over a 30-year period by a known domestically abusive parent, in circumstances related to the courts’ use of the principle of the presumption of contact. Two of those children, Jack and Paul Sykes, are the sons of my formidable constituent, Claire Throssell. All these deaths were preventable. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the Government’s review of the presumption of contact?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

The killings of Jack and Paul were horrendous crimes and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to her constituent, Claire, for their tireless campaigning on these issues. I am sure that she would agree that the guiding principle for any reform must be children’s welfare. That is why we have requested a review of the presumption of contact. We will be publishing findings and next steps very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

T5. I wish to raise the case of my constituent whose 89-year-old father was subject to serious abuse through a lasting power of attorney. It took two years and significant legal costs to get the power of attorney removed through the Court of Protection. The father tragically died, homeless and penniless. Does the Minister believe that the current LPA protections are sufficient to prevent such abuse, and will the Government consider an urgent review and reform of the system?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am very sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Member’s constituent. We need to put this into some context. As of March 2024, over 8 million lasting powers of attorney were registered in England and Wales. They are a really useful instrument. Although concerns about misuse do exist, the sort of abuse that the hon. Member highlights is, in context, rare. The Office of the Public Guardian investigated around 2,500 cases last year. We are looking to strengthen safeguards and add more identify checks as part of a modernised service. Lasting power of attorney is a really important tool, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

T4. During my recent visit to Pennine Domestic Abuse Partnership in Huddersfield I heard about how long delays between CPS charges and trial dates leave abuse victims in limbo. The delays not only retraumatise victims but put a huge strain on support services that provide long-term care, so I join colleagues in asking the Government to reduce the delays as soon as possible so that victims of domestic abuse can access justice swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. In a recent report, the Victims Commissioner said that she feared that the delay in victims getting justice “will drive some victims to give up on seeking justice altogether—a second injustice compounding the first.”This is completely unacceptable, and at Ipswich Crown court the backlog of open cases has more than doubled since 2016. What are Ministers doing to reverse the harm inflicted by the Conservatives not only on the justice system itself but on victims’ confidence that justice will be served at all?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right that we are seeing an increase in the number of victims pulling out of the process because they no longer have confidence in it because it is taking so long. We have funded an additional 4,000 sitting days this year and have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once-in-a-generation reform precisely so that we can deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

T7. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) raised the issue of the presumption of contact. I have a constituency case where one parent has abused their children and the other parent has had to pay for the supervision of those children. The presumption of contact is not working in cases where domestic abuse has happened, so I echo the calls from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for an urgent review of it.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member will know that a staggering 60% of cases that go through our family courts involve some form of domestic abuse or allegation thereof. That is why consideration of the operation of the presumption of contact and wider consideration of domestic abuse allegations in our family courts are so important. It is why officials and Ministers are taking the process really seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Minister will be aware that the recent pathfinder family court pilots have been seen as largely successful. This is an opportunity to put children at the centre of these cases and to end the presumption of contact which puts partners and children of abusers at risk. Will she please advise me as to the next steps in this process?

[Sarah Sackman]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and I am grateful to him for raising the pathfinder court. These pilots are proving incredibly successful. They front-load a lot of the evidence gathering, they put the safety of children and family arrangements right at their heart, and they are proving a really successful model, which is why we plan to roll them out further. As part of that, as he has heard, we will be publishing our response to the presumption review very shortly.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The backlog of cases in the Isle of Wight coroner service is the worst in the country, causing pain and distress to too many families, some of whom are waiting 800 days to find out what is happening to their loved ones. Will the Minister offer any comment or support to those families, and will she agree to meet me to discuss how we deal with the problem of the Isle of Wight coroner?

Civil Legal Aid Consultation: Government Response

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Civil Legal Aid: Towards A Sustainable Future”.

Civil legal aid providers face serious challenges around staff retention, profitability, and sustainability, meaning that support can be hard to access for many of those who need it most. This is particularly acute in housing and immigration.

The consultation paper was published on 24 January 2025. It invited responses on proposals to increase civil legal aid fees for housing and debt (hereafter, “housing”) work, and immigration and asylum (hereafter, “immigration”) work. It also sought evidence on potential changes to contractual requirements.

After considering the responses, we have decided to uplift the rates paid for all housing and immigration legal aid work. Overall spending in these categories will increase by 24% and 30% respectively. This represents a significant investment—the first since 1996—an increase of £20 million a year once fully implemented.

Alongside this, we are taking steps to simplify and harmonise certain fees. This will reduce administrative burdens for providers, simplify billing, and allow them to spend more time helping their clients.

This investment will help to ensure effective access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in our society, supporting a more stable and sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and attracts and retains the brightest and the best practitioners.

It will also help us deliver our wider Government ambitions, with investment in immigration legal aid vital to supporting this Government’s ambition to end hotel use and increase returns. The investment in housing legal aid will help ensure a sustainable sector as we expand housing rights in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

The uplifts will be implemented as soon as operationally possible, at which point we intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the fee changes.

Through the consultation, we have also gathered further important evidence to progress our thinking on potential changes to the current office and remote advice requirements set out in the standard civil contract. Using this evidence, we will continue to review the standard civil contract in these areas and consider next steps to ensure that we are supporting clients and providers as effectively as possible in the civil legal aid system.

I will place copies of the consultation response in the Libraries of the House.

[HCWS767]

Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, as you set out. This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or county or family courts to be able to appear before the court remotely via live audio or video link. The use of remote video and audio links is common and already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits through swifter access to justice and by utilising the court estate efficiently, particularly at a time of backlogs.

As a result of the Bill, two categories of case will be able to be heard remotely. That means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax, will now be able to appear remotely. That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down. The Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will those who are defaulters of orders to pay their council tax.

But remote does not mean less access to justice. The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable, in principle, of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s evaluation of remote hearings during the covid-19 pandemic.

Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. It enables a defendant or debtor to attend a court in person or by live video or audio link at judicial discretion. Once a person is before the court, the ultimate determination of whether to have a remote hearing will be by the judge, who will make their own ruling, having heard from all the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.

With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes for an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 in relation to arrest for breach of order. It inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or live video link.

Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in relation to arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in relation to enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts new sub-paragraph (b), which provides that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.

Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor in certain circumstances can appear before a court via live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breach of certain family or county court injunctions and orders, as well as persistent failures to pay council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.

At its core, the Bill enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours. The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common and has delivered significant benefits already. This provision will provide greater flexibility, at judicial discretion, where it is appropriate. As I said, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed by this Bill. The defendant or debtor will be able to make representations to the judge, and the existing safeguards of access to legal representatives remain.

Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2 provide that the Bill extends to England and Wales; that it will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent; and that it may be cited as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2025 once in force. There is nothing controversial about these arrangements. I commend both clauses to the Committee.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will not detain the Committee long because it is stiflingly hot in here, but I want to add that I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Burnley in introducing this Bill.

The Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill extends the ability to be brought before the court remotely in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants who are in breach of the terms of certain orders or injunctions of the court. The second is for failure to pay council tax. While those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite at a police station on arrest, at present, the relevant legislation requires that they must be heard in person. Once a person is before the court, it will be at the judge’s discretion to decide whether to hold a remote hearing upon considering the representation of all the parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.

Hon. Members will be reassured that despite these new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise. These changes will give magistrates and judges in county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. The changes will also mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect victims of domestic abuse, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest. A lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example, over the weekend, will result in their release back into the general population.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for bringing forward this important Bill and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. It is a modest but perhaps mighty Bill, and it provides for remote attendance before the court only when necessary. It adds to the flexibility of the ways that courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system, and it has our wholehearted backing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Legal Aid Agency Cyber-security Incident: Temporary Operational Changes

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

In my statement to the House of 19 May 2025 on the cyber-security incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency’s digital platforms, I said that I would provide a written update to the House in due course.

I therefore want to inform the House that the Ministry of Justice has introduced secondary legislation to make temporary operational changes until these contingency arrangements are no longer needed.

Contingency to date

As I outlined in my statement on 19 May, we have already put in place a number of contingency measures following the incident. In particular, the LAA has set up an incident webpage, with contingencies guidance and frequently asked questions, this is updated daily. The LAA has also set up a telephone helpline for members of the public who are concerned they may have been affected by the data breach.

In terms of contingency measures, the LAA has:

set up an average payment scheme for legal aid providers for civil legal aid cases;

resumed payments to providers on criminal legal aid cases;

put in place processes for urgent civil legal aid application approvals;

resumed processing criminal legal aid applications for the Crown Court; and

confirmed that criminal legal aid applications made in this time will be backdated.

Why is this statutory instrument necessary?

We now need to go further by making some operational changes to ensure the LAA’s business continuity because some LAA digital services, especially those covering civil legal aid, remain offline. Therefore, earlier today, I laid before Parliament “The Criminal and Civil Legal Aid (Amendment) Regulations 2025” (the Statutory Instrument (SI) and accompanying explanatory memorandum are available at legislation.gov.uk). These regulations come into force on 27 June 2025. This SI makes amendments to ensure business continuity for a temporary period until these changes are no longer required.

The intention is to make operational changes to ensure LAA caseworkers can continue to process high-profile, and contentious matters. To enable this, delegations to providers will be extended to carry out certain functions. While this delegation does not require legislation, the SI makes necessary changes to regulations to enable providers to undertake certain work during this period.

These legislative amendments together with some delegation to providers, enables business continuity and ensures the Lord Chancellor is fulfilling her obligations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to make legal aid services available in accordance with the Act. It ensures continuity for both legal aid providers and clients, and maintains access to justice. The measures are designed to ensure these important obligations are met and maintain system stability until digital operations can be restored. In doing so, we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer: proportionate cost controls and assurance mechanisms are in place to manage financial and fraud risks.

The SI will, for a temporary period:

waive civil legal aid income and capital contributions for new and existing cases;

remove prohibitions on delegation of powers to enable the Director of Legal Aid Casework (DLAC) to delegate some additional decisions regarding civil legal aid determinations to legal aid providers; and

make some minor and consequential amendments relating to criminal legal aid determinations which supports other measures being taken as business continuity arrangements.

The above changes contained in the SI will be complemented by changes to the legal aid tables of delegated authorities, issued by the DLAC through a non-legislative process.

Criminal legal aid

For criminal legal aid, the practical effect of this package, that is, the SI and the consequential changes, will be to delegate to providers various DLAC functions, in particular:

the power to issue representation orders, and complete related means and merits assessments, for some criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court where the client is passported, unemployed or under 18; and

the power to withdraw representation orders for the magistrates’ court under certain circumstances.

In criminal legal aid, there is also a provision to ensure providers will be paid for any work conducted on behalf of new clients where they have not been able to properly submit an application to the LAA since some systems first went down on 7 May 2025.

Civil legal aid

For civil legal aid, the effect of the SI package will be to waive both income and capital contributions from clients, and remove the prohibition on delegation to providers of certain functions. The DLAC will then delegate to civil legal aid providers the ability to:

amend substantive determinations for Licensed Work up to a certain limit;

make determinations in respect of certain proceedings which are related to those for which a determination has already been made by the LAA; and

withdraw non-contentious determinations on legal aid funding where: the services made available by the determination have been provided; the proceedings to which the determination relates have been concluded; the individual consents; or the individual has died.

For licensed work, where legal representation in court is needed, the LAA, acting under delegated powers, usually determines eligibility and is also typically responsible for taking decisions in relation to the potential amendment of the determination as well as its possible withdrawal, subject to the circumstances of the case.

In relation to civil legal aid contributions, there is a transitional provision which will act as a deterrent to individuals who already have civil legal aid, from stopping instructions to their solicitors to seek a refund of any contributions already paid, then making a new application for the same case under the more favourable terms provided for under this SI.

The DLAC will also be required to withdraw, rather than revoke, any emergency representation determination where the individual does not subsequently pass the means test.

The distinction between revocation and withdrawal is broadly as follows: when the LAA revokes the funding certificate, any legal aid funds paid to the provider for work undertaken in the case would be reclaimed from the individual; in contrast, when the LAA withdraws the funding certificate, legal aid funding ceases from that point and the individual faces no liability to the LAA for the legal aid costs incurred in the case.

I want to reassure the House that we are continuing to work hard on stabilising the LAA’s systems, and we have put in place these contingency plans, and those set out in the LAA’s published guidance, which is regularly updated, to ensure that those most in need of legal aid can continue to access the help that they need. We have engaged with legal aid representative bodies on these contingency plans and will continue to do so.

[HCWS743]

Taking Control of Goods Procedure: Reforms

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government are today announcing a balanced package of measures about the independent regulation of the enforcement sector and changes to the taking control of goods procedure. These measures aim to protect those facing enforcement action, enabling them to get debt support while ensuring that there is a fair system of enforcement so that public bodies and businesses can recover moneys owed to them.

Rights only exist if they can be enforced. That requires us to have an effective enforcement system—one that makes securing awards made by the courts straightforward and timely, while treating parties who owe money with dignity. A fair and stable enforcement system is one that can deliver better outcomes for all.

The private enforcement sector recovers a significant amount of debt each year, with a sizeable portion owed to local authorities and central Government, which is used to fund public services. There is, however, concern about the impact that some enforcement agencies are having on some vulnerable people in debt and those struggling to pay money owed. Many parties, including the Justice Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, have called for statutory independent regulation of the enforcement sector. The Civil Justice Council published a report in April 2025 which echoed that recommendation.

Although most enforcement agencies have already signed up to the Enforcement Conduct Board’s voluntary accreditation scheme and are funding its oversight activity, the Government believe that it is necessary to take action so that all enforcement agents, High Court enforcement officers and agencies are regulated to the same standards, overseen by the same independent body. The Government will today open a consultation about how to do so.

As set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s regulation action plan, when regulation is designed well it can be an essential tool to promote growth and investment and protect the public. We will introduce independent statutory regulation of the sector, in line with the objectives in the action plan and our work across Government to cut the administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. The consultation seeks views, among other things, on how to ensure that a regulator’s statutory objectives are targeted and proportionate, and to consider how it will be held to account for its performance.

The consultation will run for a six-week period. The Government welcome responses from everybody with an interest in this area. The responses will inform legislation to be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Alongside this, the Government have also published their response to a consultation that was held in 2023 about amending the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and intend to implement some interim reforms. These aim to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages of the enforcement process by, for example, extending the amount of notice that people must be given before an enforcement visit, giving them more time to access debt advice and/or set up a payment agreement.

We have also provided an update regarding the outcome of a 2023 review about the fees that the enforcement sector can recover from those facing enforcement, and plan to implement the following changes:

Uplifting the fixed fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover from judgment debtors by 5%. This will be the first uplift to the fees since 2014. We consider it is necessary to do so to ensure that enforcement firms are adequately remunerated for the work they do in order to ensure the sustainability of the sector.

Uplifting by 24% the thresholds above which enforcement agents and High Courtenforcement officers can recover a percentage fee. The taking control of goods regulations specify that debts over the prescribed thresholds, that reach the enforcement stage, will attract an additional percentage fee of 7.5% of the value of the debt that is above the threshold. Uplifting the value of the thresholds will, therefore, reduce the proportion of cases that will incur this additional percentage fee.

The Government intend to lay a statutory instrument in Parliament to implement the fee uplifts and interim reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The Government recognise concerns around the impact that certain collection and enforcement processes—in particular, council tax—have on vulnerable people. That is why we have also committed to consulting on modernising the administration of the council tax system, including the processes for collecting and enforcing council tax. The consultation will be published later this year by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[HCWS687]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

4. When the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services plans to meet the hon. Member for Horsham’s constituent Andrew Turner to discuss locked child trust funds.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to support young adults who lack mental capacity in accessing their child trust fund. I know that he met my predecessor, and following work that I am carrying out with counterparts in other Departments, I will be very pleased to meet him.

[John Milne]

My constituent has been through no fewer than eight Justice Secretaries, looking for a solution to the problem of locked child trust funds; he has had to start over again each time from scratch. Will the Minister give me and Mr Turner a clear understanding of what exactly the legal impediment is to a solution, and of what part of Government the objection is coming from, so that we can make a legal challenge to it, if necessary?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member will understand, as will Mr Turner, that we have to balance the desire to support young adults who lack capacity in accessing what is their property by right with the need to ensure that everybody who needs to access those child trust funds has the proper legal authority to do so. Safeguards need to be in place, not least to ensure that those vulnerable adults are protected from economic abuse. That is why we must work very carefully across Government to ensure that those protections are kept in place.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to ensure adequate monitoring of the community accommodation service tier 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

T4.   The 14,500 volunteer magistrates who deal with 95% of criminal cases are the backbone of our justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me, the Magistrates’ Association, and a group of cross-party MPs who recently wrote to her, calling for a long-service medal to be established for justices, as well as discussing the Magistrates’ Association’s forthcoming report on how to recruit and retain magistrates, as she increases their powers and responsibilities?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I was pleased to visit Telford justice centre with my hon. Friend, where we met magistrates and leaders of the Magistrates’ Association. I meet the Magistrates’ Association regularly. We have a system of certification, acknowledging the vital work that magistrates do, especially long-serving magistrates who serve more than 10, 20 or 30 years. I am happy to continue discussions with my hon. Friend on how we can acknowledge and recognise that brilliant service even more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

T7.   The backlog of Crown court cases in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight reached an eight-year high last year, which has had a huge impact on victims and defendants in Aldershot and Farnborough who are struggling to get on with their lives. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce delays in local justice for my constituents?

[Sarah Sackman]

This Government inherited record and rising backlogs. As my hon. Friend described, the human cost of that is victims waiting longer and longer for their day in court. We have acted swiftly, increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, but fundamental reform is needed, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his review. He will be reporting shortly and we will take his package of fundamental reforms forward, to ensure that we have reform of our Crown courts and swifter justice for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

A family court judge who would have made decisions in relation to many abused children was recently found guilty by the High Court of abusing their own adopted children. Does the Minister agree that protecting the anonymity of members of the judiciary who have abused their children, particularly when it relates so intimately to their own work in court, risks undermining public trust in our legal system?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight an absolutely appalling case, and the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the children who were victims of that abuse. The independent judiciary has ruled on this. This Government believe in transparency in our family courts, and that is why we are working to expand the use of transparency orders, but we have to respect the independence of our judiciary, which has ruled in this particular case, not least for the reason of protecting the children in that case.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T5. Lord Hermer says that we are not even trying to reform the convention. Why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T6. Rural communities often find it even more difficult to access legal aid providers than in urban areas. What steps is the Minister taking to help to provide access to legal aid to people in rural areas?

[Sarah Sackman]

It is vital that those who need legal aid—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—can access it. We are funding provisions such as Advicenow, which is an online provision. We also ensure through our contracting process through the Legal Aid Agency that there is provision right across the country to ensure that no one, including those in rural areas, struggles to access legal aid.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

My constituent Claire Ball was sexually abused as a child. As an adult, she faced her abuser in court. He was allowed to provide character references. Her good character was called into question, yet she was not allowed character references. Will my hon. Friend take steps to rectify this unfairness for victims such as Claire?

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

T9. My constituent’s child was the victim of a serious sexual offence several years ago. By the time the case comes to trial next year, it will have been nearly half a decade since the assault took place. Does the Lord Chancellor think that that is an appropriate length of time for a child to have to wait to seek justice? What words of comfort can she give to my constituent?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady highlights an absolutely appalling case. If she is asking whether I think that is acceptable, the answer is no. As my hon. Friend the Victims Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied. It is for that reason that we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to recommend bold and fundamental reform. The hon. Lady has just described the human consequence of the Crown court backlog that we inherited from the past Government, and we will fix the mess.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Last week I visited Meadow Road youth centre to see the fantastic work that Lloyd and other youth workers are doing to provide an outlet for young people. However, it could be closed down due to funding uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that sporting centres such as that reduce youth offending and are hubs for rehabilitation? Will my hon. Friend commit to Dudley getting its fair share of funding and to keeping the centre open?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

T10.   My constituent Charlotte—a victim of abuse herself—has long campaigned for justice through transcripts and highlights how they can help victims to move forward with their lives. How can we ensure that victims are provided with sentencing remarks even if the accused is acquitted in a rape case?

[Sarah Sackman]

The Ministry of Justice currently provides free sentencing remarks for victims of murder and manslaughter. As of last month, we have made permanent our pilot to provide those sentencing remarks to victims of rape. The hon. Lady will understand that providing full transcriptions is a costly exercise, which is why we are undertaking testing of artificial intelligence to make transcripts available in future in a lower-cost and timely manner.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

At just 12 years old, my constituent was subjected to horrific abuse by a family member who was ultimately convicted of nine offences, including four counts of rape. The offender was sentenced in youth court to just a three-year referral order and a two-year restraining order. My constituent cannot appeal this sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme simply because of the court in which the case was heard. Will the Minister review this deeply troubling case and consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include youth court rape convictions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Sadly, some of my constituents have experienced a double blow, not only from having defective cavity wall insulation installed, but from being pursued for adverse legal costs by firms such as SSB Law. Ministers have previously confirmed that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has opened an investigation. Will the Minister provide an update on that investigation and meet me to discuss how those affected can get redress?

[Sarah Sackman]

Once again, I am sorry to hear about the impact that the collapse of SSB Law has had on my hon. Friend’s constituents and the many others affected. As she says, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is completing an investigation into the collapse. Disciplinary notices have been issued to several individuals and further decisions are expected before the summer. I am happy to provide her with a written update as that investigation is concluded.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Litigation finance plays a key role in the legal system in the UK and provides opportunities for postmasters and others to take cases to court. The Civil Justice Council has just published its report on the sector. When will the Government respond to that report?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I thank the Civil Justice Council for its work. He will understand that we have not yet had a chance to fully digest the report, but we anticipate acting on its recommendations in fairly short order.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.