Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Courts and Tribunals Bill puts victims at its heart and aims to deliver faster, fairer justice for all victims. In addition, we are increasing transparency and support for victims in the criminal justice system, funding victim support to the tune of over half a billion pounds, consulting on a new victims code, and enhancing special measures.
Liz Jarvis
My constituent was appalled that character references were read out during the sentencing of a man found guilty of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. The Minister will be aware that Queensland, in Australia, introduced reforms last year to restrict the use of character references in the sentencing of sex offenders. Does the Minister agree that all victims should be at the heart of sentencing, and will she review the admissibility and weight of character references in sexual offence cases?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important point. The starting point is that judges decide what evidence is admissible and what weight to give to that, but we are interested in how evidence is being used in criminal trials. The Courts and Tribunals Bill will make changes—for example, to defendants’ bad character evidence. This will clarify that if a defendant has a previous domestic abuse conviction, the judge can say that this shows that they have a propensity to commit further domestic abuse offences, but I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on what further changes might be beneficial.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government are dedicated to increasing transparency in our courts. We are expanding free Crown court sentencing transcripts to all victims who request them and rolling out recording to all magistrates courts, so that all criminal cases heard in open court will now be recorded. We are also working with our judiciary to see where we can go even further on transparency.
Andrew Cooper
The Courts and Tribunals Bill seeks to increase the transparency of court proceedings in several important respects, but conducting empirical research into how real juries make decisions will remain illegal in England and Wales. Researchers have had to rely on mock juries in their research, which has shown a link between the attitudes of jurors and verdict decisions, in particular in rape trials. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must break down barriers to jury research so that we can develop appropriate reforms to address this problem?
Sarah Sackman
Of course, there are good reasons for the protection of jury deliberations, which ensures that they can happen in private. The Government in Scotland have recently legislated for a tightly controlled exception to support research into jury deliberations, and my officials are working with the Scotland Office to see what lessons we can learn from that vital work.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In February, the Government ordered Courtsdesk to delete the largest archive of court records in the country—an essential tool for transparency in the justice system. The Government changed their minds about that, which was incredibly welcome, but we do not yet have a clear sense of what they intend to do with that archive or how they intend to move forward. Could the Minister assure us today that Courtsdesk will not be compelled to delete its archive in the future and confirm whether it will be allowed to continue operating its services?
Sarah Sackman
I will start by reminding the House why we suspended the operations of Courtsdesk. It was because of its handling of sensitive data in breach of the agreement it had with Government. Of course, we recognise the importance of transparency and the service provided by Courtsdesk, which I recently met. The hon. Lady will know, as I have updated the House, that we intend to bring forward new licensing arrangements to make court listings and registers available to more people—for journalists in particular—and we will bring forward plans as to how Courtsdesk and others can bid for those new licences.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is the prosecution and the defence who decide what evidence to put forward in a criminal trial, including deciding whether to put forward evidence from automated enforcement technology. Once that evidence has been put forward, the magistrates and the judge have a duty to ensure that only admissible evidence is presented to a jury.
Peter Lamb
The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?
Sarah Sackman
We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member’s supplementary is relevant to the main question. [Interruption.] No, I think it is not.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Before answering the question, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Jeff Blair, a county court bailiff who was killed last week doing his job. It was a shocking incident, and violence against our hard-working staff is completely unacceptable.
Turning to the question, the Government support the work of the Enforcement Conduct Board to raise standards in the enforcement industry and to ensure, in particular, that vulnerable people are treated fairly. We have consulted on establishing an independent regulatory framework to build on the ECB’s excellent work, and we will announce next steps in due course.
Gill Furniss
I welcome the Government’s commitment to legislating for a statutory bailiff regulator. Research by StepChange and others has uncovered shocking cases that show why that is urgently needed, including a bailiff pushing someone through their front door and then laughing when they said that they had mental health issues. Will the Minister tell the House when we can expect that legislation to reach the statute books?
Sarah Sackman
I join my hon. Friend in endorsing the work of StepChange, in particular, in this campaign. The indignity that she describes, which many suffer as a result of the abusive actions of some, and only some, unregulated bailiffs, reinforces why we need legislation in this area. We have consulted on how we will legislate, and as I have said, we will announce our next steps in due course.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much associate myself with the Minister’s words on the sad loss. She touched on the important issue of the vital role that court bailiffs play. Many small businesses are struggling to recover money because of a lack of court bailiffs. What actions are the Government looking to take to increase the number of court bailiffs, in order to help small businesses recover the money that they are owed?
Sarah Sackman
As much as we want to protect debtors, we also have to ensure that creditors who are owed money are able to recover those funds, whether they are small businesses or, indeed, the public purse. That is why we plan to uplift fixed fees for enforcement agents, so that we have a sustainable and effective enforcement sector. Ultimately, better regulation helps everyone, creditor or debtor.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 represents the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation, but of course, rights are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforceable. That is why the role of appeals, including to our property tribunal, is so important. My hon. Friend will know that court fees are a feature right across our system, but we will ensure that fees do not represent a barrier to access to justice.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Secretary of State’s condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, have been used by the rich and powerful to silence victims and undermine the free press in this country. Anyone engaging in public-interest activities can be a target of SLAPPs. Powerful individuals who are exploiting the justice system in this country should not be shielded from scrutiny, so when can we expect legislation from this Government to address this?
Sarah Sackman
I entirely agree that the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the chilling effect that they have on public-interest journalism, pose a threat to our democracy. The Government commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, and we recently saw the first case that engaged those provisions. While this is a positive first step, I am keen to consider all options for how we might take this further, and I look forward to working with Members right across the House on how we do that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his tireless advocacy, which is a way of honouring Sara, who was brutally murdered at the hands of the very people who should have been protecting her. Of course, it is essential for justice that all court users understand what is happening in hearings. We believe that Sara Sharif’s birth mother was entitled to an interpreter, but she did not request one. However, we need to look into what should have been done to guarantee that she had an interpreter. We make over 200,000 interpreter bookings every year to ensure that people can understand proceedings, but I look forward to working with him to see what more we can do to implement that review.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Sarah Sackman
We are maximising the number of judicial sitting days in the immigration and asylum chamber. We are recruiting more judges in this area, as well as working with the Home Office to develop proposals for a new independent appeals body that would handle appeal types currently heard in the immigration tribunal, all of which I hope will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about that case. These sorts of delays mount trauma on trauma for many of those going through sensitive family court proceedings. We have to get this right. Because of the sensitive nature of family proceedings, there has to be judge approval of transcripts, and they have to meet the rigorous requirements of the secure transcription unit. We cannot compromise on accuracy and quality, but we do need to get the delays down.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware of the campaign to make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Fees can run into the thousands, effectively acting as a paywall to justice. Do Ministers agree that access to the law cannot be based on wealth alone, and what will they do about it?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right: we are seeking to increase transparency and reduce barriers to justice. That is why we are legislating to make sentencing remarks available to all victims upon request, free of charge. We want to go further by creating more opportunities for broadcasting court proceedings and by working towards the greater availability of proceeding transcripts.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
One of my constituents has been waiting since September for a three-day fact-finding hearing in the family court. A hearing scheduled for February was cancelled at only a few days’ notice because no judge was available. My constituent had to pay nearly £2,000 in legal fees for preparation and representation, even after their barrister reduced their costs. Will the Minister reform the system so that families facing delays caused by the courts are not left bearing the financial cost of failures in the system itself?
Sarah Sackman
The impact of delays, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, is a feature of not just our criminal courts, but our civil and family courts. The financial impact, and, if an individual has been waiting, the build-up to the nerve-racking prospect of a trial in court, can be absolutely devastating. We are working to maximise capacity in every jurisdiction and hiring more judges to improve timeliness. I will continue to work with colleagues across the Department to deal with delays in the family court.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have met the academics behind the University and College Union reports on the prison education service, which highlighted the real challenges around the wellbeing and mental health of educators, as well as their safety, especially with the racism they have been experiencing. Will my hon. Friend look at carrying out a complete review of the prison education service to ensure it is fit for purpose and able to do the job it was designed for?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Given the massive immigration tribunal backlog left by the previous Government, would it not make more sense to lift the cap on non-salaried tribunal judges who are already recruited, and invest in court venues such as Taunton, instead of abolishing their role and doing massive damage to morale?
Sarah Sackman
Plainly, we have to address the backlogs in our immigration and asylum chamber. It is why we are maximising capacity in terms of sitting days and traditional recruitment. I had the pleasure of visiting the immigration and asylum chamber on Rosebury Avenue recently, and I saw the commendable work being done by the resident judge. We are focusing on a new appeals body, working with the Home Office. We think that is the better plan, and we will make sure it is properly resourced.
Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for securing this debate. We have all been treated to a fine and thoughtful speech. He is without doubt a tireless advocate for his constituency—for Clydebank, Dumbarton, and the communities ravaged by the diseases that he has described. I extend my sympathies to all those who have suffered with asbestos-related diseases, made sick by their places of work and the conditions in which they should have been kept safe.
This is no doubt an incredibly important issue, which involves a complicated area of law where the common law and legislation have developed a complex and nuanced set of rules. I will set out the general position on causation and liability in negligence claims. The usual test for causation in negligence cases is the “but for” test—that is, whether the claimant’s harm would have happened but for the defendant’s breach in the duty of care owed to the claimant. If the claimant proves on the balance of probabilities that it would not have occurred without the breach, causation is established. Causation in industrial injury litigation that involves exposure to asbestos can be particularly complex, given that normally the claimant’s condition will have been caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, involving many incidents and several different employers.
When determining liability and compensation, the courts draw a distinction between divisible and indivisible injuries. In England and Wales, liability and compensation for divisible industrial diseases, which is where the condition worsens with long-term exposure, is apportioned between previous employers, with each defendant liable only for the period of negligent exposure they caused. In the context of industrial injuries, indivisible diseases are conditions where the harm is treated as a single whole injury, because it cannot be medically or causally divided between different workplace exposures. It is usually impossible to know which specific exposure caused the injury. Under the normal rules, that would mean an employee who worked at different companies would likely fail in any legal claim because they cannot prove which employer caused them harm. Mesothelioma, for example, is treated as an indivisible disease.
As my hon. Friend eloquently set out, there have been a number of legal developments in recent years regarding liability and compensation for mesothelioma. In Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the House of Lords created a special rule for cases such as mesothelioma, where a claimant has been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers but cannot prove which exposure caused the disease. In such cases, if an employer negligently exposed a worker to asbestos and thereby materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, they can be held liable even if the claimant cannot prove that that employer’s exposure actually caused the cancer. In short, the “materially increased risk” test replaced the “but for” test.
However, in Barker v. Corus, the House of Lords accepted that the Fairchild exception—that is, the materially increased risk test—still applied, but it also addressed the consequences of that liability. The court held that defendants were not jointly and severally liable, as had previously been understood, but instead liable only on a proportionate basis, reflecting their respective contributions to the overall risk.
In response, Parliament acted with cross-party consensus to enact the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker v. Corus for mesothelioma claims. Section 3 of the Act reinstated the principle that victims could claim full compensation from any liable party, who can then seek contributions from others responsible for the exposure. That is vital in mesothelioma cases specifically, as it is not possible to establish which workplace fibres triggered the process of carcinogenesis. Equally, there is no action an individual can take that increases or decreases their chances of developing the disease. At the time of passing the 2006 Act, the broad political consensus was that due to the unique pathology of mesothelioma, the Barker ruling had to be reversed. Otherwise, there was a real risk of claimants being unable to seek the compensation that they deserved. As such, it was decided that as a unique disease, mesothelioma required a distinct legal remedy.
However, as we have heard, in terms of the life-changing effects and ill health that asbestos-related lung cancer can bring, in reality, the situation for many sufferers is little different for other non-mesothelioma claims, and the Barker ruling still applies to them. That was affirmed in Heneghan v. Manchester Dry Docks Ltd, in which it was held that the materially increased risk test of Fairchild applies to those claims, while the joint and severally liable principle introduced by section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 is limited to claims relating to mesothelioma. Broadly, the courts accept that the materially increased risk test is proven for those claims if medical evidence shows that the asbestos exposure more than doubled the relative risk.
This area of law is a mix of devolved and reserved matters. The Scottish Parliament agreed via a legislative consent motion to UK-wide legislation that became section 3 of the Compensation Act. I want to assure my hon. Friend and the House that the UK Government are committed to ensuring that necessary support is available to all individuals suffering from asbestos-related conditions, including asbestos-related lung cancer. Eligible individuals can receive industrial injuries disablement benefit—a weekly no-fault payment for work-related diseases such as asbestos-related lung cancer. The Scottish Government plan to replace the IIDB with employment injury assistance, and work is under way to manage that transition.
Although the UK Government have no immediate plans to review the current legal framework in England and Wales, which has been the subject of much detailed analysis and determination in the senior courts, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has put on this issue. He and I have had the chance to speak outside the Chamber about how the law might be developed. I am grateful to him for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position on what is, without doubt, a complex and intricate area of law, but one that has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from industrial-related diseases. In response to his question—or, dare I say, challenge—I will of course meet him and relevant organisations to discuss how the law might be reviewed to ensure that sufferers and their families can be treated fairly. I think that that is the right and careful approach, and I look forward to working with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Marriage Regulations
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Let me start by reiterating the thanks that others have already extended to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by congratulating him on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to discuss something like love and marriage, as opposed to some of the slightly darker subjects that often detain us in all matters justice.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the modernisation of weddings and marriage law, as well as the important points the right hon. Gentleman raised about whether the current legal framework keeps pace with modern expectations and the practical realities of couples wishing to marry. Marriage will always be one of the most important institutions in our society, and I know that Members across the House care deeply about it, as do I and many of our constituents.
I start by paying tribute to the unique place that Gretna Green, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has in the history of weddings in the United Kingdom. When this issue first crossed my desk, my first thought went to “Pride and Prejudice”, which is one of my favourite novels. Gretna Green is the location to which Lydia Bennet and the slightly roguish George Wickham fled to get married out of sight of their parents. There are, of course, plenty of other good reasons why Gretna Green remains a popular choice for wedding ceremonies to this day. It carries a long and rich history, which the right hon. Gentleman described so eloquently. Sitting just over the border between England and Scotland, it was indeed often the first Scottish settlement that couples fleeing England and its stricter wedding laws would reach. Although I am glad it is no longer necessary for couples to brave a trip north of the border to Gretna Green to seek freedom by eloping, its reputation for romance and tradition, as we have heard, persists to this day.
As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the responsibility for weddings law in Scotland sits with the Scottish Government. As such, I cannot comment on specific aspects, but I recognise that the issues he raised about how the different systems operate across the United Kingdom, and the opportunity that this Government have to modernise weddings law, are part of a conversation that we in this House will want to have.
Let us turn to what the Government are doing to reform weddings law in England and Wales. As the right hon. Gentleman referenced, last year the Government announced the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales since the 19th century. Our planned reforms build on the comprehensive and important work of the Law Commission and its 2022 report on weddings law. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that report is both extensive and thoughtful.
The Government made that announcement because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deep personal commitment between two people. For those choosing to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision. It is therefore important that the legal framework governing weddings is clear and modern and works well for those who rely on it.
Our reforms focus on two key areas ripe for change. First, the law will move away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place, and instead focus on the officiant responsible for conducting the ceremony. That will make it easier for people to get married in a variety of settings, giving them flexibility and choice. Secondly, we will introduce a single set of rules governing all weddings, with the exception of retaining Anglican preliminaries. That will enable many more couples to have ceremonies that reflect their values and beliefs.
At the centre of the reforms is the Government’s commitment to protect the dignity and integrity of weddings as we create a level playing field for all groups. We will give couples more choice and freedom over how they marry, but ceremonies must always reflect the significant lifelong commitment that marriage represents.
To progress those reforms, and to answer the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will publish a consultation early this year. I appreciate that it is already March, and as one knows, “early this year” can be a flexible concept in this place, but our determination remains to get on with that consultation, building on the Law Commission’s report. That report was comprehensive, and the Government’s consultation will therefore focus on more detailed aspects of reform, including the dignity and suitability of locations and ceremonies, and the role of independent officiants.
I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the necessity of notice periods. As he said, under the current law of England and Wales, once a couple have given notice of their intention to marry, they must generally wait 28 days before they are issued their marriage schedule. He pointed to Gibraltar as an example of a place where that process is much quicker—having strong connections to Gibraltar, I know that is why it is an attractive jurisdiction, not just for John and Yoko, but for many others since.
The notice period exists to ensure that any legal impediment to the marriage, or any other concerns about it, can be raised and dealt with before the marriage is given approval to go ahead. The Law Commission considered the preliminaries process in detail in its report and emphasised the importance of maintaining a robust notice system, given the protections that it offers for vulnerable people and against forced and sham marriages. That is important.
While recommending that the process be modernised, including by enabling couples to give notice online, the commission did not propose shortening the existing 28-day notice period. However, it noted that the process could be made easier for couples, and recommended providing an online system for giving notice, as the right hon. Gentleman also suggested. The Government are carefully considering our approach to preliminaries and the process for giving notice. As part of that work, I will ensure that the policy team engages with international jurisdictions, including overseas territories such as the ones the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The case for reform in this area is compelling. It will result in a great many benefits. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale noted that the current law means that weddings, while good for the local economy, can become very costly for both couples and businesses. The Government agree that weddings can be far too expensive, so our reforms will make it more affordable for couples to get married. A new system to regulate officiants should make many lower-cost options much more accessible. Families will no longer need to fund two weddings—one that is legally binding, and one that is not but reflects their culture and beliefs.
Reforms will also see a significant boost to the economy, with the Law Commission estimating that they could lead to a 3% increase in weddings in England. Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? There are also a huge number of social benefits. We will make it easier for religious groups to marry in accordance with their beliefs, improving equality and preventing vulnerable individuals, particularly women, from unknowingly having a wedding without legal protections.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park for raising the issue of humanist marriage. They will know that the Government committed to allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings, representing another huge step forward to ensure that marriage law reflects the make-up of modern Britain. I look forward to seeing those plans come forward. I will offer to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who is no longer here, on how the Cornish language operates within our marriage system.
Suffice it to say that reform is coming and the consultation is coming. We need a broader national conversation for the comprehensive reform that is required. Something as important as modernising our wedding laws for the first time in a very long time needs to be undertaken in a thoughtful, considered and comprehensive way. I look forward to seeing many of the reforms and the modern step change that will allow more couples to enjoy this precious thing long into the future.
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsTuesday 10th March 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech for this Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. A consensus has broken out across this Chamber that the acute backlog in our criminal courts represents an injustice. We have a record and rising backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one is a victim and somebody accused of a crime. Lives are put on hold, immiserated by the fact that today we are seeing trials listed in 2030.
A consensus has broken out that we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. We have to act based on pragmatism, on what works and on the principle of fairness to ensure that every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. Whether someone is a defendant or a victim, it is deeply unfair to make them wait years for justice. Victims’ lives are put on hold, and witnesses’ memories fade. People are pulling out of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk away. That is not justice at all. That is what we mean when we say justice delayed is justice denied, and we have to act.
How do we frame these principles? We make a choice. Traditionally, our justice system has had two central parties: on the one hand, the prosecution; on the other, the defence. Victims have only a walk-on part. That will change, because the measures in this Bill place victims at their heart, and I pay tribute to them today. Again, consensus reigns in endorsing the fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who paid tribute to her constituent Claire Throssell for her campaign. The measures in the Bill repeal the presumption of parental contact.
We have heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). Their voices have been added to those of the countless victims I have met throughout this process, who have implored me to act and to challenge the injustices in our court, the delays and the nature of the justice process, which means that so often they feel they have been put on trial. That is why, as part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, we have centred victims by delivering a package of over half a billion pounds to support victims’ services. Today we have announced that there will be independent legal advisers for rape victims and that we are changing the law on the rules of evidence, which means that rape myths will be busted in our courts. Of course, as the Victims’ Commissioner has said, there is a need to address the delays.
We are being asked to vote on a reasoned amendment, and before I turn to the remarks made by other hon. Members—
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Member has not been here for the entire debate, so I am afraid that I am not going to address his comments.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) moved a reasoned amendment that would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, shut criminal courts and capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I have not heard is an apology, nor have I heard an alternative plan for how to address the backlog.
This Government have brought forward a plan built on three pillars, or three levers that we choose to pull. The first is investment in uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit and putting record investment into criminal legal aid. I have heard the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about needing to look at the availability of legal aid, because of course access to justice is vital.
The second lever is modernisation. Many Members across the House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, with the time it takes to bring prisoners to court, the courtrooms empty because of disrepair—we are now investing in courtrooms —and problems with listing and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool. These are all valuable suggestions, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said in his vision speech last week, we are taking them all forward because we have to pull every lever.
Thirdly, the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson were clear: investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but they will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressure on our Crown courts. That was caused not simply by covid or by lack of investment; these long-term changes in our criminal justice system have been coming down the track for decades. Crown court trials take twice as long as they did 20 years ago, the police are making more arrests and it is right that we have more procedural protections. All this means that our system is creaking under the demand, as the modelling we have put forward demonstrates.
The way we are going to bring about transformation is through people—the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), to the CPS, the police and the prison staff, and to the defence and prosecution barristers who power our criminal justice system, because we will need them. As many have pointed out, we will also need our magistrates, and I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who demonstrated how magistrates will power our system. These are lay justices—
Sarah Sackman
I will give way, but I am mindful of the time. I have to wrap up on time.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not expect an answer now, but will the Minister take away one point that I and others made, which is that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? She need not answer now, but will she at least consider that point?
Sarah Sackman
I will not respond to that point now, but I will say that there needs to be equality before the law irrespective of background.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) about rushing. We are not rushing. This Bill, as seen in the vibrant debate we have had today, will receive ample scrutiny. I have taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it is the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) about district judges, or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We will engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen the Bill. One of the most important ways in which we will do that is through a review, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has committed, focused primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system.
I am not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working-class communities and racial minorities—
Sarah Sackman
I will not give way, because I have a lot of comments to cover.
Members representing those communities have been vocal in this debate. We hear you, and that is why we will be bringing forward a review in Committee. I pay tribute to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Something that came through in their comments was the importance not just of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. The justice system that we reform needs to command the confidence of communities, and we will work constructively to ensure that the review that we put on the face of the Bill does just that.
I return to the central theme, which is the need to act. For too long, those on the Conservative Benches were prepared to sit idly by while they presided over a crisis in our prisons, a crisis in probation and, now, a crisis in our courts. We have heard loud and clear from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that there is a necessity to act. As Sir Brian Leveson himself said,
“if not this, then what?”,
and if not now, then when?
Politics is about choices. This Labour Government choose modernisation over tradition, investment over decline, and to put victims and communities first in a transformed, modernised justice system in which our public and our citizenry can have confidence.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Legal Services Board Review
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I am pleased to announce the review of the Legal Services Board. It is best practice for Departments to regularly review their public bodies to provide assurance to both Government and the public that these bodies are operating effectively, and that their functions remain useful and necessary. In the case of legal services, this assurance is especially significant because the sector’s regulatory framework must remain demonstrably independent of Government, a key pillar of the rule of law, and of public confidence in our justice system.
The Government are committed to reducing regulatory burdens that may stifle innovation and growth across various sectors, including the legal sector. However, the legal services regulatory framework is complex, encompassing a broad range of professions and regulatory bodies, each with their own scope, governance and approach.
Within this landscape, the LSB provides oversight of the approved regulators responsible for the direct regulation of legal services providers. We must ensure that the current regulatory oversight arrangements are effective and do not duplicate frontline regulators’ work and initiatives. Robust and proportionate oversight is also crucial in ensuring that the sector continues to uphold the highest professional standards and safeguard public trust.
It has been several years since the last review of the LSB in 2017 and, since then, there have been significant developments in the legal services sector. These include the introduction of a new regulatory objective, concerns around professional ethics within the sector, as well as market developments—most notably, the rapid increase in the use of lawtech. Given these changes, it is timely and appropriate to review how the work of the LSB is delivered.
This review provides an opportunity to consider the LSB’s statutory remit, its strategic clarity, governance and accountability arrangements, and the LSB’s current capabilities. The review will assess how the LSB and the Ministry of Justice should work together to deliver value for money and ensure sufficient focus is maintained on the evolving priorities of legal services consumers and the wider sector.
This review will also ensure that current arrangements actively support the essential work undertaken by the approved regulators and legal services providers. It will support the effective delivery of the Department’s priorities for delivering accessible and timely justice, for upholding the rule of law, and in promoting our world-leading legal services.
I have appointed Richard Lloyd to lead on the review. Richard is the chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. He is an experienced senior executive and non-executive director, with a strong track record of chairing high-profile regulatory bodies and committees and a reputation for integrity and commitment to public service. Richard has substantial experience of transforming the effectiveness of a wide range of organisations, improving operational delivery in public and private sector services. He is independent from the Ministry of Justice and will provide objective analysis of the LSB and the Department.
As part of this review, a call for evidence will be issued to gather feedback and views. This will take place alongside targeted engagement with stakeholders to inform the review’s findings. A link to the call for evidence can be found below.
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/legal-services-board-public-bodies-review/
I will make a further announcement on completion of the review in summer 2026. Following this, I will set out the Government’s response.
[HCWS1319]
Court Reporting Data
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I am committed, as are this Government, to greater transparency in our justice system. I am also committed to putting the dignity of victims first. As Courts Minister, I have a concern that people should know what goes on in our courts. It is a way of enhancing transparency and of informing and educating the public, and that is why His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has made and continues to make information available to accredited journalists so that they can keep the public informed about what is taking place in our courts.
In 2020, a company called Courtsdesk entered into an arrangement with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to conduct a pilot providing a new service. That agreement, made under the previous Government, was essentially to take some of the data that we routinely provide—and continue to provide—to journalists, and to re-provide it in a more accessible and easier to search form.
HMCTS was working to expand and improve the service by creating a new data licence agreement with Courtsdesk and others to expand access to justice. It was in the course of making that arrangement with Courtsdesk that data protection issues came to light. What has arisen is that this private company has been sharing private, personal and legally sensitive information with a third-party AI company, including potentially the addresses and dates of birth of defendants and victims. That is a direct breach of our agreement with Courtsdesk, which the Conservatives negotiated.
I believe that everybody in this House would agree that that agreement should be upheld. The Government take our data protection responsibilities seriously. It is for that reason that we decided to stop sharing data with Courtsdesk, a company that was prepared to put victims’ personal data at risk. We instructed it to remove that data from its digital platform. This is about preserving dignity for those who are in our justice system, be they those accused of crime or victims going through the court process. I know that the whole House would agree that that is incredibly important.
Let me be clear: the cessation of our agreement with Courtsdesk does not change the information available to the public about what carries on in our courts, nor does it change the information available to journalists. I recognise that the sort of service that Courtsdesk provided was useful for journalists, because it collated the information and presented it neatly. It is for that reason that officials in my Department are continuing to work, as we had always planned to do, on an alternative platform that allows us to make the information available, but to maintain the guardrails on data protection. I hope to update the House on that in coming weeks. As I conclude, this decision—
Dr Mullan
Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies?
The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is.
This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [Interruption.] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided.
Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [Interruption.] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company.
We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS.
Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [Interruption.] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible.
Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means.
Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. It is vital for people to know what goes on in our courts, and local reporting of what happens there matters to wider society and, indeed, to our democracy. We recognise that Courtsdesk provided a useful service for journalists in collating information and presenting it in an accessible way, and that is what we want to be able to maintain, while at the same time safeguarding people’s data and putting it on a proper licensing footing.
On the timeline, we aim to initiate that licensing arrangement and make it available to companies more widely so that, next month, there is even more accessibility. We are very close to that, but what I will not abide is a flagrant breach of the agreement that we had with Courtsdesk and the sharing of sensitive data in a way that is irresponsible. I want the data to be available to responsible journalists to use responsibly, and that is exactly what we are getting on with.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for setting out the data protection issues that have been identified with Courtsdesk, but can she explain why her Department ignored the 16 letters written by Courtsdesk asking for dialogue before deciding to do away with the system? As was pointed out by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), it is the only centralised tool for justice reporting. Reporters have described the MOJ’s own data as fragmented, incomplete and impractical to navigate, and according to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, its own records on court listings were accurate just 4% of the time. It is those gaps that Courtsdesk was designed to fill by providing clear and accurate information for reporters.
Doing away with this platform will naturally add to the feeling that the MOJ is avoiding difficult questions and dodging accountability by undermining journalism. Will the Minister suspend the deletion of the archive until the Information Commissioner’s Office has looked into these issues and drawn its own conclusions? If she insists on going ahead with the deletion in the coming days, will she please give an indication of a timeline within which we can expect a platform that will serve the same purpose?
Sarah Sackman
I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing.
Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.
We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
There is an obligation on anyone who is aware of a data breach to report it to the Information Commissioner’s Office no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it. Can the Minister say when the MOJ was first aware of the issues relating to Courtsdesk, and when the MOJ reported those issues to the ICO?
Sarah Sackman
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised the matter with our data officer, and the conclusion—the advice that I was given—was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I have asked for that to be looked at again, but what is clear, and Courtsdesk accepted this fact, is that it breached the agreement by passing this material to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to do with people’s private addresses and other sensitive data relating to individuals through which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions which, of course, journalists abide by. Let me be absolutely clear with the House: the sort of service that Courtsdesk provides is one that we want to replicate, but we want it to be on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails, and that is what we are putting in place. If Courtsdesk had engaged with the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today.
The fact is that, all along, journalists have retained the ability to obtain information. That is the critical point. This is about court lists, not court records. In respect of court lists, for all courts, journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way as they were able to do pre-2020, pre-Courtsdesk. They can get that information, and they can continue to report what is happening in our courts.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?
Sarah Sackman
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My observation is that surely it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to decide whether the data breach is serious or not, and if the ICO does not have the information it cannot make that judgment. My question is this: when the contract was procured, was there a clause in the specification that prevented the release of personal and sensitive data? If so, is the company in breach of its contract, in which case the aggression should perhaps come from the Government as opposed to their waiting for the company to threaten them with legal action?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I accept what the Minister is saying, but I do not understand why the dispute resolution has not worked and why there is still no opportunity for it to work. I should appreciate it if she could clarify that for the House. May I also ask what will be new and different about the next procurement? What needs to be set up? If there was a breach, will it not be simply a procurement to avoid that happening in future?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am all for being pragmatic and having dispute resolution, but, as I have said, in the course of our trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, litigation has been threatened, so it is very difficult to do that. What I want to do is move forward, and potentially with Courtsdesk if it can show that it is a responsible actor, which at present it is not doing.
Two things need to happen. First, we have all the power and all the data in a single company, and I do not think that is healthy. I think that everyone in the House who believes in an open market would favour a tendering process that opens up the potential for different parties to gain licences, and in that way we can make the information accessible to different companies.
Secondly, the licence agreements need to be strengthened so that we do not see a repeat of what we have seen here—a sharing of data where it should not go—and we need to have guardrails in place. The nature of the agreement that was agreed under the previous Government was too informal, too baggy and too loose for my liking. In fact, it is partly what has allowed this situation to happen, which is why I want to put things on a better footing. We will not take ages; I have said that we will do this by March, and we are getting on with it. In the meantime, it is a wild west. We simply cannot have companies acting in breach of the agreement, sticking personal, sensitive information belonging to victims and defendants alike into an AI bot, and passing it on to an AI company that will do who knows what with it.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that we have privately crowdfunded a rape gang inquiry, which is ongoing. During the course of the inquiry, we have uncovered vast evil that is happening across the country, as well as systemic state failures. When we release the report, we are intending to pursue private prosecutions against those who failed, so will—
Rupert Lowe
Will the Minister give me a copper-bottomed guarantee that the transcripts of previous court cases will not be destroyed?
Sarah Sackman
Let me start by saying that this Government are committed to tackling grooming gangs, punishing offenders and protecting children. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the most heinous crimes of our time, but allow me to repeat this: it is fundamentally incorrect to say that court records are being deleted. Court records remain completely intact, and will only be deleted in line with the general data protection regulation and record retention policies. The data that we are talking about here is data that a private company, Courtsdesk, has been asked to delete because it has failed to demonstrate that it is using that data responsibly. The data includes only magistrates court lists and outcomes, not the transcripts of which the hon. Gentleman speaks—data that Courtsdesk is not entitled to hold. The sort of data that he is concerned about remains, and those who need to access it for investigative purposes or otherwise can do so through the usual channels. Let us not conflate that with the data in question here.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
For decades, victims, survivors, campaigners, whistleblowers and journalists have fought to force the British state to reveal the whole truth about the rape and grooming scandal. The data held by Courtsdesk could be invaluable in uncovering the truth. The Minister tells us that we can rely on the Government’s own data instead, but just 4.2% of magistrates court cases are listed accurately by the courts themselves, so for every 25 cases listed, 24 are wrong. How can the Minister ask victims, survivors and any of us who care about the truth to rely on that, especially in the context of the most disgusting cover-up in our nation’s history?
Sarah Sackman
I share the hon. Lady’s concern regarding the victims, whom we so often fail to centre in our discussions in this House. Let me be absolutely clear: as a Government, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to open justice, whether that is through increasing the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to all victims on request, introducing audio recording in magistrates courts, or ensuring that the judiciary allow more judgments and decisions to be published. To be absolutely clear, the data shared with Courtsdesk was listing data and, in some cases, the outcomes of those cases.
Sarah Sackman
Of course listing data is important, and of course it is important that it is accurate. By the way, it is also important that such data is not shared unlawfully with third parties that are not entitled to it. We continue to make that information available to journalists in the same way as before 2020. A journalist working in the field can access that information from HMCTS if they make a request, and it will be passed to them in the usual way. We are seeking to open that up further and to put it on a stable footing, which will remove the wild west that appears to have emerged.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister complains that it is currently the wild west out there, and hopes that we can somehow regulate it. Well, we do actually have a regulator for incidents such as these. Pursuant to the answer that she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), she acknowledged that data breaches have to be reported to the ICO within 72 hours. We hear that she was advised that this breach did not hit the threshold, which I find absolutely staggering. Advisers advise, and Ministers decide. Why was the Minister’s judgment not to go away and immediately question the advice that she received from her Department?
Sarah Sackman
I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. As I said, I have asked them to conduct a further review in the light of further information that has come to light, just as we have asked Courtsdesk for further information. The information came to light because Courtsdesk admitted that it had been inputting and sharing this data with an AI company, in breach of the agreement. We have to get to the bottom of that, but it is so important that we tighten up the licensing agreements and make court lists available to more companies, so that journalists can continue to access the information in a way that is safe for defendants, safe for victims, and safe for anyone who participates in the court process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her full answers. The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. Anything other than that is not democracy but, by its very nature, despotic. The Minister has provided a justification. However, it is clear that although the system could undoubtedly be tightened up, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?
Sarah Sackman
I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.
Dr Mullan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, with record and rising backlogs now touching 80,000, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of criminal courts and why we are making investment in sitting days and our workforce. That is also why we are grasping the nettle of modernisation and why we must have fundamental reform of our criminal courts.
Andy McDonald
The Minister was previously asked but did not clarify whether the Ministry of Justice conducted modelling on how much reducing jury trials would actually reduce the backlog. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence that limiting jury trials will meaningfully reduce court delays. Can the Minister publish the evidence on which these reforms are based and explain why no pilot schemes were undertaken?
Sarah Sackman
As I have told the House repeatedly, we will publish the modelling and evidence base in the usual way, alongside the Bill’s introduction. However, it is simply incorrect to say there is no evidence that adjusting the threshold will reduce court delays; we have the evidence base of the independent review, as well as international comparators to show that decisive action will reduce the court delays.
Danny Beales
I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was the victim of an abusive and violent relationship for many years. There were continual delays in the case coming to court, and then again at the sentencing stage, including a five-month delay in sentencing due to mental health assessments being delayed, as well as barrister annual leave and other issues with staff availability. That led to the repeated cancellation of sentencing dates, which meant that the victim constantly had to relive deeply traumatic events over and over again. What steps is the Minister taking to address those preventable issues, which are causing delays and misery for victims such as my constituent?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case; it is a graphic illustration of the crisis that we are grappling with and the impact it is having. Those delays cause trauma, making it impossible for victims to move on with their lives.
What are we doing about it? The fact that over 1,000 trials were cancelled last year because of a lack of barrister availability illustrates one of the problems highlighted by the Institute for Government. That is why we are investing in our workforce, with an increase in legal aid for solicitors and barristers and match funding for pupillages. Let us think about this: it will take time to rebuild the workforce, which is why we must be pulling every lever, investment and structural reform—only that will do.
Matt Bishop
My constituent, a victim of domestic abuse, has seen her case listed and relisted multiple times since 2023, with delays repeatedly granted due to medical claims by the defendant. Does the Minister accept that repeated adjournments risk denying justice to victims? Will she meet me to discuss how cases like that can be progressed without further re-traumatisation?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I would of course be happy to meet him. Again, it is a graphic illustration of the ways in which the delays in the process are re-traumatising victims, which is why we must do everything in our power to bring down the delays—whether that is investment, modernisation or structural reform. Those who are against these plans are happy for my hon. Friend’s constituent and others to wait longer. Well, I am not prepared to do that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the areas causing the delays is the lack of defence barristers. It will clearly take time to train new barristers, but what incentives can the Minister offer to those qualifying in law to become defence barristers, rather than seeking other avenues in the law?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The workforce has been depleted by repeated cuts to legal aid and people choosing more lucrative and attractive areas of work. What are we doing? We have said that we will invest an additional £34 million in legal aid for criminal advocates, and we are also providing match funding for criminal law pupillages to incentivise training and create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to enter criminal law. As he said, that will take time, and in the meantime victims cannot wait. That is why the reforms are necessary alongside the investment.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
One major reason for the court backlogs is the repeated outsourcing of private contracts for prisoner transportation to companies such as Serco, which has caused a loss of a whole court day every single week. Given that there is a lack of penalty clauses for late prisoner transportation, and that Serco continues to be awarded procurement contracts, can the Minister commit to reviewing that matter and the associated costs, instead of removing our juries and our civil liberties?
Sarah Sackman
Of course, that is one of the contributory factors to the issues in our courts, although not the only one—again, we must look at all these things. We await part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, but in the meantime I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Prisons Minister and I are looking at these contracts so that we can manage their performance and pull every lever. As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago, we are asking local authorities to open up bus lanes so that we can increase the efficiency of prisoner transportation. Let us be absolutely clear: addressing that issue alone will not begin to touch the sides of the problem, which is why we need both investment and reform.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises. County court rules require that possession claims be listed for hearing within eight weeks of receipt and, in the main, we are hitting that target. Readiness for the coming into force of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will be important, as will the modernising introduction of the end-to-end digital possession claims service, which will improve the situation for constituents like hers.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
For too long, victims in Altrincham and Sale West and across the country have been treated as secondary thoughts in the criminal justice system—left in limbo, not knowing their rights and feeling voiceless when decisions are made on bail and sentencing. What reassurances can the Minister give that victims will be at the heart of the justice system following the Government’s reforms?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that justice is a devolved matter. I am content for him to write to me, and I will look into this specific case. However, justice is, of course, a devolved matter.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The new judicial finding of domestic abuse in the Sentencing Act 2026 will help us better identify domestic abusers in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain when that element of the Act will commence? What additional training will be given to judges and magistrates to make sure that they can implement it effectively?
Sarah Sackman
We will update the House when that is ready for implementation. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of training when it comes to domestic abuse cases. Judicial training is an independent function run by the Judicial College. Domestic abuse training, and particularly a trauma-informed approach to evidence, is a mandatory part of that training, as it must be.
Jury Trials
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:
“believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”
“Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.
Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.
What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”
Dr Murrison
I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?
Sarah Sackman
The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.
Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.
No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?
Sarah Sackman
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.
We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Opposition are keen to rely on Magna Carta to defend jury trials, but Magna Carta also states that justice should not be delayed. Sir Brian Leveson reported that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in 2000 because criminal cases are now much more complex and can involve thousands of pages of electronic evidence. We are putting more pressure—financial and otherwise—on jurors, and it is now much more difficult to support and guide them. There is clearly a case for reform. I understand that one recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson was to have jury trials replaced by a judge and two magistrates, so could that be a possible compromise to reduce the delays?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:
“We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”
The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that listing is a judicial function, but the fact remains—this is CPS data—that some 4,000 cases last year could have been heard four times faster. We know that cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates court than in the Crown court, and although magistrates had the sentencing powers to deal with such matters, the defendants elected for a jury trial, which they have the right to do under the current system. Why did they elect for a jury trial? They did so because it would drag the process out longer. If a case can be dealt with four times faster in the magistrates court, then removing the right to elect, which is what we propose to do, is a far more efficient way to free up Crown court capacity so that very serious cases—not just rape, but robbery, homicide and serious drug offences—can be dealt with more swiftly.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.
Sarah Sackman
As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—
Sarah Sackman
I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.
Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.
We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.
We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.
We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.
There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.
People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.
What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.
I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was
“as frustrating as it was foreseeable”
and that
“it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.
Sarah Sackman
I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My first job after graduating was in a magistrates court, which was just making the transition from writing court records in a huge ledger by hand to computerisation; I appreciate that it has modernised an awful lot since then. Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about the impact of persistent drug dealing on local communities. One of the things being piloted in Bristol is an intensive supervision court. We know that a huge number of crimes are committed by people with persistent drug addictions, so if we can divert them from the criminal justice system it will help to free up our courts. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to roll out that programme?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.
One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.
As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.
People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.
Karl Turner
The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?
Sarah Sackman
I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.
Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.
To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Third-party Litigation Funding
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that the Government intend to take action to mitigate the impact of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR and implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements.
Third-party litigation funding plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice. It enables people to bring complex claims against better-resourced organisations that they could not otherwise afford. Sir Alan Bates, for instance, has spoken openly about how without such funding he could not have brought his claim against the Post Office. The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR introduced significant uncertainty about whether LFAs remain valid and about the regulatory regime that applies to them. This uncertainty could be preventing significant numbers of claimants from accessing justice.
LFAs are also used in high-value commercial cases where there is a power imbalance between parties or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings. Therefore, this uncertainty also risks undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration, both of which bring significant benefit to the UK economy.
However, concerns have been raised about whether LFAs are always fair and transparent for the claimants using them. This has led to calls for greater regulation of the litigation funding market, which currently operates under a system of voluntary self-regulation. This is why, while it is crucial to act swiftly regarding PACCAR, I have taken the opportunity to consider litigation funding in the round.
I would like to thank the Civil Justice Council for its comprehensive and wide-ranging review of litigation funding, published earlier this year. Since its publication, my officials and I have carefully considered its recommendations.
I am pleased to announce the Government’s intention to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations. First, we will legislate to clarify that LFAs are not damages-based agreements, with prospective effect. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of LFAs. This will improve transparency and fairness for claimants. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.
It is our priority that legislation removes the uncertainty introduced by the PACCAR judgment and ensures that the litigation funding sector works fairly and efficiently for all. Once we have implemented these two changes, we will consider the CJC’s wider litigation funding recommendations in detail and announce any further changes in due course.
[HCWS1192]
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Mediation saves people time, money and stress. It can also help to reduce court delays and save the taxpayer money. Mandatory mediation for small money claims is now well integrated into the county court process and is delivering real results in terms of time savings and cost savings.
Sir Julian Smith
Time pressure is one of the best routes to encourage alternative dispute resolution, as the Minister knows, but in the commercial court in 2024 the median time to judgment was 786 days. The UK law sector is up against huge pressures from Singapore and the middle east, which are offering six months to judgment and six months for appeal. May I urge Ministers to look at the competitive challenges facing UK law against such tough international competition?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Member raises a really good point. Such delays are depriving our businesses of productivity and the ability to resolve disputes sooner. The successes we are seeing on small money claims under £10,000, which tend to affect small and medium-sized enterprises, show the progress that can be made. The other thing I will point him to is the launch of our English law promotion panel, which is looking at competitiveness with other jurisdictions.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Before entering the House, I was an employment solicitor, and I saw the impact that judicial mediation had in our employment tribunals. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the role that expanding judicial mediation could have in bringing down the backlog in our employment tribunals?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome my hon. Friend’s experience in this area. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that important subject.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, otherwise known as SLAPPs, are an abuse of the legal process and pose a threat to democracy. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. That is why we commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 related to economic crime SLAPPs, and we are monitoring how that is operating.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the Minister’s answer, but is she aware that in the space of one week the Solicitors Regulation Authority has lost two tribunal cases relating to SLAPPs? Do the Government consider the SRA fit for purpose in this area? Is further legislation not needed to prevent lawyers from pursuing abusive cases?
Sarah Sackman
I welcome the right hon. Member’s question. We are actively considering where we can further extend the definition of SLAPPs to those that range beyond economic crime. Obviously, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is independent of Government. I welcome its guidance reminding solicitors of their duties and of the consequences of breaches, and I hope that it upholds that guidance robustly.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Our magistrates are the backbone of local justice, and I thank every magistrate the length and breadth of the country who gives their time to deliver that justice. In return, we need to support them. That is why we provide extensive training not just at the start of a magistrate’s journey, but on a continuing basis through mentorship. I recognise that we want to go further and provide stronger recognition for their service, and we will be looking in the new year at overhauling the expenses regime so that we can support magistrates.
Matt Turmaine
I thank the Minister for her answer. I recently had the opportunity to visit the county and family court in Watford, and while there I talked to them about the challenge of finding sufficient staff. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that staffing is what makes magistrates courts and family courts work, and will she outline further what support the Government are offering to them?
Sarah Sackman
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I was glad to visit Barnet court in my constituency, which has newly reopened after a year. I noticed what many who cross the threshold into our courts see: the first welcome from court staff, which often allays nerves and anxiety in an alienating environment. That is critical, and it is why we want to support our court staff, we are investing in legal advisers who support our magistrates, and we are supporting all of them. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s local court in Watford if the opportunity arises.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?
Sarah Sackman
We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.
Mr Speaker
What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis. Whether for a family experiencing family breakdown, small business owners trying to resolve contractual disputes or victims of crime, we inherited a system in crisis in every jurisdiction. We are beginning to turn that oil tanker around. We are sitting at maximum or close to maximum capacity in every single jurisdiction, while investing up to £450 million in our courts every year.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister will recall that last week I mentioned two cases in my constituency involving juveniles and child sexual abuse. Those cases of alleged sexual abuse have been adjourned a number of times and, as I explained to her, the damage done to the lives of those children cannot be underestimated. I appreciate that reforms are under way, but what urgent steps can be taken now to ensure that those children have the justice that they deserve and can continue with their lives?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking case. I am aware of it and I will be writing to her on the particulars of it. It graphically demonstrates precisely why we need reform of our criminal courts. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just explained, that will take three things: investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid, which we are currently seeing; systemic reform; and modernisation. That third component is about how we can improve efficiencies in the here and now, through better adoption of technology and improving the smoother running of our courts, which will help the victims in the case that she outlines.
Warinder Juss
Justice delayed is justice denied is the harsh reality for the nearly 80,000 cases that are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. I am pleased that the Government are taking action to modernise our justice system and to be reassured that the sanctity of jury trials will be preserved. Considering that only 3% of criminal cases are currently tried by a jury, what assessment has the Minister made on the impact that removing jury trials from certain either-way offences will have on significantly reducing the present unacceptable court backlogs?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that the crumbling and decaying state of our court estate has become a metaphor for the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government. It is why we are opening new courts in Blackpool and putting shovels in the ground in inner London, and why we have increased the court estate budget by £28 million, so that we can improve maintenance and keep as many court rooms running as possible. In the end, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, money alone will not be enough. We need reforms so that we can run the system at capacity and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When this Government came into office in July 2024, magistrates were dealing with cases that had a potential sentence of up to six months, but that has now gone up to 12 months and by next year it could be two years. There is already a backlog of 361,000 cases in the magistrates courts. In my meeting with the Law Society today, representatives expressed deep concerns about whether magistrates would be able to take on longer, more emotionally draining cases, and that some magistrates may decide that they are not comfortable about depriving people of their liberty for that long. What assessment has been done of the ability of magistrates to cope emotionally, and of the magistrates courts to cope with those increases?
Sarah Sackman
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the sentencing powers and the proposal to increase them, rather than the wait time. The fact is that our magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction, dealing with 1.3 million cases a year. The Magistrates Association and the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive have endorsed the Government’s plans, which are a vote of confidence in our magistrates’ ability to deal with the caseload, and cases of this nature, swiftly, robustly and fairly, but she is right that our magistrates deserve support in dealing with emotionally charged matters. We will ensure that that support and training is provided.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?
Sarah Sackman
I met Andrew Turner, who is a tireless campaigner; we were embarking on the work that is necessary to support families like his, and those that he represents. I have personally undertaken to ensure that this work continues, irrespective of which person is sitting in the chair. I will follow up not just with Andrew, but with his very dedicated MP, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne).
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
At the beginning of December, a sapling from the Sycamore Gap tree was planted by Micala Trussler and her family to commemorate what would have been her daughter’s 18th birthday. Since Holly Newton’s tragic murder, Micala has campaigned tirelessly to reduce the age limit at which someone can legally be classified as a domestic abuse victim. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising Micala’s tireless campaigning, and meet Micala and me in the new year to discuss age classification for victims of domestic abuse?