Right to Trial by Jury

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jack Abbott

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.

Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.

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

Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jack Abbott

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jack Abbott

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott]

At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. They have consistently tabled really important amendments that are very close to my heart, measurably improving the Bill.

I am briefly speaking in favour of new clause 35. We have had a number of good amendments about ensuring proper representation for vulnerable people during the process. We have also had a lot of discussion about the very important need to regularly monitor and report back on the Bill. This new clause brings all this together, ensuring that there is real oversight, with real thrust and a point to it. It is not good enough just to report back some statistics; the question is what we do with them. Having this sort of panel, with expertise and life experience, would be a significant step forward for people with disabilities, learning needs and anything else that might be included.

Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for this work. I am fully supportive of the new clause.

[Sarah Sackman]

I hope to be brief, given it is the witching hour.

This new clause would require the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to establish within six months of their appointment a disability advisory board. The advisory board must include representation from disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Within six months of its appointment, the advisory board must report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner to advise on the implementation of the Act for disabled people. We anticipate that the advisory board’s annual report will be separate from the commissioner’s, and that in time this may be subject to a level of integration between the two bodies. Practical arrangements for the advisory board would require further consideration, but the Government can see no workability reason why this should not go ahead.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jack Abbott

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I was not planning to speak on this group either, but the debate speaks to a number of the things that we have talked about in the past few weeks. I add the caveat that all hon. Members present acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has repeatedly made it clear that data collection is essential to what we are proposing. I am also sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said about not necessarily needing to put everything in the Bill.

Without trying to sound like a broken record, however—I have made this point several times over the past few weeks—it is critical that in certain situations, although there may be some regulations or inferences that exist that may lead to certain outcomes that we on this Committee would all like to see, there is nothing necessarily wrong with putting them explicitly in writing.

Hon. Members have used different stats from different jurisdictions in their own way to lend weight to their arguments, and although many of those stats are relatively consistent in a number of areas, they are not necessarily decisive. I cited a stat yesterday when speaking to an amendment that around 10% of people using the assisted dying route have complications during the final stages, but as I said then, that came from an incredibly small sample size of just over 100 people.

It is therefore critical that, if the Bill is passed and we go down this path, we pursue robust and expansive data gathering in a number of different areas, and I am sure that any Government would look to do so. As long as it does not create any loopholes or unintended consequences, that sort of evidence gathering should be in the Bill because, at the very least, that would provide reassurance that it will happen if the Bill is passed.

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not have a lot to add, but I point out that, as the Bill stands, clause 34 requires the chief medical officer to, among other things, submit an annual report to the relevant national authority on the operation of the Act. Amendment 382 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for that function instead. Amendment 274 would require that the report under clause 34 contains an analysis of the additional information to be collected under new clause 10 and amendment 273. I remind the Committee of that because we are discussing what information should be gathered, and at what point in the process. There is then the monitoring, reporting and co-ordinating function performed by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, should those later amendments be passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jack Abbott

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

In a previous life I was an environmental lawyer, so I know just what a scourge those waste offences can be. That is precisely why the work of specialist Crown prosecutors, who work closely with the police in charging and prosecuting such rural crime, will be so important.

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

3. What discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on ensuring the effective prosecution of covid-19 related fraud.

[The Solicitor General]

The Government are doing everything possible to recover the millions in public funds lost to covid-19-related fraud. The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with investigators to pursue all those who dishonestly lined their pockets with Government money.

[Jack Abbott]

In 2021, the previous Health Secretary said in relation to covid-19 contracts that

“where a contract is not delivered against, we do not intend to pay taxpayers’ money”.—[Official Report, 23 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 758.]

Judging from the figures that highlight the enormous scale of covid-19-related fraud, that was little more than a promise made and a promise broken by the previous Government. I am pleased that our Government have made it a priority to recoup as much of that money as possible from scammers who profited at taxpayers’ expense. However, four and a half years on from the first lockdown, my constituents in Ipswich, many of whom sacrificed so much during the pandemic, will be wondering why it has taken this long, and a change of Government, to take the issue as seriously as it deserves. Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether that is down to the previous Government’s incompetence or lack of effort, or whether it is symptomatic of their more general recklessness?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. That was a very long question; the hon. Gentleman could have shortened it. He might want to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, which is obviously very important.