Jury Trials

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Natalie Fleet

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Natalie Fleet

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

T3. I want to raise the case of my constituent from Pinxton. They were awarded a substantial amount of money at an employment tribunal over two years ago for unpaid wages. They have not been able to track down the company since then—it is using a shell address and is not responding to any correspondence. My constituent has paid a private company to try to find the company, but it has got nowhere. It has been two years of hardship and mental health issues, so will the Secretary of State outline what steps are being taken to make sure hard-working people get the money that is owed to them?

[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.