Court and Tribunal Transcripts

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. The amendments in the other place and the aspirations of the Government do not go anywhere near achieving the transparency associated with the full transcripts being made available, free of charge, to any victim, survivor or witness, should they wish to get clarity around the court cases that they have been involved in.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully support the case that he is making for full transparency, but in the spirit of “I’ll start by starting”, he touched on witness statements that would have been prepared beforehand but were still not available. If the Minister accepts the principle around greater transparency, does my hon. Friend agree that certain aspects could immediately be made much more available, while some of the other technical discussions are taken in parallel?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If a victim has gone through a challenging court case, having immediate access to some of the witness statements and contributions that were made during the court proceedings —which can happen without difficulty, following a judge’s ruling—will potentially enable that victim to properly seek closure regarding the sentence that has been given. Probably more importantly, if they wish to challenge that sentence—and currently, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, they must do so within a 28-day period—being able to look at the transcripts, albeit only what can be released in the short term, could provide them with the opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Over the years, I have often found that when the Members on each Front Bench agree on an issue, there are dangers for Parliament, not least because legislation is often insufficiently scrutinised. Conversely, when the Back-Bench Members of each of the parties agree, it is often—it certainly was when I was a Minister—a warning sign that the Government of the day need to move.

What has been uplifting about the debate we have heard so far, with evidence from those on the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who spoke very powerfully, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has been the consensus that this is a burning issue of concern to our constituents.

It clearly is a burning concern, given the volume of respondents to the petition—has more than 200,000 signatories, which signals how much this matters. I do not want to divert away from today’s debate but, given the restriction of access to jury trials and that direction of travel from the Government—a direction that I regret and indeed many on the Government Benches appear to regret—the opportunity for the Government to move more quickly on transparency and transcripts is even more pertinent that it would otherwise be.

I am speaking in this debate because I am keen to hear from the Minister about where he sees the sticking point. My sense from the Government’s comments today has been that they are broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel—I think the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. It would be helpful, given that he and the Government are sympathetic, to understand how the House can support them in moving more quickly, and in particular whether the constraint is one of legislation.

As we know from past debates in this place, this House can move very quickly on legislation when it so desires, particularly if there is cross-party agreement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park indicated there was agreement in the House of Lords as well. If, then, the constraint is legislative, there are ample opportunities for us to address that at pace. If it is contractual, I suspect that the sums are relatively modest, given the prize on offer. It would be helpful to understand what the contractual costs would be if one were to try to terminate or to vary the agreement. Indeed, where there is significant cross-party political pressure, it is surprising how suppliers, perhaps with a view to other contracts in future, may be willing to amend a contract.

If the restrictions and difficulties for Ministers are technological, we saw in the covid period that, with a clear enough demand signal from Government, it is surprising how quickly technology improvements can be put in place when there is the will to do so. But I fear that what is at fault here is not this Minister, but the slow pace at which Whitehall is in the habit of operating. That is why it is important that in this debate we support the Minister and the direction of travel that I think he wants to go in, while understanding where the blockages are.

I have a few quick questions. First, given the Government’s support, as I understand it, for the recording of proceedings in court, to what extent could audio clips, either in whole or in part, be made more quickly available? If there is some concern with the accuracy of the AI, for example, are there other ways of solving that? Where can we start, rather than waiting for the whole thing to be resolved?

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on, witness statements and huge numbers of documents are produced as part of the discovery process in court. Court bundles—a huge number of documents—are prepared in advance of court hearings. It strikes me that much more could be done to make those available, particularly to the victims of crime, than is the case now. What assessment has been made of which parts of those court bundles could be made available?

Thirdly, what exactly are the technology constraints? Again, looking at the progress in other areas of Government and commitments made by the Prime Minister about AI in No. 10 summits recently, why can we not move more quickly than the slow pace at which the Ministry of Justice appears to be operating? That is particularly pertinent because of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about the 28-day time limit for appeal. That is a hard deadline, and yet, as he sets out, decisions often take a while to come. The cost is prohibitive, and people are not able to get the information they seek in a timely fashion ahead of the deadline. My sense is that the Government want to move in that direction, so I hope the debate today has signalled the cross-party consensus to do so.

When the Minister sums up, I encourage him to clarify exactly where the blockages are. If he reads the Institute for Government reports, he will see that Ministers have a habit of moving very frequently. Those on the Government Benches who are seen as talented often move very frequently indeed. He has an opportunity during his tenure in the Ministry of Justice to move quickly, to take advantage of the cross-party support and—at a time when his own Government are restricting access to jury trials—to do something that will be hugely helpful to victims, and something that the public have signalled they want very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome today’s debate. There is general cross-party consensus about the need to ensure more open justice and to do everything that we can to ensure that victims in criminal proceedings have access to the information that they need to recover from the crimes that they have suffered.

The tone struck by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), was unfortunate. I genuinely was not going to mention the 14 years of underinvestment in our courts, the fact that rape convictions were at record lows under the last Conservative Government, or the fact that progress on victims’ rights, and indeed many of the issues we have discussed today, was moving at a snail’s pace, if at all, under the last Government. While I was not going to make any of those comments, I felt obliged to do so having been prompted by the hon. Member.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue, as he has done before in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I acknowledge his contribution and all who engaged with the petition. Although the Government knew about this before this petition, the representations underscore a real public interest in transparency across the justice system. That is particularly important to the rights of victims, who were specifically spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As I have said on the Floor of the House, the hon. Lady’s work in this area has really led the way. Indeed, that is also true of many others as well, including the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, who raised really powerful cases.

I have met victims—in my role, I have the privilege and humble duty to meet victims regularly—and there is no doubt that our criminal justice system still too often fails them. There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts and sentencing remarks, and I hope to deal with some of the specifics raised of why we cannot go as far as many would want us to at the moment. However, from this debate, and more generally, we can see that there are problems of how victims are dealt with within our criminal justice system. We have heard about information as to their trial and advice around their attendance. We are seized upon their advice regarding the unduly lenient sentences scheme in relation to a piece of legislation before Parliament. There are lots of ways, culturally and systemically, in which the criminal justice system fails victims, and there is an acceptance that there is more to do.

I want to set out the Government’s approach, what we have done and what we want to do. In doing so, I hope to deal with some of the detailed questions and challenges that have been posed in this debate. I start by reaffirming that open justice is a foundational tenet of our system. Open justice is the long-established principle that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that is fundamental to the rule of law. Transparency also helps to build confidence in the justice system, supporting scrutiny and enhancing public understanding of how the law is applied.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system is open and transparent, and we share that priority with the judiciary. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lady Chief Justice have spoken at length about the importance of transparency. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said, new technologies no doubt offer opportunities to meet rising public expectations of access to information, but the principle of open justice is not unfettered; we have a duty to ensure that it is delivered responsibly and in a way that safeguards the administration of justice. It is vital that we protect the rights of victims, witnesses and parties, and that sensitive information is handled with care.

We must ensure that any measures to increase transparency do not undermine the effective operation of the justice system. That is why achieving the right balance is central to our approach to transcript provision. The petition calls for all court and tribunal transcripts to be made available for free in order to increase transparency, enable appeals and support victims. Those are important aims, and ones that I hope every Member of the House would support. However, it is important to recognise some of the practical realities of producing transcripts, as well as the considerable progress already under way to improve access to such information across the justice system. I will expand on that, but practical realities are not just infrastructure within courts and the contractual systems that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley set out, but legal considerations and the context in which all court transcripts are dealt with.

Producing a transcript of court proceedings can be resource-intensive. It is detailed, skilled work requiring rigorous quality assurance. Full hearing transcripts, especially those involving lengthy trials or hearings, multiple parties, interpreters—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who has just left the Chamber, touched on that—or sensitive evidence can run to hundreds or even, in my experience, thousands of pages. Ensuring accuracy is paramount because transcripts may be used in appeals or covered by the media. Errors can seriously undermine confidence in the justice system.

Transcripts must also comply with relevant reporting restrictions and data protection requirements. In practice, that means that detailed, manual anonymisation is required to prevent both direct and indirect jigsaw identification of victims, witnesses or other court users, a process that current technology cannot safely automate and requires careful review to ensure that no combination of details could reveal the identity of individuals protected by reporting restrictions. That is a time-consuming, skilled task that requires precision, and often legal advice, to safeguard vulnerable people.

However, the Government have made significant and meaningful progress on transcript provision and wider transparency in the justice system in recent years. In the Crown court, victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and bereaved families in homicide cases—that is, murder, manslaughter and offences of causing death on the road—can request a free transcript of relevant sentencing remarks. That ensures that victims can revisit the judge’s explanation in their own time and use it to inform any decisions they may need to make, including whether to submit representations under the ULS scheme.

[Steve Barclay]

It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?

[Jake Richards]

The right hon. Member says that we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good, but he no doubt understands that it is paramount that court transcripts are perfect. I will come on to his other points, but I know he accepts that this not quite as straightforward as transcribing other public meetings with the technology we have today and turning them into written documents. Perhaps more can be done with regard to witness statements that appear in the trial as evidence in chief and are not challenged. I am happy to look into that and speak with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, but it may be an issue for the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service or the victim care service.

As I said at the outset, one of my concerns when I deal with the criminal justice system and victims from all those angles—from court transcripts, which have been raised, to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, through which I meet victims all the time—is that there is a problem, culturally and systemically, with how victims are not at the heart of the system and the process. I have fears when it comes to the issue of whether more can be done as a trial is developing, or after it, to ensure that the victim understands what is happening and gets the information that they need. Where it is possible, safe and legal, I have no doubt that more can be done; it may not be as easy as flicking a switch at 102 Petty France, but I am sure that more can be done.

I am somewhat wary of the suggestion from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) about recordings. We need to be very careful about how we use recordings of criminal proceedings, whether audio or visual. He will no doubt be aware of the sensitivity, but perhaps more can be done. I can take away his suggestion, which is a more manual mechanism for ensuring that victims know and understand what has happened at the criminal trial.

From spring next year, the Government will go further: as has been said, victims will be entitled to be provided with free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case. That is an important extension that will make a meaningful difference to victims’ understanding of the outcomes of their case. As was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and by almost every contributor to the debate, the interplay with the ULS scheme is clear. That scheme is being considered as part of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The interplay between the provision of the transcript and ensuring that the ULS scheme works for victims is at the forefront of my mind and that of the Minister for Victims.