Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering new clause 29—Review of impact of provisions of section 3—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the impact of the provisions of section 3 during each relevant period.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant periods are—

(a) before the end of 12 months, and

(b) no sooner than 35 months but no later than 36 months

beginning on the day on which section 3 of this Act is commenced.

(3) Reviews under this section must consider the impact of the provisions of sections 74A to 74D of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as inserted by Section 3 of this Act, on persons who—

(a) are from any ethnic minority background;

(b) are White British and live in lower income households.”—(Paulette Hamilton.)

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to review, after one year and three years, the impact of the provisions of section 3 on people who are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and on White people from lower-income households.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

My contribution will be brief, as other colleagues said a lot this morning. Clause 3 is extremely pragmatic and proportionate to the challenges we face. As Sir Brian Leveson made clear in his oral testimony, it is necessary because financial investment and efficiency measures alone, while essential—no one present disagrees with that—are insufficient to bring down the backlog. We all know that structural reform is critical if we are to see a meaningful reduction in the backlog.

Clause 3 comes with context, because the backlogs have more than doubled since 2019. Despite some quarterly variations, which have been mentioned, we see that the backlog is increasing annually. On the current trajectory, we are now entering unparalleled territory, with real, material consequences for the victims of crime. This was all predicted and modelled in the previous Parliament, and it has since come to pass. The current trajectory is 130,000 cases by 2030, and 200,000 cases by 2035. While some may acknowledge that there are decisions that have led to this position, it requires the Government to step in and deal with the consequences.

We need the policy in the Bill to meaningfully reduce caseloads, and we need it today. There is clear evidence from the testimony of many of the witnesses that cases are sometimes taking 80% longer compared with 2019, due to their complexity and the evidence and digital analysis that is required in many cases. Currently, 21,000 cases have been open for a year or longer. Again, that is the current trend and trajectory.

Inequity is undermining confidence in our justice system. I say this as a former police officer: it is not just the victim who suffers, although they absolutely do need justice for the crime committed against them; defendants, some of whom may be innocent, are also having to await outcomes. The police and agencies, while not necessarily being responsive because of their independent nature, have to manage the victim. I know from testimony given directly to me by police that court waiting times and having to manage victims over many years have direct consequences for cases. There are no winners when it comes to inaction.

Today, more than 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrate benches, and in some cases that is with multiple magistrates. The evidence pack indicates that only 3% of criminal cases go to jury trial. Even if the reform takes place, the majority of cases will still be dealt with in the same way as previously. Only 1% of cases will be heard by the new division. Despite the claim that there will be substantial changes for the majority of cases, only a very small number will be affected. The Bill is not about the abolition of jury trials; it is about changing the thresholds at which they are implemented.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I think the evidence is that 3% of trials currently have a jury, and that will go down to 1.5%. That is a 50% reduction. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is a huge reduction in the number of jury trials from the present number?

[Tristan Osborne]

We are absolutely seeking to reduce the number of cases going before jury trials. It comes back to the thresholds. We have seen a long history of changes to thresholds, as well as changes to those serving on juries. In the early part of the 20th century, women were allowed to sit on juries for the first time, and it was only in the mid part of the last century that we allowed people who did not own property to sit on juries. There has, then, been an evolution in both the composition of the jury and the thresholds that are applied. For example, in 1977 Callaghan changed the law so that some cases—including of theft, burglary and criminal damage offences—could be dealt with in magistrates courts, and many of the debates we are having today happened at that time as well.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we are talking about a 50% reduction; can the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford tell us the percentage reduction in relation to the points he is making?

[Tristan Osborne]

I do not have the answer for the Callaghan reduction, but my point about the thresholds is that previous Governments of both colours have looked at thresholds, had conversations similar to those we are having today, and concluded that it was a sensible and necessary step—both under Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher.

Sir Brian Leveson, who was independently commissioned, indicated that

“there are certain circumstances where a trial by judge alone is appropriate…based on the need for cases to be resolved in a more timely manner, in a forum most proportionate and suitable to the alleged offence or offences.”

My argument is that the threshold that Sir Brian Leveson defined is the one that I agree with.

[Dr Mullan]

The threshold that Sir Brian recommended was two years, not three years, and the forum that he recommended was a judge with two magistrates, but we are doing just one judge. The hon. Member should be more careful in making claims about what Sir Brian recommended to support what he is saying, because we are not doing what he recommended.

[Tristan Osborne]

The point is that the premise of his inclination was that it is appropriate for thresholds to be changed. Although there will absolutely be principled disagreement between different advocates about where that threshold will be and the appropriateness of who will oversee those cases, be that a bench or a single judge, the reality is that there is consensus, I hope, that thresholds have changed through time. The thresholds in the Bill are a proportionate response to the overwhelming challenge of a court backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. In my view, clause 3 allocates mid-level cases effectively and ensures that demand in Crown courts is reduced. We know the consequences if we do not do this.

To the critics saying this is not fair, the reality is that our constitution says that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and I believe that everyone in our courts system, be that the 90% who are engaged with magistrates courts, or those who go to Crown court, is dealt with fairly. As has been mentioned, I do not want to create an artificial divide between cases that are heard in one or the other; both are deemed fair, and we believe that people sentenced in magistrates courts are given a fair trial.

The thresholds in the clause are fair and reasonable, and we have to consider this as a wider package of reforms along with the digitalisation of the court system, the modernisation of the estate and improvements to transport and infrastructure, all of which play a part. Fundamentally, it goes back to my central point that those things alone will not bring about the reduction in backlogs that we all want to see.

[Dr Mullan]

I will not speak at length—much to the delight, I am sure, of Government Members—but I want to pick up on a few key points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Isle of Wight East for their extensive review of clause 3, and also the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, who is not in her place.

Let us be clear about all the things we have highlighted that are lacking. We are talking about a significant erosion for 50% of those who currently enjoy jury trial, and we have made it clear that the evidence for the necessity of that is lacking. In earlier sittings, we talked about the backlog already falling in a number of regions, even though we are so early on in the process of trying to tackle this issue. Today alone, 11% of Crown courts are not sitting—they are sat empty—and it was the same yesterday and it was even higher last week, so there are clearly other things we could be doing.

There has been criticism of the retrospective element of the measures in clause 3, which the Opposition, at least, have agreed is unacceptable. Different standards will be applied because we have not been able to amend the measures on reallocation, so there is a different standard for allocation and reallocation. That is doubled with the lack of appeal, on which we were not able to make progress.

We have covered the lack of community confidence that will arise from these measures. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington has tabled new clause 29, which we think is sensible, to try to go at least some way to addressing the issue of community confidence. However, I am not convinced that, even if the Government accept the new clause, we will get any change as a result. Let us say we do the review in a year from now and it finds there has been a deterioration in these issues, will they unpick their reforms? I am not confident that they will.

We have had suggestions that the cross-examination of the defendant is inappropriate. Of course, the reforms will lead to more defendants being cross-examined, unrepresented, in the magistrates court. We have had a suggestion that the changes are not substantial. I made it clear in my intervention that, under any sensible reading of the facts, most people would consider a 50% change to be substantial.

We have laid out, in a clear and detailed way, all the different ways in which clause 3 is wrong and fails on its own merits. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and make some necessary changes.