Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the process for assigning judges to cases involving legal challenges to Government decisions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Under section 7(2)(c) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary and the allocation of work within courts. Accordingly, the Government has no role in the process for assigning judges to cases.
This is consistent with the important principle of judicial independence, which shields judges from external pressures and gives the public confidence that cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider (1) the European Court of Human Rights, and (2) the International Criminal Court, to be foreign courts.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) are international courts based respectively in France and the Netherlands. The UK is a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rome Statute, the international treaties which established the ECtHR and ICC respectively. It is also a founding member of both instruments.
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICC Act 2001 give effect to the UK's obligations under the ECHR and Rome Statute. We respect the independence of both courts.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to introduce a sunset clause for proposals to limit jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There has been no major reform of the criminal courts since the establishment of the Crown Court in 1971, despite Lord Auld making similar recommendations to Sir Brian Leveson in 2001.
Sir Brian’s report found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they were in 2000 - one of the reasons is increased complexity in modern cases, the density of evidence deployed to establish them, and the increased efforts made to provide support and guidance to jurors.
We are working within a system built for a different age and even with record investment, the Crown Court caseload will continue to rise. We need generational structural reform, investment, and modernisation.
Everyone has, and will always have, the right to a fair trial. But there is no right to trial by jury in England and Wales and the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted – fairly, without a jury – in the magistrates’ courts. Jury trials will nevertheless remain for the most serious cases - these reforms are designed to ensure a more proportionate use of overall resource in our criminal courts to ensure we are best serving the needs of both victims and defendants, to deliver better, swifter outcomes.
There is no quick fix - it will take time to tackle an issue which has been years in the making, but we must act before the caseload becomes irretrievable. There are no plans to introduce sunset clauses for all proposals.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to consider increasing the number of sitting days at [a] Leicester Crown Court [b] Coventry Combined Court Centre and [c] Warwick Crown Court.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to bearing down on the backlog. In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on the allocation for 2025-26 as part of the Concordat process and we will say more in due course.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the time required for a single judge to prepare written judgments in criminal cases tried without a jury.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.
Asked by: Karl Turner (Labour - Kingston upon Hull East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his planned timetable is for Crown Court judges to produce written judgments in cases tried by a single judge sitting alone.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent topics has he discussed with external bodies when considering the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Luke Evans (Conservative - Hinckley and Bosworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which external bodies has he recently spoken to about the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
Asked by: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ascertain the position of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners who qualified through work-based routes, following the judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.
Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to monitor data on (a) conviction rates, (b) sentencing patterns and (c) appeals arising from cases affected by the removal of the right to elect a jury trial; and whether that data will be published.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We will continue to monitor conviction rates, sentencing outcomes and appeals volumes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences and by defendant characteristics, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. The Department will continue to publish this data quarterly.
The Ministry of Justice also publishes data on appeals but does not have access to the reasons for appeal, beyond whether a sentence or verdict has been appealed. Data on appeals volumes can be found as part of the Criminal Courts Statistics release: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.