The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Dawn Butler, Sir John Hayes, Dr Rupa Huq, Christine Jardine

† Berry, Siân (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)

† Bishop, Matt (Forest of Dean) (Lab)

† Brown-Fuller, Jess (Chichester) (LD)

† Farnsworth, Linsey (Amber Valley) (Lab)

† Hack, Amanda (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)

† Hamilton, Paulette (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)

† Kohler, Mr Paul (Wimbledon) (LD)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† Morgan, Stephen (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury)

† Mullan, Dr Kieran (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Osborne, Tristan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)

Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)

† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)

† Sackman, Sarah (Minister for Courts and Legal Services)

† Slinger, John (Rugby) (Lab)

† Ward, Melanie (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)

Robert Cope, Dominic Stockbridge, Francis Morse, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair, Bar Council of England and Wales

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair, Criminal Bar Association

Claire Davies KC, Leader of the South Eastern Circuit

Samantha Hillas KC, Leader of the Northern Circuit

Caroline Goodwin KC, Leader of the North Eastern Circuit

Claire Throssell MBE, victim and campaigner

Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario, and the Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte

Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett, Lancashire Constabulary (also NPCC lead for Serious Violence Reduction and Public Health Approaches in Policing)

Daniel Flury, HMCTS SRO for Independent Review of Criminal Courts implementation, HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Sir Richard Henriques

His Honour Clement Goldstone KC

Lord Burnett of Maldon

Fiona Rutherford, Chief Executive, JUSTICE

Emma Torr, Co-Director, APPEAL

Cassia Rowland, Senior Researcher, Institute for Government

Tim Crosland, Director, Plan B.Earth (and co-founder of Defend Our Juries)

Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, Ministry of Justice

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 25 March 2026

(Afternoon)

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Courts and Tribunals Bill

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Kirsty Brimelow and Riel Karmy-Jones gave evidence.

Q69 Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. We will now hear oral evidence from the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? Kirsty Brimelow: My name is Kirsty Brimelow, a King’s counsel. My practice, until my election as chair of the Bar Council, where I started on 1 January this year, was in criminal law, public law and international law. In particular, I have worked on reforming sexual offences legislation across Europe and also conducted and led training to improve practices in court for victims, particularly in sexual offences globally. I am now chair of the Bar Council, which means I lead around 18,000 barristers across England and Wales. Riel Karmy-Jones: My name is Riel Karmy-Jones. I am a criminal barrister with over 30 years’ experience, and I am also chair of the Criminal Bar Association. I became King’s counsel in 2015, and a significant part of my practice has revolved around prosecuting cases involving serious sexual offences and vulnerable victims. I was senior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and led the investigation into the Roman Catholic Church—specifically, the English Benedictine congregation. I have spent a considerable part of the last 30 years working on cases with victims, so they are very much at the forefront of my mind when I give this evidence.

Q Good afternoon to you both, and thank you very much for coming. Ms Karmy-Jones, I want to pick up your remark about having victims at the heart of your thinking. You will have heard evidence, either through the earlier hearings or in the public debates surrounding this issue, that some victims’ advocates are insisting that these reforms are necessary to support victims. Has that give you any pause for thought about the positions that you have taken? If not, why not? Riel Karmy-Jones: We start from a presumption of innocence in a criminal case, so if I say “victim” and “complainant”, no disrespect is meant. Hearing any victim speak about what they have been through is shocking and has a huge impact on all of us at the criminal Bar, but we are the ones who, day in and day out, deal with them and have to explain to them why things have gone wrong. One of the things that I heard this morning gave me pause for thought, in the sense that some of our processes are poor. Clearly, the processes in place are not being properly followed. That does not change my approach to the Bill, because fundamentally there is a disconnect between clauses 1 to 7, on the right to jury trial, and clauses 8 to 16. As I will be arguing, we have issues with clauses 1 to 7 and think they should be struck out. We largely support clauses 8 to 16—the victims measures. They are good measures, and in fact there are some things that we would propose to strengthen them further. I would encourage you to look that way. This Bill is about making cases move more swiftly, and jury trials do not impact on that question, as even Sir Brian Leveson acknowledged this morning.

Q Do you think it is unfair to characterise people like you, who oppose those elements, as being in any way not concerned with victims—as being anti victims’ rights or experiences? Riel Karmy-Jones: Absolutely. I have sat and held the hands of many, many victims of really serious sexual offences. I have talked to them before, during and after the cases. Trust me when I say that those who prosecute these cases feel very intensely about the victims, so that would be a complete mischaracterisation—and frankly, it has hit the criminal Bar very hard and made us quite angry.

Q Do you want to add anything to that, Ms Brimelow? Kirsty Brimelow: It is really sad that some of the political messaging has been positioning barristers against victims. It is barristers who prosecute in the courts every day and give voice to victims and complainants in court, enabling their evidence to be heard. It is the barristers in court who apply the law and safeguards around those witnesses so that they are not subject to inappropriate questioning—I know we will come on to that. The key to your question is that nobody wants to see complainants—victims—waiting, and having the trauma of waiting. That is what we are focusing on. In doing that, we take into account the non-governmental organisations that represent the violence against women and girls sector. Rights of Women was the lead NGO on a letter a couple of weeks ago—it decided to write it independently, without having been approached. It set out its concern about reducing jury trials. Its concern is not only that there are victims of violence who become defendants but, as it sets out clearly in the letter, there is, unfortunately, discrimination and a lack of trust in the criminal justice system. Overall, the jury system is seen as the only part that still works, so why are we focusing on that? We want to focus on all those aspects that will reduce delays now, rather than hacking at a constitutional cornerstone, which also reflects community participation.

Q Right. You mentioned the letter. It also refers to these reforms as a potential distraction from some of the hard work that you talk about. You may have heard that this morning the Victims’ Commissioner characterised that letter as being purely about the perspective of women and girls in relation to their being defendants. Do you think that is a fair and accurate characterisation of that letter? Kirsty Brimelow: No, it is not, because that is not actually what it says. The letter sets out that they are against curbing jury trials because of the lack of trust in the criminal justice system, and that impacts those from minoritised communities in particular. We know from the statistics that black defendants and women by majority elect to go to the Crown court. Those are the ones who have trust in the jury system. That is the objection within the letter. I am sorry to see that she is mischaracterised in that way, because that is not what the letter is about. The letter does say that it is a crude approach to characterise victims as simply those who are complainants: victims can also end up as defendants, and we have had many examples of that. I had a case at the end of last year representing a woman who was subject, clearly, to coercive control and, in part, physical abuse. She ended up a defendant, and the jury heard from her about how she ended up getting in the position she did alongside the man who was controlling her. They acquitted her; they convicted him.

Q I am going to direct my questions to Ms Brimelow. I think we agree that the delays in our criminal justice system are a scandal and that something needs to be done about them, don’t we? Kirsty Brimelow: Yes, of course. That has always been the position.

Q And I think we agree that there have been multiple drivers of how we got here. One of those drivers was the real-term cuts to justice spending under the previous Government, including cuts to legal aid and court closures. That was one of the drivers, wasn’t it? Kirsty Brimelow: I disagree that it is one Government. I would say, across Governments, there is a lot to answer for. We saw a rapid cutting of MOJ funding between 2009-10 and 2022-23: it declined by 22.4%. We are about 30% below where we should be.

Q So there was a cut in investment. There have been several things that we needed to do, some of which have been welcomed by both the Bar Council and the CBA—not least the uncapping of sitting days, which the Government have committed to. Kirsty Brimelow: That is welcomed.

Q That is welcomed. It also includes the introduction of match funding for criminal Bar pupillages; the need for action on prisoner transport, which needs to happen and which you pointed to as an issue; and the need for improvement in our listing practices. We need to do all those things—that much is clear, and we agree with that. But you will have seen the conclusion of the independent review of criminal courts, which is supported by the Government’s conclusion that, of themselves, investment and efficiencies will not be enough to keep up with the demand coming into the system, let alone bring down the backlog. They simply will not, will they? Kirsty Brimelow: Well, the Institute for Government disagrees with that. The Institute for Government says that if you focus on productivity and capacity in the courts—

Yes. Kirsty Brimelow: You asked the question; just let me answer. If you focus on that, then that is the way to get back to 2016-17 productivity. The Institute for Government does not agree and says that it is highly uncertain, and even Sir Brian says that his time estimates are highly uncertain and based on assumptions.

Q We will come on to that in a second. I have a chance to ask questions of the IFG a little later. You have not put forward any alternative reforms. You have said—in fact, to be fair, it was Ms Karmy-Jones who said it—that you reject the reforms contained in clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill in their entirety and that you would reject any constraint on jury trials. Let us come back to the IFG because the IRCC’s modelling is clear that, without structural reform, we will not bring down the backlog. A key conclusion of the IFG is that the major constraint on productivity is the workforce challenge. We know that 4% of Crown court cases did not go ahead last year because of the lack of barristers. The Bar Council and the CBA have pointed that out, and we know that the number of publicly funded silks has dropped by a quarter in the last decade. That is right, is it not? Kirsty Brimelow: Yes.

Q So you would agree with me that we cannot get those numbers of criminal lawyers back up to where they were overnight, can we? It is going to take years to train enough barristers to address that aspect of the productivity challenge, is it not? Kirsty Brimelow: I disagree with that, because the positive news is that when there is an investment in legal aid, such as happened in 2022—unfortunately, after criminal barristers had to take action—we see an increase in barristers coming back into criminal law. They are already trained—they have just left to go into other areas—but when there is an increase in legal aid, they have come back. Another Government pledge has been to increase legal aid by around £27 million. Our recommendation is that the sooner that can be done, the sooner you will hopefully reverse this and bring back some of the KCs who have left. May I pick up one other point? We are suggesting amendments to the Bill. We are completely alongside the Criminal Bar Association on restrictions on clauses 1 to 7. One proposal that we say will make a huge difference is, instead of having a court without a jury, having a court with a jury that focuses on sexual offences and domestic abuse cases. I think that was in the Labour party manifesto. Focus on those cases of the vulnerable people who are waiting. Bring those forward, prioritise those and reduce delays for those people.

Q I think there is consensus between us that we need to grow capacity in the criminal legal profession. I think where we are disagreeing is that we say that it is unrealistic that that will happen in the short term. It is going to take years to build the Bar back to what it was in 2016, from where it is currently. It is going to take investment, legal aid and match funding for pupillages, and it will take years. Kirsty Brimelow: I disagree, because we have the example from 2022, where you have the increase in the barristers coming back. That happened within that first year. You could see the increase in the barristers coming back. Looking at the courts, we can see that happen when they are given the tools they need—where the courts cap is lifted. Woolwich in 2023 was an example of that, when it could then operate properly and start to reduce its backlog. When the courts were capped again, and they had reduced capacity and lost two judges, their backlog started going up again. We have plenty of examples where it is not as you are saying.

Q We both agree that we need investment. We agree that we need to do a major drive on efficiency and the Government are doing that. Sir Brian’s team concluded that both those things would not be enough to bring down the backlog. My question to the Bar is, “What do you know that Sir Brian’s team does not?” Kirsty Brimelow: We know, operationally, what works. You will hear some more of that from the circuit leaders who are giving evidence. I have pointed to Woolwich as an example in 2023. We are agreed on the fact that we need to reduce delays. We focus on, “Where are the delays happening?” If we are serious about reducing them, we need to look at where they are happening. You have heard a lot from victims of rape this morning. It should be made clear to them that the delays are weighted pre-court, so the median average that a rape victim is waiting is happening in the investigation stage and the charge stage—it is around two years. The median average currently from receipt in Crown court to completion is around a year. That is still too long, but we need to focus, therefore, on what is happening with the CPS and what is happening on investigation. Charlotte Nichols was mentioned this morning by Vera Baird. In her case, she had more than two years waiting before getting to court. When it got to court, it was eight and a half months to conclude, so it is important to look at where the problem is and focus there.

Q Thank you both very much for being here—we really appreciate your time. What effect could the Bill’s proposed changes to jury trials have on newly qualified legal professionals, who quite often cut their teeth on jury trials with lesser sentences? Also, at the other end of the profession, have you done any polling or modelling to see whether this could impact the number of legal professionals staying in the profession? Kirsty Brimelow: We have heard—and I agree with this—that we already have the data, and I believe some more data is coming over the next weeks. We already have the data to show that a quarter of King’s counsel have now left working in publicly funded work. As I have said, we have the retention back on our junior Bar, which is very positive after the investment in legal aid, but we need the legal aid promise to come through quickly to keep that retention, and hopefully attract back the KCs. However, if jury trials are removed for those cases where juniors are currently very much cutting their teeth—they are doing those trials in their early years of practice before a jury—it may well be a disincentive to doing criminal law. From my own experience of coming from a mixed, publicly funded chambers—we do not do private cases, but legal aid cases across all the jurisdictions—there is always that persuasion with our young barristers as to what area of law they will go into. The persuasion that lands is, “You will have the advocacy with the jury trial.” If they do not have that advocacy, my fear is that we will lose our junior practitioners, who are very important, or we could end up with very junior practitioners whose first jury trial may have a level of seriousness beyond their ability, which again impacts on the quality of justice, and there could be a potential increase in miscarriages of justice.

Q Thank you. The victims in the previous session spoke about a necessary change in culture in the criminal system, which I think is a shared view across all the parties represented today. Can either of you see anything in the legislation before us that will provide that change in culture? Kirsty Brimelow: I am going to hand over to Riel on this. We support much of the reform from clause 8 onwards, on which I will hand over to her. We are all absolutely there to make improvements; no system is perfect, and the criminal justice system absolutely is not. We are there ready to support the reforms, and we are very experienced in bringing in reforms. Some of the issues I heard spoken of this morning included clearly terrible communication issues, where people were not informed as to what was going on, and they should be fairly easy to sort out. Also, we very much support the idea that there is a lawyer advising complainants, which is another proposal that has been put forward by the Government. We support that because complainants often get wrong information from NGOs or the police—doing their best—about what might be happening, and what might happen to them in court. That, in itself, can cause them to be anxious about what might happen, and it can contribute to the attrition rate. We have always had an issue with an attrition rate in sexual offences cases, and each time we need to look at why that is, so we welcome any proposals. I will hand over to Riel.

We have a very limited amount of time, but please come in, Riel. Riel Karmy-Jones: In terms of the culture, all the things that were spoken about this morning have no relevance, in a sense, to jury trial. Juries are in the best possible position to consider the situation that victims are in; they are more likely to have someone who really understands, who is from the community and who may have some experience themselves of what the victim has gone through, or to know someone who has. To change the culture, some of which I do not really recognise—it may be slightly older than the way things have progressed now—we would firmly recommend creating a specialist sexual/domestic abuse court. We would add to that by saying there should be specific training for the judges and jury—the jury could have a short period of training—and we would say that the prosecution and the defence need to be qualified or accredited advocates to deal with this sort of work. One of the problems we have at the moment is that the prosecution are accredited, but the defence are not, so questions coming from the defence are not as properly informed by the training that they could receive. Specialist court facilities, aimed at the comfort and safety of complainants, accommodating special measures, are really important, because at the moment we have victims in terrible rooms, with the ceilings coming down and water leaking through, and having to share loos, potentially with other witnesses in the case, risking coming across defendants in the court building. We need to have stricter time limits on case preparation, and more active case management, and we suggest a national protocol on the approach to third-party material and the review of third-party material, and disclosure with strict time limits applicable to mirror the service of the case—also, fixed trial dates. One of the issues that complainants in sexual and domestic violence cases have to contend with is that the defendant is often on bail. That is why they get shunted to the end of the line, because we have custody time limits that apply to custody cases. We need to consider a mechanism to give priority to these very important cases, and we think that a specialist domestic abuse court could do that.

Thank you. We have two minutes and lots of Members who would like to speak.

Q I will ask a quick question for clarification before I ask my substantive question. Ms Karmy-Jones, thank you, but I am a simple employment solicitor, so apologies, but for full transparency, will you confirm something? According to the Institute for Government, barristers may be reluctant to replace Crown court cases with magistrates court cases because they pay less. Will you confirm to the Committee that your members would get less in fees for magistrate cases than in a Crown court case? Riel Karmy-Jones: It depends what we are talking about—

Just as a general ballpark figure— Riel Karmy-Jones: It is less, yes.

Q I will come on to my substantive question then, because I have not got much time. You said that we should not remove the right to elect, as juries act as a safeguard against prejudice, but 90% of cases are already heard without a jury. I suggest that those cases have no safeguards against prejudice. Building on that, we know that a number of the more serious cases in the magistrates courts are dealt with by a district judge sitting alone. Is the position of the Criminal Bar Association that those should be replaced by full jury trials? Riel Karmy-Jones: We are not suggesting replacing district judges with full jury trials. What we are saying is: do not lose jury trials for those more important, more serious cases in the Crown court.

If we have very quick questions and responses, I can perhaps squeeze in two more.

Q Riel, in my submission from the Criminal Bar Association, there is concern about risks to judges in public criticism. The example given is on sexual offences, but I want to ask about protest-related offences and more political crimes, where the victim is the state or a powerful actor. Would the risks to judges also apply in those cases? Riel Karmy-Jones: Yes. We are already seeing that in immigration cases. We are seeing judges being targeted and threatened as a result of decisions made in immigration cases. The problem is that the judge will set out his decision making in writing; it will be on a transcript; and, under these proposals, it will go to a victim. It is wrong, not for those decisions to go to a complainant in a case, but for them then to be pored over and disagreed with. What does the judge say if they do not believe a complainant victim? They have to say so, and that could lead to huge disruption and upset, whereas with a jury, those people are largely anonymous and protected by reason of their anonymity. It is far rarer for us to get jurors who are targeted and attacked than it will be, in our view. As the Lady Chief Justice pointed out recently, it is far more likely that judges will be targeted as a result of their decision making.

Q Today, 58 out of 516 Crown court rooms are not sitting. Do you agree that it would be better to address that issue—and how would we address it?—rather than limiting jury trials? Kirsty Brimelow: May I deal with that briefly? Absolutely, if you open the courts, then the courts can hear the cases. Also, let us look at the reason for the lack of productivity. Our courts are just not sitting as many hours as they did in 2016 or 2017. We should get the number of hours back up, and cut out the delays even in the courts that are sitting. That includes looking at the defendants being brought to court late. We are collecting data on that, and it is an astonishingly high number. Around a quarter of the data we have collected so far shows defendants being brought more than five hours late to court. You attack that, do the type of listing that is working now, bring the investment in quickly—

Order. Sorry to stop you, but that brings us to the end of time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. Sorry it was so short. Examination of Witnesses Claire Davies, Samantha Hillas and Caroline Goodwin gave evidence.

Q We will now hear evidence from Claire Davies KC, Samantha Hillas KC and Caroline Goodwin KC. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record? Claire Davies: I am Claire Davies, King’s counsel. I am leader of the south-eastern circuit, which covers London and the whole of the south-east of England. My main practice is in criminal law. Samantha Hillas: My name is Sam Hillas KC. I am leader of the northern circuit, which is in the north-west of England, from Chester to Carlisle. I am a family barrister. Caroline Goodwin: My name is Caroline Goodwin KC. I practise in criminal law. I am the leader of the north-eastern Circuit. We cover a very large geographical area, from Newcastle through to Sheffield, encompassing Leeds and York and so on.

Q Given your experience of seeing how proceedings flow in the courtroom on a day-to-day basis, I want to talk to you about modelling and the estimates of how much time will be saved. In relation to the proposed new Crown Court bench division, Sir Brian Leveson’s report says: “Modelling assumes cases sent to the CCBD are 20% quicker to try than Crown Court cases with a jury and that the same proportion of cases ultimately plead guilty. However this… 20% assumption is highly uncertain”. Do you agree that the central assumption is highly uncertain? What are your views about how will this operate in practice? Claire Davies: We agree it is uncertain. When you go into a court trial process involving a jury, the types of cases that will go before these courts are generally the three to four or maybe five-day trials. When you look at those, the jury involvement is such that the only time that you would really save, so far as we can see, is in the swearing in of a jury, which takes 15 to 20 minutes, and maybe a factual summing up from the judge, which tends not to be very long in these cases. We therefore see the saving as minimal, because to maintain open justice, the evidence must be heard in court. That is very important for the public to understand what happens in our courtrooms. Sir Brian Leveson suggested this morning that judges would be more interventionist, saving more time and getting to the point. While one can see on the one hand that that is an attractive argument, it simply cannot happen because the defendant and the witnesses are there and the public needs to know what the evidence is. It is all very well saying that a judge can read the papers effectively, and that they do not need to elaborate on it in court and can get to the issues, but that would defeat the very important principle of open justice, so we do not agree that the time savings will be as significant for those reasons.

Q The other thing that Sir Brian says—this is in relation to the Crown court bench division, but it is replicated across all his major recommendations—is: “Should the MoJ consider pursuing this course of action, it may wish to consider undertaking further detailed analysis in order to understand the potential time-saving fully.” Besides the stakeholder engagement exercise, are you aware of any of the “further detailed analysis” that Sir Brian said was necessary before coming to any conclusions about the time savings of the policies? Samantha Hillas: No.

Thank you.

Q It is good to see you all again. We have had a number of engagements over the past year, so it is good to be able to engage once again. You have heard a number of different witnesses from a number of different angles on the scandalous delays in our criminal courts. As circuit leaders, I expect you agree with me that something needs to be done to address it. I am looking at Claire, because I know the problems are especially acute in the south-east. I am right about that, aren’t I? Claire Davies: Yes, and I agree that something has to be done.

Q No doubt you would also welcome the investment the Government are making in uncapping sitting days and thereby removing the financial limit on how much you and others can sit in the Crown court. Claire Davies: Absolutely. That is something we have wanted for a very long time now, because that would have seen an immediate effect before now.

Q You will have seen the conclusion of the independent review of criminal courts: that, notwithstanding maximum investment and efficiency measures that doubtless need to be taken, those two things alone are incapable of reducing the backlog. That is the evidence of the independent review. Claire Davies: We do not necessarily agree. The difficulty has been that the sitting days have been cut not just under one Government, but more. The Nightingale courts that were dealing with the bail cases that are the ones at the end of the outstanding cases that we have, certainly in London and the south-east, were closed. I think we have one that has just been made permanent, thank you—Chichester. They were there, and that is what kept part of our outstanding cases under control.

Q I understand that you do not agree, but I do not understand that any of the circuits have produced independent evidence of their own to suggest that that conclusion is wrong and that we can bring down the backlog without some form of reform. I understand you disagree with the reforms the Government are pursuing, but I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits. Caroline Goodwin: Can I deal with this? The reality is that we have not been able to do this. Because there has been a consistent cap on sitting days, judges have not been able to open up court days. They have not been able to run blitz days where they can really take hold of a case and shake it and say, “Right, what is going on?” We have not had any great directives to the CPS to say, “When you’re charging these cases, you need to review these very thoroughly.” Throughout this entire time, the criminal Bar and the entire justice system has been brought to its knees. So if you are saying, “Is there any empirical evidence that this doesn’t work on your circuit, Ms Goodwin?”, we have not been able to do it. If I can finish on this point, I can point to where our courts have taken over pleas, have been able to open up another court and have brought in 300 extra cases, which is really important, and 80 of those are RASSO. The example I am going to give you on my circuit at the coalface is Teesside. Newcastle has also been enabled in the last six months to open up one more case. The reality is that all their class 2 cases, which are very serious cases dealing with sexual offences, are now listed within their time limits. So if you want to see if there is a change, it is happening now. You just have to let us do it. May I make this very clear? I do acknowledge that you have finally lifted up the cap on the sitting days, but we need it consistently. You can twist all these figures around however you want to, but you have to let us try.

Q One final point. I am happy for each and any one of you to come in. There is certainly no twisting of figures. These are figures produced by an independent review and Government modelling. But you are absolutely right: there needs to be maximalist investment, which is why we have uncapped sitting days. I entirely agree, and there are some excellent models from Liverpool and elsewhere, about blitz courts, and we are beginning blitz courts in London and the south-east as of April. But the conclusion of the Government’s modelling and the independent review is that those things alone, vital though they will be—we cannot do this without them—will not bring down the backlog. There is no other evidence that the backlog can be brought down without some form of reform, is there? Samantha Hillas: The difficulty is that we do not necessarily accept the assertions about the time saving. Let us take at face value the assertion that there is a 20% time saving, which takes a five-day case down to four. Clause 5 says that the judge has to produce a judgment as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, so when is that going to be written? That is your fifth day. That is what the judge is going to have to do on that day. Claire Davies: Can I answer the question about the lack of evidence? Wood Green Crown court is a prime example. In August 2023, Harrow Crown court was closed. It has still not reopened; in fact, it reopens on 13 April, due to the state of the building. Wood Green was using Hendon magistrates as four Crown courtrooms, and it got its backlog down to near pre-covid levels. When Harrow closed, Wood Green lost those four Crown courtrooms, because of course Harrow had to function somewhere. The consequence was that Wood Green’s backlog went up. That is a simple example of what extra court space does. Maidstone has been listing into Southwark and Woolwich. There have been ramifications for Woolwich and Southwark, because they have lost courtrooms, but giving them more court space has enabled them to reduce their lists too. That is without any other efficiencies, and we say that the efficiencies must be tried first. For example, in the trial I am in at the moment in Winchester, prisoner escort has not managed to bring the defendants to court on time for most of the trial, even though they are in Winchester prison.

Thank you very much. The Minister wants to come in very quickly, and then I will bring in the Lib Dem spokesperson.

Q Just finally to Ms Davies, if I may, you said that efficiencies must be tried first. That argument has been aired very widely. Do you have any sense of how long those efficiencies would take to bring down the backlog? If we pursued all the efficiencies, which the Government are doing—I have mentioned some examples—and maintained uncapped sitting days, how long would it take to bring down the backlog? Claire Davies: We do not know, because we have not been provided with the data that the Government have. We have consistently asked for the data.

It is in the impact assessment. Claire Davies: The impact assessment does not provide data.

Q Thank you all for being here today and providing evidence to the Committee. Can any of you outline the reasons why Crown court hearing time has dropped to an average of 3.2 hours per sitting day? Is that drop anything to do with jury trials? Claire Davies: I think we would all agree that it is nothing to do with jury trials. What is happening is that, due to a lack of sitting days, judges are having to deal with more administrative matters and other hearings before they begin a trial, if of course any of those are in custody. If there is a delay—they are not always delayed, of course—that pushes matters back. A trial will take longer, and they do not have the whole day available to them. They do not have 10 am till 4.30 pm, which is a court sitting day; they get only part of that day. That is what is eating into the hours—or it is one of the reasons.

Q Thank you. At some point, I would love to talk you through my amendments, which suggest fundamental reforms but not by curtailing the right to a jury trial. This is probably quite a simple question, which will mean that we can move on, but do you believe that the Crown court backlog could be fixed without reforms to jury trials? Caroline Goodwin: Yes, I do. As I have pointed out, you have to allow us the opportunity to put in place very key and significant changes. Frankly, senior judges have already identified that they would enable us to get through this backlog. In addition, the investigative stage needs to be got hold of and have a coach and horses driven through it. One of the big complaints that we have been hearing about today—it is a terrible complaint, when one thinks about it—is about the time it takes from investigation stage through to Crown court and the final determination with a jury. All those things could be addressed with efficiencies, which do not mean that you have to remove the right to a jury trial. Let us focus on those. Let me make it clear that it is very commendable that this large investment has been put in, but it brings us back to where we ought to have been after the last 10 years, in which we have suffered significant cuts. There is a will from the judiciary and practitioners; we just have to be able to make it work. You have experienced judges telling you, “I need blitz courts. I need more courts,” so let us open them, staff them, resource them and make them work.

Q My question concerns appeals. I am looking to see whether there is synergy here. Across your regions, 1% of cases that come from magistrates are appealed, so, accepting that the magistrates system is working, why do you not accept the principle of extending magistrates’ sentencing powers—as we have done in the past from six months to 12 months—from 12 months to three years? Claire Davies: It is 18 months. The difficulty is the percentage of appeals against conviction, because we take a slightly different approach in relation to appeals against sentence. With appeals against conviction, the success rate is something like 40%. I understand that there is no data that demonstrates whether that is because witnesses do not attend the retrial hearing or simply because a wrong decision was reached in the lower courts. What concerns me is when you have the chair of the Magistrates’ Association giving evidence before the Select Committee that he would like the right of appeal retained. There are errors and mistakes made, but if the length of sentence is extended, it will potentially increase that risk. The other difficulty that follows is that the number of those who qualify for legal aid will reduce, which means that they will not have access to legal advice as to whether they should be appealing or not, and if restrictions are brought in on the basis on which you can appeal, they will not be adequately equipped to launch what should perhaps be a successful appeal.

Q Are you familiar with the argument of the retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses, in The Guardian this week, that a third of the backlog could be cleared if we employed retired judges to undertake a winnowing exercise to clear the cases that will never come to court, and is he correct? Claire Davies: I have not read that article, but if there is more judiciary, then there is more access for people. A lot of residents are taking the approach of looking at the outstanding cases, looking at the sorts of cases that may not go to trial, and bringing them in. As well as more judiciary to assist in that process, or to crack through the trials that there are, there would need to be the courtroom availability, and of course what has to come with more courtroom availability is staff so that the courts run efficiently. We would welcome retired judges to come back. There are many who currently sit in retirement in any event. Caroline Goodwin: It would be absolutely brilliant to have these very senior judges come back. They have an absolute wealth of knowledge that they can bring. If they are prepared to operate in that role, it is a win-win situation. If we can instantly recruit more judiciary to deal with these cases, then it is something we should be proactively looking at.

Q It is fair to say that the CPS’s breadth of experience across the criminal justice system is unparalleled, given that it takes cases through the system, from advising the police at charge through to the magistrates court, the Crown court and the appeals court. Is it right that it is in a good position to understand the system fully, from start to finish? Caroline Goodwin: It might understand the system, but it is about the application of the system. You may have a set of papers that comes in from the police and is sent to a reviewing lawyer—

I am getting to my point; I am very conscious of time. It is fair to say that the CPS has a good overview of the system. Caroline Goodwin: Yes.

Q Thank you. Tom Guest, one of the directors at the CPS, recently gave evidence to the Justice Committee. He said: “Our view is that we have gone far beyond the point where piecemeal or non-legislative solutions will suffice.” He went on to say that the official view of the CPS is that the 20% time-saving projection regarding jury trials in the independent report is “very much on the conservative side”. Does the CPS not have a credible voice on those two points? Caroline Goodwin: May I deal with that? It may be a credible voice in terms of having an argument in the debate, but it is not actually addressing the efficiencies of the Crown Prosecution Service; it is merely saying, “Yes, we think 20% could be a parsimonious figure. It could be a far greater saving of time.” But if we turn and look inwards, at ourselves, the CPS is the start of a lot of the difficulties that there can be around case preparation. That is why I say that there needs to be a rigorous approach when material is sent in to a reviewing lawyer, which is really when the process starts. They need to be saying, “I need you to find me that telecommunications evidence. I need to make sure that that media evidence from those telephones has been produced.” All that should be starting from the word go. Tom Guest may be right in terms of—[Interruption.] May I finish, please? He may have a voice in the debate and the argument, but in so far as the efficiencies of the service are concerned, the CPS really needs to start looking at itself, and then perhaps it can come on a very strong footing.

Q Indeed. I think part of the CPS’s role is to look at the impact of the court backlog on the system as a whole, and jury trials are a part of that. A big part of the work of the CPS is in the court back office, in relation to other aspects of juries that create time pressures on the system: preparation of jury bundles, dealing with jury queries when people have been summoned, juror expenses, and so on. Having fewer jury trials in itself will help with that back-office preparation and work, will it not? Caroline Goodwin: With respect, often what happens is that counsel are told, “Please make sure that you know what’s going to be in the jury bundle.” That gets sent to counsel; counsel deals with that. Counsel is asked, “Can you make sure you can deal with the witness order?” Counsel produces that. All that you are having to do, basically, is either put material on a photocopier or put it into a media form so it can be played in court.

Having been a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, I find it very disturbing that you take that view.

Q As a former family solicitor, I want to focus my questions on the proposal to remove the presumption that involvement by a parent in a child’s life is in the child’s best interest or good for the child’s welfare. Given that, in children’s proceedings, it is already the law that the child’s welfare shall be paramount, and given that, sometimes, children can be used as tokens between warring parents, I wonder, Samantha Hillas, whether you find it strange that we are going to hear evidence today only from parent groups, and not from groups representing children’s interests. Is that odd to you, as it is to me, given that we are dealing with changes to children’s proceedings, where a child’s welfare is paramount? Samantha Hillas: I have not made the arrangements for who is attending, so I do not find it odd. Whoever has been asked to attend is attending. I can talk a little bit about the repeal of the presumption—

Q Given that there is no one here representing children, as a children’s lawyer, can you help the Committee understand what a presumption of a parent’s involvement in a child’s life is, as compared with the overriding concern for a child’s welfare that must be uppermost in the court’s mind? Can you help the Committee understand what that means? Samantha Hillas: I am not quite sure I understand the question, so I will answer it like this. From the practitioner perspective, we have always found the insertion of the presumption fairly odd, because it goes without saying that it is usually in children’s best interest to have a relationship with both parents. Where there are circumstances in which it is not safe for a child to have a relationship with both parents, the child’s welfare is protected and is paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The insertion of section 1(2A) into that Act in 2014 came on the back of quite a lot of protest and demonstration by certain pressure groups for the amendment to be made, to try to promote a presumption of involvement that really is tacitly always there. For practitioners, it was probably something of an otiose insertion. The difficulty with it is that even though a review has demonstrated that it has not been the basis for judgments—the welfare principle has not been subordinate to it; the welfare principle has still been paramount—it has created a sort of pro-contact culture. You have to remember that when it came in, that coincided with basically the eradication of legal aid in family cases. Even though lawyers would advise that the welfare principle is paramount, if you are a litigant in person without the funds to afford legal fees, you might read that presumption and read a pro-contact culture into it, and might then be agreeing to situations that are not safe for a child. I have not answered your question, but—I am sorry that this is taking quite a long time—practitioners thought that it was a fairly redundant insertion, and it is sensible for it to be repealed.

Q My questions cannot be answered because there is no one here representing children’s groups, but that part of the Children Act 1989 is not about presumption of contact, is it? It is about presumption in favour of involvement in a child’s life. Samantha Hillas: Yes. Well, there is a presumption that a child’s best interests would be served, as I said in the first place, by having a relationship with both parents. It is only where there would be a risk to that child that there would not be involvement.

But the Government want to remove that.

Q Thank you for coming today. My question is for Claire Davies. The open caseload is 80,000 and is projected by some potentially to rise to 200,000. In your evidence so far, you have not been able to identify a timeframe for the measures that you would prefer to be the focus at the moment. Do you think that victims would view that with concern, given that we have all agreed that justice delayed is justice denied? Claire Davies: Of course they are going to view it with concern—it is common sense that anyone would be concerned—but we need to have the opportunity, which we have not been given, to demonstrate that in fact it will not reach that high with the measures that we support. Efficiency in our system has long been lacking, despite repeated efforts, and this Government have shown that they will invest, and substantial investment is what is needed. We are not afraid of change—we make that absolutely clear. A lot more use could be made of technology in our courts; remote courtrooms could take the shorter hearings away from the trial courts so that they can concentrate on what they should be doing and have the full use of a court day to maximise that. It is a combination of features in the trial, but the matters that we have proposed—you heard this morning, as well, that we encourage the use of specialised courts—would have a dramatic impact. You have to remember that new sentencing provisions came into force on 22 March, and we believe that they will also have a dramatic impact on the current caseload. The ability to give suspended sentences for a longer period of up to three years will have an impact, as will efficiency measures and, most importantly, the investment that the Government have made in relation to uncapped sitting days. All of that, combined, will have a dramatic impact, to the point that losing, or curtailing, the right to jury trial—because we are not losing it completely. We make that clear and accept it. We say that it is not necessary to lose the legitimacy that juries bring to our court system. The judiciary have made great strides in their diversity, but they are still not representative of the communities they serve. The equalities statement makes clear the way that people elect those of different ethnic backgrounds. Given all of that combined, we would urge that clauses 1 to 7, which deal with repealing or restricting the right to a jury trial under certain circumstances, are not brought into force. There are many more ways in which action can be taken.

Q What is your comment on the fact that the Government are asking us to support and understand the estimates of Sir Brian Leveson based on his experience, and to accept modelling that is uncertain, but when you and thousands of others sign a letter criticising them, using that same experience to justify your views, we are told, “That’s not credible. Surely, you need to listen to Sir Brian.”

You have 30 seconds to respond. Claire Davies: Frankly, the answer is that we are the ones who are in court day in, day out doing the job. With the greatest of respect to Sir Brian, he is not doing the job in the current day and age—we are.

Matt, do you have a quick question?

I will keep it quick. I think we all agree that victims are very brave, and we know that the delays are having a massive effect on them. I think we all agree, too, that the measures in the Bill will reduce timescales—

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. Examination of Witness Claire Throssell gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Claire Throssell. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Claire, will you briefly introduce yourself? Claire Throssell: My name is Claire Throssell MBE, and I am a campaigner, an advocate, an author, an educator and an ambassador for two domestic abuse charities, Women’s Aid and IDAS. I am at the forefront of the child-first campaign, and I am the one pushing for the repeal of presumption in the Bill.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming—

Ordered,

That the Order of the Committee of 25 March 2026 be varied by as follows—

Leave out rows 22 to 29 of the table in paragraph (2), and insert—

“

Wednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 3.40 pmHon Doug Downey KC MPP, Attorney General of OntarioWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 3.55 pmChief Constable of Lancashire ConstabularyWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 4.10 pmHM Courts and Tribunals ServiceWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 4.40 pmJUSTICE; Centre for Criminal Appeals (APPEAL); Institute for Government

”—(Sarah Sackman.)

Following the Divisions in the Chamber, the timings for this afternoon will be adjusted. I will announce at the start of each panel when the questioning will start and end. We already heard your introduction before the votes, Claire. If you do not mind, we will jump straight into the questions.

Q Thanks ever so much for coming, and for your patience with the parliamentary procedure. I know that these things are really challenging sometimes, so I want to thank you in advance for talking about difficult things. Also, rather than being dependent on what we may ask you, I want to give you the opportunity to lay out two or three points that you really want to get across to us today. Claire Throssell: Thank you for the question, and I have four points that I really want to get across this afternoon. First, I want to make it clear that presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety. Presumption has no place when it comes to children’s lives. Presumption has no place when it comes to our lives. What happened to Jack and Paul was based on a series of presumptions under practice direction 12J, and you have to ask the question: why did a professional working for CAFCASS, after being barricaded in her office, presume that Jack and Paul were safe to go on a visit? Why did she presume that I was exaggerating, despite me telling her and a court—let us be clear that I did—that he was capable of killing? Why was it presumed that it was okay to ignore my voice? Why did they presume that two children would be safe when they had clear evidence in front of them that they would not be? We are talking about presumption, and people say, “Yes, the practice direction is there in the Children Act 1989.” Let us be clear: there are 68 children who have died under that Act. There are 68 children who have died under practice direction 12J. I say again: presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety. I am going to show some evidence now, and I show these pictures not to shock or upset people, but to show the reality of presumption of contact. I would like to show you two photographs, the first of which shows Jack and Paul. They were never child A and child B in a serious case review. They are child 18 and child 19 in a Women’s Aid report that looked into how many children have died at the hands of known perpetrators of domestic abuse. This 12-year-old boy, Jack, died believing that he had saved the life of his younger brother, because I never told him differently—I held both my sons in my arms as they died. Jack’s voice was never heard; the day he was supposed to have his interview with CAFCASS was the day that he died in my arms. The only time this boy’s voice was heard was on a landing, when he spoke to a fireman and a doctor. Although he was dying, he used as much of his strength as he could to tell as many people in that property, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.” This was taken by the police as a dying testimony. Why did they not take his words in life? Why did they take his words in death? This second photograph of Jack is again evidence of what happens with presumption of contact. The first photograph of Jack was taken in the July, and this second photograph shows Jack in the October. CAFCASS and a court presumed that this boy would be safe. Social services presumed that this boy would be safe. This boy died believing that he had saved the life of his brother, and more importantly, he thought of everybody else but himself. When people should have protected him, he went back for his brother. He gave his brother his hand. He gave his brother his strength. He was there for his brother, but who was there for him at 12 years old? Not the court that ordered contact because of the culture in the family courts that contact is in the best interests of the child—that they should see both parents. Jack had nobody, and he thought about me—he made sure that everybody in the property knew that I was not to blame. As a parent, I am ashamed of that, because it was my role to protect them. Let us be clear that I have to live with the fact that they died only because a domestic abuser wanted to punish me. A family court allowed him to do that, but these two beautiful boys only lost their lives because of me. When we talk about repealing presumption of contact, let us look at it: over 30 years, children have died. In 2014, Jack and Paul were child 18 and child 19. Let us face the fact that, in 2026, we are at 68 children. That is not good enough, because every child deserves to live. Every child deserves to have a childhood, and their childhood should not be allowed to be torn apart piece by piece by seeing a perpetrator of domestic abuse—by seeing a person who just wants to hurt them, humiliate them and punish an ex-partner. Children have one childhood. Children at risk of harm only have today; they do not have tomorrow. You have a chance—a lifesaving opportunity—right here, right now to make a difference to children’s lives, not just today, not just tomorrow, but for generations of children to come. It is no surprise that there are many people in their 20s with mental health issues. Mental health has never been as bad as it is right now in young people. And why is that? It is because they are made to see a parent who is hurting them. They are made to see a parent who is harming them. It might not be physical, and it might not be the ultimate act, like it was for Jack and Paul, but if a child comes back from a visit and they are different from how they were when they went on the visit, let us be clear: that is child abuse. Children are supposed to have a voice. Children are supposed to have opinions. But all too often there are too many other voices in this complex system that are louder than the child. We hear about parental rights all the time, but around children’s rights there is a deafening silence. We have an Act that protects them: the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. They are supposed to be seen as victims in their own right, and yet, up and down our country, their rights are still being walked over—not only their rights under the Domestic Abuse Act, but their human rights too. They have the same rights as we do. They are people; they are humans; they are themselves. Their basic rights—to live, to thrive, to live in privacy, to live in peace—are being broken in courts up and down the country. That is not good enough. They are the future of this country, and if we get this wrong, what does the future of our country look like? What have we got for the future? They are not being allowed to live as they want to live. They are not being allowed to be free. They are certainly not allowed to thrive. If you go to school, college or university and you have suffered that morning, how are you going to learn? How is that conducive to achieving in life and being who you could be? I used to tell the boys, “Be the best that you can be today.” They only had today. Right now, with this Bill repealing presumption of contact, we can give every child in this country the tomorrow that not just Jack and Paul, but 66 other children will never see. This issue is bigger than Jack and Paul, but they were my reality. They were my children. They were the better parts of me. But 66 children are anonymous. Successive Governments have made them a child A or a child B in a serious case review, to gather dust in a file in Whitehall or around here, just brushed under the carpet. Serious case reviews—lessons must be learnt. I can ask everybody in here, “What lessons have we learnt?”, because every year we are losing more children, and we are losing more children because of practice direction 12J, because of presumption of contact. There should never be presumption—not in law, not when it comes to safety, not when it comes to lives. You would not go in a court and presume that somebody is guilty.

Thank you so much for that; thank you for sharing.

I know that these words will not necessarily shift your view, but I do not think anybody in this room would think that any of that was your fault, or that you should share any of the blame for what happened to your children. Your testimony is really powerful.

Thank you, Claire, for sharing such a powerful testimony. I think I first met you during a Westminster Hall debate, which was called by your tireless and fearless MP Marie Tidball, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. Your testimony is compelling and it is why we are bringing forward the provision in clause 17 of the Bill to repeal the presumption of parental contact. We know that will not protect every single child, but it does send quite an important message about what we in Parliament say, which is that the courts should always have at the forefront of their minds the best interests of the child, and that alone. I just want to say thank you.

Q Thank you, Claire. Can I just acknowledge that children who are yet to go through the family courts are safer because of you and your tireless campaigning over many years? I hope you can hold that close as you go on. I believe that all campaigners like you, who never fight for themselves, are fighting for the next generation—the job is never done. My question to you is: what is the next step? What would you like to see in legislation going forward, especially in our family courts, to protect more children from harm? Claire Throssell: What I would like to see moving forward is an understanding of what it looks like without presumption of contact; what good practice looks like; understanding trauma; understanding what coercive control is; understanding emotional abuse. We all understand physical abuse—it is there; we see it. What we do not understand is the emotional abuse and the scars that we carry. We must always look from the position of actually seeing a child, hearing a child, believing a child, protecting a child, and we must go from this basis. We must use the legislation that we have in the Domestic Abuse Act. We know that it is not being used in courts. We must see children as victims in their own right of this crime. We must accept children as victims in their own right of this crime, and we must take away the fact that we are always trying to prove the crime that has been committed against us. Domestic abuse is a crime, so why is it that when we go into family courts we are ripped apart by barristers? Why is it that a crime has been committed against us, but we are always the ones who have to prove it has been committed, and by whom? Why do we have to go into a court, when we have committed no crime, and stand up and be humiliated in order to fight for our children? Why do we have to do that alone? With any other crime, the onus is on the police to prove that a crime has been committed and by whom, and then sentencing is carried out accordingly, but in a family court, the person who has had the crime committed against them time and again has to prove that that has happened. We are not believed automatically, and we are not supported automatically. There should be special measures in family courts to help see the child, like in the Pathfinder courts, but it is not just about seeing the child; it is about hearing them, believing them, supporting them, and letting perpetrators of abuse know that it will not be accepted and that we are going to take action, protect that child and always presume the unthinkable.

Q It is good to see you again, Claire. I echo everyone else’s comments about your very powerful evidence. You will remember that the last time you attended a debate in the Chamber, certain Opposition Members commented—we have heard comments and suggestions even today—that sometimes mistakes happen and both parents should have the right to their children at all times, but do you agree that this is an opportunity, and that the Government and, in fact, all parliamentarians should be doing everything we can to make sure that the 68 does not go to 69? I would rather that we make a mistake and the child survives than make a mistake where a child dies. Do you agree? Claire Throssell: Absolutely—I agree with that 100%. It comes back to the fact that we must not presume that children are safe. We must not presume that children are not going to lose their lives, because perpetrators of abuse manipulate, they lie, they turn it around and they use DARVO—everything is always everybody else’s fault, and their voice is always louder than the child’s. You have an opportunity now to change that. You have the opportunity to make sure that no other child has to use their voice and say to a fireman, a police officer or a doctor, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.” No other boy should have to have a dying testimony and believe that he saved the life of his brother, because I never told him differently. Mistakes are not good enough. Sixty-eight mistakes is a national disgrace, and in 2026, there should be no more.

Q Thank you so much, Claire; it has been really powerful to hear from you. I have heard from a constituent who has a close family member going through all of this, and she has been advised by solicitors to avoid the family court at all costs, describing the potential outcomes as a “lottery” and talking about very patchy training and understanding. Would you back my constituent up on those conclusions? Claire Throssell: Yes, I do back that up. Judges do need training. They are hiding behind the fact that they are independent. They should be independent—they are the law of the land—but they should not be above the laws that they serve, and they do need training. They do need understanding. Like I say, the court is another arena; it is a secondary abuser. We go through the abuse, we take the courage to leave—that is not easy—and we enter a court system where we think, “This is going to be fair; this is going to be just.” We go into these arenas, and there are no guarantees that we can protect our children. We are ripped apart, and our personalities—we go through trauma. We tell people the same thing again and again, but we are not seen, heard, believed or supported.

Order. Thank you, Claire. I am sorry, but we have reached the end of the time allotted for your evidence. Thank you so much for sharing with us today. We really appreciate it and your campaigning. Examination of Witness Doug Downey gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Doug Downey. We have until 4.54 pm for this session. Thank you for joining us today. Will you please briefly introduce yourself? Doug Downey: My name is Doug Downey. I am the Ontario attorney general. I have the privilege of overseeing the administration of justice in Ontario, Canada. I look forward to being able to talk with you a little about our experience with juries, and the lack of juries in certain cases, and how that relates to efficiencies and otherwise.

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Q Hello, Mr Downey. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin by asking you about what read-over we might get in relation to challenges you have had with court backlogs. Do you have experience of waiting times and backlogs that increased from an ordinary level and were brought back down again? What did you do to secure that? Doug Downey: Absolutely. As we went into covid, we were developing backlogs, and then of course through covid we had more. I can share some specific numbers with you if you wish. For a sense of scale, we have about 250,000 cases a year that come into the system, and the backlog made that grow quite significantly. We are chunking our way through it, if I can put it that way, and employing technology processes and increasing capacity across the system.

Q Has there been any change over that period in the use of jury trials? Have you used them more or less? Doug Downey: We have not made changes to the jury trials, but we have made changes to compensation for jurors and how we get responses from jurors electronically versus in paper, and we changed our jury rolls. But in terms of what juries apply to, we have not made changes during that period.

Q Would it be fair to say that you had an increase in the backlog and then a decrease, without making any changes to the extent of the use of jury trials? Doug Downey: We have not used that as one of the levers. To give a sense of scale, about 96% of our trials are judge-alone, so in terms of making a change, it would be to add more juries, which I would suggest, based on the data and experience we have, would move us in the wrong direction on the backlog.

Q We have covered jury trials and changes around that, but if you were going to pick one or two other things that you did that you think had the biggest impact on reducing your backlog, what would they be? Doug Downey: Increasing capacity across the system. We have different levels of court: the Ontario court and the superior court. The Ontario court has a complement of approximately 300 judges. We have added 52 to that complement. In addition, when we add a judge, we add seven full-time staff, whether it be Crown prosecutors, victim service workers or whatnot. In total, we added about 700 full-time staff over that period. Building that capacity has helped. The challenge we have is the increasing rate of intake. There are theories on why that is, but it is a fact that we are dealing with.

Q It was very good to have the chance to meet not just you, Mr Downey, but many of the judges at the superior court of Ontario on my recent visit to Canada. I am glad that you are able to join us. I want to ask you about two things: the efficiency and the pace with which judge-alone trials are conducted, as compared with jury trials, within your system, and your perceptions of the fairness and integrity of those judge-alone trials. As you just explained in response to the shadow Minister, judge-alone trials in the criminal court have been a feature of the Canadian system for decades, I understand. Doug Downey: Absolutely. They have been in place for quite some time. They produce a number of benefits for the system. It is not just the length of trials; it is the expertise that can be brought to bear by an experienced judge. To become a judge, you have to have a minimum of 10 years’ experience at the Bar. It can also create scheduling advantages, because you do not have to schedule contiguously; you can have a break in a trial and come back a few days later, and not have to manage the jury in that sense. There are cost consequences, but there are also scheduling and efficiency consequences that we harness. More than 95% of our cases are judge-alone, but there is a mechanism by which the individuals can choose judge or jury. We put that in the hands of the accused. By and large, they choose judge.

Q I am aware of that distinction. Distinguished academics such as Professor Hoyano have made the point about the distinction with the system that we are bringing forward, where we are removing the right to elect. I understand that in your system, it is the defendant who elects. It is right, is it not, that many defendants actually elect for judge-alone? Doug Downey: Absolutely true—they do elect for that. There are different advantages for them, including the speed of the matter. There are advantages for our system in terms of the cost of the matter and getting people to a just outcome. It is more than an academic exercise in terms of what is fair, but people do choose that. I can tell you that we track the court of appeal pieces, and more often the appeal is because a jury has been misinstructed. Judges, trained properly, when they come to the bench, can segregate out things that need to be segregated out, but you cannot always do that with a jury.

Q The point about the pace at which the trial moves is an issue of contention. Some people say that having judge-alone for the same type of case will not save time compared with a jury trial. In your experience, once the election has been made by the defendant within the Canadian system, how much time is saved for the same sort of case with a judge-alone trial as opposed to a full jury trial? Doug Downey: At a minimum, months. There is no question but that it is faster, from the data and anecdotally. It is not just our jurisdiction; other jurisdictions in Canada have similar experiences; British Columbia, on our west coast, is a good example. There is absolutely no question. You can move through motions in the middle of trials without disrupting, and you can do preliminary hearings beforehand and not have to redo something in front of a jury, because the judge has already heard that part. There are systemic advantages for time.

Q Other Committee members want to come in, but I want to ask you about fairness and, importantly, the perceived fairness and confidence that communities have in the system. On my visit to Toronto, it struck me what a diverse city it is. I believe that 50% of the residents of greater Toronto were born outside Canada. Is that something that you measure? Can you help the Committee understand the confidence that the public has in judge-alone trials? Doug Downey: There are two parts to that. First, clearly, people are choosing judge-alone. On its own, the fact that the accused are choosing judge-alone speaks to the confidence they have in that system. There have been studies, such as the national justice survey in 2023 and 2025. Half the respondents to those studies indicated that they are moderately to very confident that our criminal justice system is fair to all people, and more than half—59%, to be exact—reported being moderately to very confident that the criminal justice system is accessible to all people. That is a fairly high number for people who are experiencing the system or know people who are experiencing the system.

Q Thank you, Mr Downey, for your time today. I profess my ignorance of the Canadian justice system—it will stay with me forever that I do not know exactly how it works. Is the lay element in your criminal courts just 5% of all criminal cases? Doug Downey: Are you talking about the non-lawyers who are hearing—

Yes. Doug Downey: We have in the Ontario Court of Justice what we call a lay bench—the justices of the peace. They do a lot of the bail hearings and a lot of the provincial offences—traffic and that sort of thing. That is where the lay bench resides, but the trials are not done by the justices of the peace when it comes to criminal matters; they are done by judges who are appointed, with a minimum of 10 years’ experience and quite often more than that.

Q That is helpful. What sentence can a judge sitting alone give, and are there particular cases that will be heard with a jury? Doug Downey: It is a great range. Let me answer that in reverse, if I may. The most significant matters, such as murder and treason, will default to a jury, but if the Crown agrees with the accused, they can move it to judge-alone. That generally is not the case—it generally stays where it is—but they can. For the balance of matters, such as serious sexual assaults, it is not directly based on what the consequence might be; it is a class of cases that we call hybrid and I think you call either-way cases, where an individual can make an election to move into the superior court and, by consequence, get a jury, but generally they do not do that.

Q I have a quick follow-up question, based on your earlier comments. Do you believe that a large part of the confidence in the Canadian model is the right to elect? Doug Downey: I think so. The right to elect is a feature, but I do not think there would be any less confidence if they were not given that right, simply because the default would probably be with jury, but that would become very inefficient for us.

Q My question concerns the potential issue of judges being identified and targeted because they are dealing with cases at a high level. Clearly, in your situation, judges are dealing with high-level cases and sentences. Have you seen any evidence that judges are particularly targeted if they hand down higher sentences? Doug Downey: I think we are seeing, around the world, a heightened level of concern about individuals taking things into their own hands, so court security is very important to me. Judicial security is something that we have put a lot of effort into. As for whether it happens because of a sentence, I cannot say with confidence that that is the driver. I think our societies are becoming more vitriolic, and that is what we need to guard against in protecting individuals. But if an individual judge is presiding anyway, I am not sure that they are going to attract more attention as a result of whether or not there is a jury. To be honest, the nice thing about judges is that we get written reasons why things happen. In Canada it is very different from the United States: the jurors are not allowed to be debriefed afterwards in a public way. I do not know whether that is the case in Britain, but that provides a little bit of anonymity and protection against people drawing attention to themselves.

Q In Canada, 96% of your criminal trials are without a jury. In this country, 97% of our criminal trials are without a jury. Would you support reducing the percentage of jury trials even more in Canada? Doug Downey: It is a complicated piece in Canada, because the criminal code is governed by the federal Government. We are a provincial Government, so although I am tasked with running the Administration, I do not get to set all the rules. If I can be a politician for a second, I think that it is healthy that you are having this vigorous debate. I am certainly not comfortable telling you what you should do, but in our experience, from the perspective of running the system, it is definitely having a positive impact.

But would you support reducing the percentage even more in Canada? Doug Downey: We have an anachronism here in Canada with civil juries, which you got rid of quite some time ago. I am supportive of dealing with those civil juries, largely for the same reason.

Q What about in the criminal context? Doug Downey: In the criminal context, it is not something that we have broached. I would have to have that conversation with my federal counterpart.

Q I am interested in your data. Do you see any differences in different groups electing for a judge-only trial? If you do see a difference—I am talking about age and various other protected characteristics—why do you think that there is one? Doug Downey: That is a great question. I do not have data on the different groups electing, but we often see high-profile matters trying to move towards a jury. We know that individuals with very technical defences or very technical legal approaches will sometimes go to a judge, so that they can have that expressed. It really depends on the facts of the case, as opposed to the kind of case. I do not have running data on that, so I hesitate to be categorical. The motivation for going to jury, or not, can change with the theory of the case, the approach of the lawyer and, ultimately, the client.

We have two minutes left.

Q Good afternoon, Doug. I have a really quick question. I am just going to be brutally honest. I am a woman of colour—a black woman. Within our communities in the UK, there is a fear that if we move towards a judge-only trial, it would create major problems. How has the Canadian system ensured that defendants from such diversity are receiving a fair hearing in judge-only trials? Doug Downey: Again, that is a wonderful question. One of the dynamics is cultural sensitivity. Whether a jury can be walked through what they are dealing with, with the proper lenses, is open for debate. I can tell you that we have a lot of effort going into judicial education, by the judges for the judges, on First Nations perspectives, with everything from body language to lived experience. That knowledge resides with the judge; it may or may not reside with the community of peers. That is the goal. That issue can go both ways, but we have some confidence that judges are exposed to things that juries may not be.

Mr Downey, thank you very much for joining us today from Canada. Doug Downey: It was such a pleasure. Thank you.

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. Examination of Witness Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett gave evidence.

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett. We have until 5.09 pm. Thank you so much for joining us today. Will you briefly introduce yourself to the Committee? Chief Constable Hatchett: I am Sacha Hatchett. I am chief constable of Lancashire constabulary, but I am also the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for criminal justice. Thank you for giving the opportunity to come today. I am sure you have questions to ask me, but if you do not mind, I have taken the liberty of preparing a few points that I thought would be helpful to you. We were asked about the backlog in the system and why the measures may be needed. I thought it would be worth giving a bit of context, in part about how policing adds to the problem—

Sorry, but can I ask how long it will take? It is just that we have very little time. Chief Constable Hatchett: Two minutes.

Perfect. Chief Constable Hatchett: It is about the context of the problem and the impact of court delays felt by policing. Clearly, you are very well sighted on the increase in Crown court volumes, which means that in some areas cases are being listed into 2030. It also means that we are seeing an increase in victim and witness attrition rates. The number of cases in which suspects are charged is also going up, so policing is putting more into the system. We are charging more and we have more evidence, improved technology and proactive policing. We have also had more police investment over the years. The fact that we are charging more is helping to put the system under some strain. In terms of the impact on policing, there are three areas. Our victim care units are the people who support witnesses and victims and keep them updated post charge but prior to the hearing. They are the people who deal cases when they are adjourned. They deal with the emotions of victims and witnesses, and they do a fantastic job. The number that they are having to manage in that sphere has gone up significantly since 2019-20. They are also seeing the impact of the fact that some third-party agencies—independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers—are inundated with supporting victims. If those agencies cannot do that, some of the emotional support is falling to the victim care units—

Thank you very much. We have only 15 minutes for this session, so I would like to go into our questions now, but hopefully we will cover the other points you want to make.

Q Hello. I am the shadow Minister. With witnesses such as you, I think it is important to be really clear about the areas about which you can and cannot comment. Does that make sense? Chief Constable Hatchett: Yes.

Would I be correct in saying that it should not be inferred from anything you say today about the issues that need to be addressed, the challenges that victims are experiencing and the challenges in policing that you support, for example, a reduction in jury trials? The National Police Chiefs’ Council does not have any views on that. Chief Constable Hatchett: No, we do not.

Q Thank you. Are there particular parts of the process that you have observed and want to raise? Police officers often attend court and are often witnesses. In your experience, what are the processes that fall down? What makes you sit there shaking your head and wishing it had not happened? What prevents you from getting a conviction secured or a court hearing brought forward? Chief Constable Hatchett: Obviously, there are the adjournments and the upset to victims and witnesses, including police witnesses. I just want to make the point that for the whole time the adjournments are taking place—you are sometimes looking to 2030—the risk in the community is being managed by policing. Whether the person has a tag or is on court bail, with or without conditions, they are being managed in the community by policing.

Q Let me move away from the court to policing, which obviously is the area that you are most familiar with. What one or two things could policing do better, or be allowed to do differently, to enable you to shorten the timeframe on your side of a victim’s journey? Chief Constable Hatchett: I am really conscious that the Bill takes it from the point of charge and into the court system. We are working with the Crown Prosecution Service and in policing to see how we can decrease the time from the point of the recording of the crime to when we actually get a charge. There are initiatives going on with the Crown Prosecution Service, so maybe more will come into policing for charging. Some work is being done on redaction and on rebuttable presumption disclosure. There are a number of pilots going on to see how we can streamline the system to make that part as short as possible, recognising that no matter what we do there—and there is complexity in policing in terms of the investigations, the digital forensics and the third-party evidence that all adds to the delay—once there is a charge, there is a challenge in how you get through the process as quickly as possible, so that we do not have victims and witnesses who are not prepared to give evidence because of delays.

Q It would be helpful for the Committee to understand the impact that the delays, which I think we all agree are intolerable, are having on policing generally. If you could speak to some of your first-hand experience of that, it would be helpful. Chief Constable Hatchett: I talked briefly about the witness care units, which have had an increasing demand placed upon them since 2019-20. There are two other areas. There is greater demand on investigators. We are managing a growing number of caseloads for an extended period of time. If you think about the requirement of the prosecution team, we are obliged to continually review evidence, so the longer it takes to go through the court process, the more reviews are required. That requires rework. That also could mean changes to the officer on the case or the prosecutor, which then asks for additional work. From an investigation perspective, there is an impact on policing. The management of risk in the community also falls to police, as I mentioned. You will have individuals who are remanded by police. They are remanded into the court process; a proportion of them will be then taken to prison, so they will be managed within the prison estate. However, the vast majority of the individuals will not go into the prison system. They will either be on conditional or unconditional bail. A proportion of them—about 9,500—are on a court tag. That means that they would have gone into the prison system if not for the fact that they had tags with conditions associated with them. Then, if there are breaches in relation to the tags or the conditional bail, that adds on to policing, which is then expected to manage those individuals, arrest them and take them back into the court process. It is not just the investigations, and it is not just the victim care side of things; it is the management of risk in the community. We sometimes do that with risk assessments, and we do it with multi-agency public protection arrangements and multi-agency working, but there is still that risk, and we are managing that risk for longer.

Q The independent review of the criminal courts referred to the genesis of the crisis that we are in. It has been driven by covid and cuts to spending and investment, but another driver that Sir Brian Leveson and his team have pointed out, which may explain why trials for the same sorts of case are taking twice as long now as they did 20 years ago, is the complexity of the evidence. We all carry around a smartphone now. From a policing point of view, can you give us an idea of how that affects policing work? Chief Constable Hatchett: Absolutely. Because we carry around a phone and we have computers, laptops and a whole host of other electronic items, the investment in digital forensics for policing has been exponential. The types of offence that digital-enabled crime allows for are prioritised. You would expect child abuse cases and so on to get the priority because of the risk, including offenders’ risk to other children, but all forces across England and Wales have had to put significant investment into digital forensics.

Q Coupled with the procedural safeguards—things like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and what have you, which we all think are a good thing—that driver of demand is not going away. Unlike covid, which thankfully has dissipated, it is now a permanent feature of our criminal justice system, I take it. Chief Constable Hatchett: Absolutely. We sometimes get better at what we do with it and I suppose the innovations become better, which may enable us to interrogate devices quicker. We hope that will come in time and we invest in the technology to do that, but the reality is that we live in a digital age. That goes across the board for us all.

Q Thank you for being here. Your police officers are at the coalface. They often experience these adjournments and see victims let down at the final hurdle when they are about to have their day in court. What is your assessment of why cases are so often adjourned in our Crown courts? Chief Constable Hatchett: I think there are multiple reasons. There are people who are far better qualified to give you evidence on that; undoubtedly you will have spoken to defence lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service, who can probably give you some really good evidence. There are a whole host of reasons why cases are adjourned. Sometimes it is evidence, sometimes it is witnesses and victims, sometimes it is disclosure, sometimes it is court time—the reasons are multiple, but ultimately victims and witnesses are suffering as a consequence. My witness care units then have to pick up the conversations with those victims and witnesses to prepare them, hoping to keep them on board and confident enough in the criminal justice system to give evidence at a future date.

Q Thank you for being here, Chief Constable. Before I ask my question, I should declare that I worked as a serving officer for three police forces across the country. Chief Constable Hatchett: Respect.

Thank you, and thank you for your service. My question is about the morale and mental health of police officers, as you might expect. It is not to the same level as victims, but with the inevitable delays is there a risk of retraumatising the police officers who have to look at evidence of the most heinous crimes years down the line and give statements at each court case? Is there a risk that police officers’ mental health is being affected as well? Chief Constable Hatchett: Police officers are particularly challenged with the caseloads. Not only are you are dealing with the cases that you are investigating that day, but you have the cases that are in the system that need reinvestigation and rework. Caseload work is challenging and tough for some of our officers. Lots of work is being done on the wellbeing of officers, in terms of trauma and the types of case that they deal with, and on how police forces can get better. Forces are working with lots of people to make sure that the support is there for police officers. It is not an easy job. You know that it is not an easy job. Day in, day out, we deal with people in crisis. Our focus has to be on victims and on keeping people safer from harm. That is absolutely where our officers are, but the caseload and the work that is generated by delays in the system do affect our officers.

We have one minute left.

Q Thank you for being here. You have already looked at the impact that delays are having on officers, including the impact of managing a larger caseload. How are officers managing the sense that victims feel that they are exposed for such a long time before their case gets to trial? I imagine that the management work that you need to do is quite difficult. How are you dealing with it? Chief Constable Hatchett: A lot of it falls to the witness care units. Those are the individuals who are at the sharp end, dealing with victims and witnesses, trying to keep them on board. They do a phenomenal job, and they do it under really difficult circumstances. Every officer investigates, particularly in the serious cases—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for your evidence. Examination of Witness Daniel Flury gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. We will have until 5.24 pm. Will you please briefly introduce yourself to the Committee? Daniel Flury: I am Daniel Flury. I am the operations director in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and I am also the senior responsible officer in HMCTS for the implementation of the outcomes of the Leveson reports.

Q Similarly to the question that I asked of the chief constable, it is important that we understand the constraints on your evidence. This is stated Government policy; would I be correct in saying that it is not within your remit to criticise or say that the stated Government policy was wrong? Daniel Flury: It is not within my remit, no.

Q So we cannot take anything you say as being objective on the overall question of whether or not we should do this policy—you have to support the policy. In terms of the modelling, you will have seen in Brian Leveson’s report that he frequently refers to his assumptions being estimates, and to the Department’s need to do further detailed modelling. Could you point us to the further detailed modelling that the Department undertook in response to those requests from Sir Brian? Where is that further detailed modelling that the Department undertook? Daniel Flury: That modelling is not undertaken by HMCTS. It is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, and there are analytical teams. We produce projections and assessments on a routine basis—things like projections around the Crown court caseload, prison populations and so on. The findings and outcomes of the Leveson reports, and whatever happens with the Bill, will be factored into those projections, which are updated on a six-monthly basis, in terms of caseload projections, and are routinely shared with Ministers, and occasionally published.

Q We are talking about the forward-looking modelling. For example, as you said, you have the data for what we do now and how we do it. But we are proposing reforms. If we wanted to say that a judge would do the consideration and summing up of evidence and the writing up of his thoughts on why he came to a decision, there is no evidence within our system for how long that might take? Daniel Flury: No—we have obviously never operated in this way, or this potential way, before. As all projects and programmes do, we are currently relying on assumptions. I know that teams have tested these assumptions with a whole variety of people who work in the criminal justice system—judges and so on—but they still are assumptions.

Q Do you think that the Institute for Government’s classification of some of those assumptions as highly uncertain would be a fair classification? Daniel Flury: I would not like to comment on that. The analysis is primarily undertaken by the Ministry of Justice; I am here representing the courts service and the operational side.

Q Okay. This question is more directly about your role. If you were to draw up a list for the Minister of the top five things that you thought would make a big impact on the delays that you are experiencing at HMCTS, what would be the top two, and where would structural reform of the courts, a new court bench, and removal of the right to elect sit on that list? Daniel Flury: The top two things are uncapped sitting days, and long-term certainty over sitting days. That is what we have been provided with in HMCTS. But as I am sure the Committee has heard, on the current projections, even sitting at uncapped levels and having certainty over three years is not enough to reverse the Crown and magistrates’ caseload. We need something else if we are to arrest the growth in caseload.

Q As you picked two things that have been agreed, what things that have not been agreed would be on your list of further things that would help? Daniel Flury: On the principal sources of delay, you have mentioned the police and the effectiveness of trials, and we see lots of ineffective trials because of an absence of an advocate—an advocate is engaged in a case elsewhere. The situation with the Prison Escort and Custody Services—the delivery vans—is well known, and well documented in the Leveson report. Finding a way to improve that is pretty near the top of the list.

Q You have given two, which is great. Would you agree that neither of those has anything to do with jury trials? Daniel Flury: Yes.

Q Thank you for being here, Mr Flury. You have clearly mentioned that certainty on uncapped sitting days is hugely valuable to the system. You have mentioned a number of the areas where efficiencies, as I understand, are being made and developed with HMCTS, including prisoner transfer and better case co-ordination. We know that there are also plans to introduce blitz courts from 1 April. Would you care to expand on any of that to explain how HMCTS is gearing up and getting ready to deliver greater efficiencies in the system, so that it can bring down the backlog? Daniel Flury: I can, but may I begin by saying a bit about why certainty is so important for the courts, in particular? We go through this annual round—what we call the concordat process—where we discuss with the MOJ and the judiciary the amount of funding that HMCTS gets. That has been an annual process, so we operate on an annual cycle. Now that we have certainty over three years, it means quite a considerable amount to us. It means that we can confidently list over the next three years, so we can say to recorders whom we are trying to book now, “Look, this case is going to get on, and this date is going to be sat. We have the money to do this.” Having that certainty to book Crown court recorders and to recruit both staff and judges is a really important step for us. I will come back to the question about the other things that we are doing to improve efficiency. We are about to roll out case co-ordinators, which is another recommendation in the Leveson report. These are people in the Crown court who will actively manage the case, and who will be able to make decisions on behalf of the judge using delegated powers. They will really corral the system together to drive efficiency and drive readiness in a case. There is a whole variety of what we call blitz courts, which I would almost describe as a bet on the system. We try to brigade a number of cases that we know will either plead guilty or be discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the direction of the judges, we list those cases, knowing that they will be disposed of there and then. This essentially brings those cases forward on the hope and expectation—we use data to establish what could plead out—that it will give us an opportunity to clear them from the caseload. The product of that is not only reducing the caseload but indicating to the system, particularly the defendants, that their case is not going to languish for three or four years in places like London. It means that it will come on, and they have a far greater incentive to plead guilty knowing that the trial is a bit more proximate.

Q You have mentioned a number of ways in which HMCTS is pursuing greater efficiencies in the Crown court. Can you share with the Committee the work that HMCTS is doing with regard to growing capacity in the magistrates court? One of the effects of these reforms, if they make their way through Parliament, will be that some cases that would have gone to the Crown court will be diverted to the magistrates court. One question I have been asked in Parliament is about the important role that legal advisers play. Can you explain what HMCTS is doing to ensure that we maintain efficiency and grow capacity in the magistrates court? Daniel Flury: One of our biggest challenges in this whole programme is the need to expand operations in the magistrates court, particularly the numbers of legal advisers and magistrates we have. We expect to recruit 100 additional legal advisers every year for the next three years, and the critical thing for us is to make them stay and retain them—we have seen lots of our legal advisers go off to local authorities or the CPS. We are working closely with our trade unions at the moment on potentially improving their pay to improve retention, and we are devising development schemes, so we are hopefully going to offer pupillage to our barrister legal advisers. We are also supporting them in court. For example, we have recently developed a pilot using AI, where you take a case summary—what is called an IDPC pack, or initial details of the prosecution case—and it essentially summarises that case for the legal adviser. It tells them what the relevant points of law are and what the facts are in the case. These are ways in which we are both improving the efficiency of the magistrates court and improving the working conditions of legal advisers, because they really are critical if we are going to expand the magistrates court in this way.

Q To return to something you said in answer to the shadow Minister, how effective do you think the prisoner escort and custody service is? Daniel Flury: I think we all agree that there is room for improvement. We have had lots of testimony, certainly from Crown courts, about late starts and subsequent late finishes. That obviously affects not only the hearing but our staff, who have longer working days. I think we are all seized of the importance of driving improvements—there is now a ministerial board, which HMCTS sits on, to work with the prisoner service to improve the service we get. The service itself will be retendered in the next couple of years, and we hope improvements will arise from that, but it is certainly a factor in court output, and certainly in late sittings and late starts, particularly in the London Crown courts.

Q Do you think that doing away with jury trials will help that at all? Daniel Flury: Not really, no.

Q And you do agree that defendant non-arrival is a cause of delays and of the backlog. Daniel Flury: It is certainly a cause of delays. As I said, it causes late starts and late finishes. This is why we over-list cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court—to fill those gaps where they arise, but it is certainly a factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of the court day.

Q To pick up on Paul’s point about over-listing and capacity, looking at the Bill from an operational perspective, what one aspect of it would you say would make a material difference in reducing the capacity problem you have identified—over-listing and overcapacity making it difficult with staffing numbers? Daniel Flury: The consequences of the Bill for the Crown court, other than the jury trial element, will be relatively small. It will not really affect its day-to-day workings; there will just be a portion of cases that will be heard without a jury. In terms of the processes in the Crown court—how it operates and how judges list—we are not expecting profound changes at all. As I said, the real change arising from the Bill is the expansion of the magistrates court, and the real challenge for us in HMCTS is the need to recruit legal advisers and magistrates to expand the court and make its operations more efficient.

Q Looking at these plans coming forward, do you have what you might call a risk register within the Department? Do you have a system for rating the different elements and how risky you think they will be to deliver? Daniel Flury: As I said, to deliver the components of this Bill and its changes to jury trials, a number of relatively minor IT changes are needed. We need to change—

Q Sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to get to the specifics of the question. I guess what I want to ask you is what you think is really important about the magistrates element, and how you are currently risk-rating your ability to deliver it. Is there a low probability that you will be able to deliver it without issues, or a high probability? How are you risk-rating that programme? Daniel Flury: Our biggest risks around this programme are retaining legal advisers and recruiting magistrates. We need 7,000 magistrates over the next three years and 100 more legal advisers each year. We have mitigations in place, especially on magistrates.

Q But how are you currently rating them? Thank you for telling me what the risks are, but do you think you have a low risk of failure to deliver, or a high risk? Daniel Flury: It is a medium risk.

Thank you.

Linsey, did you have a very quick question? You have seconds.

Is it not the case that magistrates courts can be more agile in terms of court listing and picking up cases, like we heard from the Canadian—

Order. Sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for your evidence. Ordered, That the Order of the Committee of 25 March 2026, as amended, be varied by as follows— Leave out rows 28 to end and insert— “ Wednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 4.25 pmHon Sir Richard Henriques; His Honour Clement Goldstone KC; RT Hon Lord Burnett of MaldonWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 4.55 pmJUSTICE; Centre for Criminal Appeals (APPEAL); Institute for GovernmentWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 5.10 pmPlan B. EarthWednesday 25 MarchUntil no later than 5.30 pmMinistry of Justice ”—(Sarah Sackman.) Examination of Witnesses Sir Richard Henriques, Clement Goldstone and Lord Burnett of Maldon gave evidence.

We will now hear from Sir Richard Henriques, His Honour Clement Goldstone KC and Lord Burnett of Maldon. We have until 5.59 pm for this panel. Thank you all very much. Could you briefly introduce yourself for the record? Lord Burnett of Maldon: I am Ian Burnett, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I was Lord Chief Justice until October 2023. Sir Richard Henriques: I am Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge. I was called to the Bar in 1968. Clement Goldstone: I am Clement Goldstone. I was a resident judge and the recorder of Liverpool until 2019.

Q My opening question for all three of you is this: what are the best and most positive features of jury trials, and how and why do we use them in our system? Lord Burnett of Maldon: Public involvement. Sir Richard Henriques: I do not disagree with that, but it is also the fact that the world at large is able to observe justice and what is going on. In the present context, they will be extremely unhappy. Clement Goldstone: I agree and have nothing to add.

Q Very good. I want to pick up on your experience in Liverpool. I am sure you are familiar with this, and it has been discussed in Parliament, but the Liverpool Crown court does not have a backlog—it sees cases within the time limits. Based on your experience there, how were you able to achieve that, what else might the wider system learn from it, and what things can we not learn as they are not replicable? Clement Goldstone: First, every Crown court has a backlog—they need one to function. Why was Liverpool a success? It was a success, first of all, because it is an excellent single court centre; secondly, because it has a very positive interactive relationship between the bench and the Bar and the Bar and the bench; and thirdly, because the staff are always willing to go the extra mile, which is probably because of the way they interact with the judiciary. The fourth reason, which I know is something inherited by my successor, is that, as recorder, I believed that if you want to bring out the best in people you give them responsibility. Everybody wants to be part of a success story, as Liverpool in that way was. What has happened over the last seven years since I retired is that the same standards have been maintained—albeit, it must be said, in much more difficult and trying circumstances than when I was in the position.

Q The first example you have given is structural and not replicable across the whole country, but the other points you have made are all things we could support and implement more widely than just Liverpool. Clement Goldstone: There needs to be a cultural change.

Q Lord Burnett, when, as Lord Chief Justice, you were considering how to improve the efficiency of the service and the experience of victims, did you ever consider reductions to the jury element of trials? If you did, what were your conclusions? Lord Burnett of Maldon: I have spoken publicly on many occasions about my personal belief that there is a need to rebalance the work between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I was aware of the detailed work done 25 years ago by Sir Robin Auld. He made certain proposals which, even then, although I was not a criminal barrister at the Bar, I took an interest and many of them struck me as being quite sensible. During covid, I had detailed discussions with the then Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, about adjusting the way we did trials, because it seemed to me that it was not a sensible approach to assume that covid would be over within weeks or a few months, which is what most people were doing, I’m afraid. Robert Buckland floated the idea of trying either-way cases in the Crown court with a judge and two magistrates—something I personally have favoured for a long time—but it did not fly politically; I think that is the best way of putting it.

Q You talk about a judge and two magistrates as something you favoured, and that is what Sir Brian recommended, but it is not what the Government are proposing. They are proposing a judge sitting on their own. Can you see any disadvantages to that proposal versus the one that you supported? Lord Burnett of Maldon: Again, the Government well know my view on this—I see the Minister nodding. It seems to me that if one is going to reduce the involvement of the general public, as members of a jury, in the relatively low-level cases that go to the Crown court, maintaining public involvement through the magistracy is a good course to follow. It also has the great advantage of simply replicating a constitution and jurisdiction that exists in the Crown court at the moment. When there is an appeal from the magistrates court against conviction or sentence, including an appeal against conviction in an either-way case, it is heard in the Crown court by a judge and two magistrates. They take very little time. Both Sir Richard and Judge Goldstone are much more experienced, over many more years, in what happens in the Crown court than I can pretend to be, but those cases take very little time and the judge, on behalf of the court, gives an immediate judgment, just as in the Crown court generally the judge gives an immediate summing up. That struck me as being a much better course.

I will come back to you if I get time.

Q I would like to ask questions of the panel in relation to the practicality of what is being proposed, but also the principle. This is a question for all of you. Do you accept that in our system pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are heard with a jury and which are determined by judges or magistrates? Sir Richard Henriques: Not much pragmatism as gravity, I think. The more serious cases will remain, pursuant to Sir Brian’s review, with juries. I heard the question “Are you trying to do away with juries?” earlier this afternoon. It is critical that the public do not think that we are doing away with juries. What is happening is a matter of pragmatism, as you say. Something has to change. The backlog has gone from 17,400 cases exactly six years ago to 80,000 now, and cases are being listed for four or five years’ time. Something has to be done. For my part, I agree with Lord Burnett: I would have preferred a judge and two magistrates. But something has to be done, and if judge alone is the only option, I am 100% in favour of it. I have no doubt that it will work and that it will save far more time than the Bar contends it will save. It will save a lot of time.

Q That is the point that I want to alight on. Lord Burnett, you were part of the Times crime and justice commission, which produced its report in 2025. The state of play now is even more dire, but you reached a similar conclusion: that the status quo is not something that we can continue to live with, and that courts without juries, whatever the composition—judge alone or judge sitting with two magistrates—could bring about swifter justice. Does that remain your view, Lord Burnett? Lord Burnett of Maldon: Yes, it certainly is my view. To be perfectly blunt, I am rather astonished by some of what I have been reading from people who I do not think are necessarily focusing on the evidence of what happens. I do not know whether the Committee is hearing from any magistrates or from district judges who sit in the magistrates court and the youth court, but they will tell you that either-way cases in the magistrates court and the youth court—of course, the youth court also does indictable offences—very rarely go beyond half a day. In the Crown court—Judge Goldstone will, I hope, be able to give you more detail—very few cases take less than a day and a half. That is not only because of the time-and-motion calculable time that having a jury involves, but because the way that advocates conduct cases in front of professional courts is completely different from the way they conduct cases in front of juries. It is much quicker, and a professional court can get the advocates to focus on the real issues, whereas in the Crown court the judge cannot interfere. I am convinced that the time saving will be enormous if the relatively low-level cases are tried by a new constitution. The same savings clearly would not be made in a 10-day or 15-day trial but that is, I think, not what we are looking at.

No, that is not what is in the Bill. Mr Goldstone, I noticed you were nodding. Do you want to come in? Clement Goldstone: I had the advantage of listening with interest to the three circuit leaders straight after lunch today. They will probably never speak to me again, but I have to say that I did not recognise the validity of the argument that time would not be saved. Time will be saved in a number of ways. First, a lot of defendants who would otherwise have been tried by a jury and taken their chance will be far more realistic and take whatever credit is going if they know that they are going to be dealt with by a new division, whether it is one or three. Secondly, in my experience it is wrong to confine the savings, or the assessment of the savings, to empanelling and swearing in a jury. That is where it begins. Every sex case, I suspect probably nationally, now comes before the court with a direction that there will be no witnesses before 2.15 pm on the first day or, if the case is starting at 2.15 pm, until 10.30 the following morning. If there is no jury, there is no bar to the evidence starting within 10 or 15 minutes, because if there is to be an opening at all, it can be very brief—and I mean very brief. Half a day, at least, will be saved on every sex case that is heard in the Crown court. That is before you start with time lost as a result of jury sickness, or a juror being delayed because his train has been cancelled or her bus was delayed. It is also easier to call a witness out of order if you are not trying to take a jury through in the order in which the evidence would otherwise be called. You do not need to worry about engaging with counsel to ensure that they stick to and get to the point. They will realise that they will not be playing to the gallery as, with the best will in the world, we have all been inclined to do in the past when we have had a jury to try to convince, particularly if we have a bad case. I also do not accept that there will be additional time spent in the writing of judgments. The vast majority of decisions will follow the conclusion of the defence speech: ex tempore judgments in the overwhelming majority of cases or, in those very rare cases where something needs to be put into detailed construction, a verdict followed by a decision in writing, before sentence if there has been a conviction, within the next seven days if there has been an acquittal. There may be plenty of reasons why the restriction on the right to jury trial is not a good idea, but to suggest that time will not be saved is, in my view, not one of them.

Q Thank you all for being here. Mr Goldstone, Liverpool is often held as a bastion of good practice in the criminal justice system, but Sir Brian Leveson said this morning that we should not necessarily use it as an example because of the very unique set-up there. Do you agree with Sir Brian’s assessment that Liverpool’s set-up cannot be emulated in other places across the country? Clement Goldstone: I think that many of the efficiencies that Liverpool has created can be replicated across the country, because many efficiencies stem from positive leadership and proactive engagement. In a way, it is much more difficult to achieve those efficiencies with a larger court centre than with a centre where there are only two judges. There really is a limit to what you can do if you are running a two-judge court, but in the larger courts I believe that there is far more room for efficiency than is perhaps readily assumed.

Q Thank you; that is helpful. This is a question for all of you: what risks do you perceive arising from the proposed removal of the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates to the Crown? Do you believe that this right of appeal is currently being abused? Sir Richard Henriques: I see no evidence at all that it is being abused. Sir Brian thinks that there should be an application for leave to appeal, as there is between the Crown court and the Court of Appeal. It is finely balanced, in my view. With respect to the perfectly good question, I think we need to look at the bigger picture here. Sir Brian’s work is phenomenal—if anyone apart from Lord Burnett has read every word of it, they have done extremely well—but it would conceivably create more communications and more work, and it would not necessarily achieve a great deal, as I think that only 2% of cases are appealed. While it is a very interesting dilemma, I have not given it a huge amount of thought myself.

Lord Burnett, would you say the same? Lord Burnett of Maldon: I was going to make the observation that Sir Richard just made about the very low level of appeals from the magistrates court to the Crown court, which is something of a tribute to our magistracy. It really is a very low level, so I do not personally see this as a big problem. You asked about risk; one of the reasons why the current system exists is that the magistrates court is not a court of record and transcripts of what has gone on in the magistrates court are not readily available. If there were to be an appeal of the sort that is contemplated in this legislation, my understanding is that there needs to be quite a lot of work to put the nuts and bolts in place in the magistrates court. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I had not understood that it was expected that this could be put into place immediately. It is more a tidying-up measure, as I see it, that accompanies issues that are really much more important. Clement Goldstone: In principle, I am in favour of controlling the right of appeal to the Crown court. When I was in Liverpool—it is not that long ago—we were sitting one or sometimes two judges on Thursdays and Fridays on appeals. For some unknown reason, there seemed to be a lot dangerous dogs in Liverpool, so there were a lot of dangerous dog appeals. More seriously, I do not think the right is abused, because it is there to be utilised, but I do believe that there is an argument for weeding out a lot of hopeless appeals. Also, you must bear in mind that if there is an appeal based on a wish to call fresh evidence, particularly perhaps bearing in mind that a defendant in the magistrates court was not represented, that is something that would have to be carefully considered, so I would not reject it as a good idea, because it could result in time savings, but it is something that has to be counselled with caution.

Q You said that your preference would be for two magistrates and a judge to sit together, and I understand your views on that. There are already examples in our criminal justice system of where a judge sits alone in the magistrates court. We have district judges, which I am old enough to remember as stipendiary magistrates. I am not aware of any big campaigns or calls for them to be abolished. They deal with the most serious cases in the magistrates court, or tend to. Are you aware of any campaign to get rid of them because of unfairness or otherwise? Lord Burnett of Maldon: District judges (magistrates’ court), formerly stipendiary magistrates, have been a feature of our system since the mid-19th century—I cannot remember precisely which year they were introduced. I have never been aware of any reasoned criticism of the way in which they conduct cases. On the contrary, the rate of appeal that Sir Richard referred to includes cases that have been tried by district judges and deputy district judges. It is a phenomenon that we are used to in the criminal justice system.

Q On the practicalities of jury trials, you talked about the time savings of having judge-only trials over jury trials. I want to talk about other potential savings in terms of the backlog generally through jury trials. Personally, I think that a judge-only trial would make listing more agile. If a witness becomes ill, the judge could sit in a few days’ time, whereas a jury trial might be aborted and have to go back into the court list. What is the impact of those sorts of features on the court list more generally, rather than on the time saving in a particular trial in that moment? Clement Goldstone: It would give the opportunity to a judge who was in the middle of a judge-alone or judge-with-magistrates trial to say, “We will have to break off because this witness is ill,” to use your example, or, “because the defendant is ill,” and that would enable him to start another trial. At the moment, in the Crown court, where there is a judge and a jury, when a witness is ill, very often there is an abortive trial. If a witness does not turn up and the witness cannot be found, a decision has to be taken whether to go on or to give a little limited time for the witness to be found. Therefore, one of the other savings of time that will follow is that there will be no retrials and no juries to discharge, for whatever reason. I know that is not a direct answer to your question, but it is another by-product of restricting the right to trial by jury to the cases that are envisaged. There is, of course, a catch-all for the cases in which the public interest requires a trial by jury, even if conviction merits a sentence of less than three years.

Q So potentially there would be less repetitive listing of the same trial over and over again through those issues. Clement Goldstone: You would have one trial listed once, hopefully.

Q My last question is about the allocation process. In previous debates, we have heard concern that the judge’s allocation decision about whether it is the Crown court bench division or a jury trial would be a very long process. There would be a lot of work and a lot of written submissions, and it would take the judge a long time to make those decisions. That mirrors the process of the decisions that magistrates make every day, which, in my experience, often take three or four minutes to decide. The system would essentially require a defence advocate to argue for a higher sentence if they are pushing for a jury trial. Does that strike you as an unusual argument for a defence barrister to be making? Do you think the allocation process could actually be quite efficient? Lord Burnett of Maldon: I have read some of these arguments, and I have been slightly surprised by them. I cannot help the old advocate in me thinking that lawyers are terribly good at finding nine reasons why you should not do something. We all did that; that is what lawyers are sometimes asked to do. I think this one will very much depend upon the procedures that are put in place for dealing with it. Obviously, if you are going to create a new decision that has to be made, there will need to be adjustments to the practice direction and probably the criminal procedure rules, and I am not sure that detail has been thought through yet. If it has, I am not aware of it. I imagine that most of these decisions would be done on the papers. It strikes me as rather extravagant to suppose that you list it for half an hour for argument to deal with something like that, so I think that one is a bit of a bogeyman. Sir Richard Henriques: Paper applications seem to me to be fairly obvious. Clement Goldstone: Judges in the Crown court are very good at paper applications. They are used to them.

Q We all agree that the backlog is too great. Lord Burnett, in The Guardian this week retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses argued that we could cut the backlog by a third in six months if we employed retired judges to winnow the current backlog. Do you agree? [Interruption.] Richard clearly does not. Lord Burnett of Maldon: It is a very good journalistic article.

He is not a journalist, though; he is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. Lord Burnett of Maldon: Let me give you a sense of how we had to deal with this when we got through covid. There was by then a backlog of 60,000 cases in the Crown court—it is 80,000 now, and it is going up. Critically, the proportion of cases not dealt with within six months and a year was growing, and that continues to grow. We tried to bring to bear every possible judicial resource to sit as many days as we could, because the Government of the day removed the cap on sitting days. I authorised to sit in retirement pretty well anybody who wanted to come in and help. We changed the system so that magistrates court district judges could sit in the Crown court; we got a cohort of those in. We allowed recorders to sit in retirement, effectively, to enhance the numbers. We did enhance the numbers, but—with the greatest of respect to Sir Alan, whom of course I know extremely well—to suggest that you can solve this problem by the click of a finger is just not right. People have been trying to solve the problems of backlogs and inefficiencies in the criminal courts for pretty well as long as there have been criminal courts. I really can assure you that if there were any simple answer it would have been found long ago. I set up something called the Crown Court Improvement Group, now the Criminal Court Improvement Group, which does fantastic work in bringing together all the players in the system to improve efficiency, and they are doing so, but those looking at a system from the outside, when they do not live in it—with the greatest of respect to those elsewhere who do that—and think that there are simple answers, are just not right. I would be putting myself in that position if I tried to tell the Royal Navy how to make sure that its ships worked and got around the world. People think they know the answers, but until they live and understand the system in detail, that is not how it works.

Q Mr Goldstone, given the efficiencies you see in doing away with juries in this number of cases— Clement Goldstone: You are using that phrase again.

I am, because you are doing away with them in certain cases. Given the efficiencies, can you remind me why juries are a good thing in any case? Clement Goldstone: We have already dealt with that. That was the very first question.

I would like to hear your view. Clement Goldstone: Because of the involvement of the public and the right of the person to be tried by his or her peers—but something has to give. We are in a situation where something has to change. In fact, a lot of things have to change, because the restriction on the right to jury trial will not work alone, and let nobody think that it will. Someone used the expression, “It’s not a pick and mix”; it is part of a much bigger picture. On the point that you suggested, which Sir Alan Moses had raised, not a Crown court centre in the country of any substance does not already have in existence precisely that procedure of trying to force into the list those cases that have any prospect of—for want of a better phrase—cracking, whether by way of the prosecution offering no evidence or by way of the defendant pleading guilty.

Q Sir Richard, you spoke of the importance of correcting the misconception that some have that we are scrapping, or doing away with, jury trials in the round, per se. Do you agree that another misconception or myth that needs to be challenged is that there is an ultimate right to a trial by jury? I ask you to comment on the House of Lords Library note citing Anthony Arlidge and Lord Judge writing about such myths: “It”—Magna Carta, that is— “did not immediately give us trial by jury, although when jury trial did evolve it came to be regarded as based on the Charter’s guarantee of trial by one’s peers. It did not offer sweeping statements about personal freedoms or human rights or fair trials and, in fact, for the most part did not establish general rights, but rather created or recognised privileges.” Therefore, as we debate this matter, we ought to bear those points in mind. Do you agree? Sir Richard Henriques: I agree with those observations without reservation. I think I speak for all of us present: given no backlog, we would not be here at all. We are concerned about this being shameful—a word I used in The Times, I think, in March 2020, and it was shameful then. On trial by jury, I have spent my whole professional life in the presence of juries, save in the very early days—

Order. That brings us to the end of the time to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, thank you. Examination of Witnesses Fiona Rutherford, Emma Torr and Cassia Rowland gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from JUSTICE, APPEAL and the Institute for Government. We have until 6.29 pm for this evidence session. Thank you for attending today, and for waiting. Can the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record? Fiona Rutherford: I am Fiona Rutherford. I am the chief executive of JUSTICE, the UK’s law reform and human rights charity. Emma Torr: I am Emma Torr. I am a barrister and the co-director of the charity APPEAL, the Centre for Criminal Appeals, which represents people who have been convicted of a criminal offence in England and Wales. Cassia Rowland: I am Cassia Rowland. I am a senior researcher and criminal justice specialist at the Institute for Government.

Q Thanks very much for coming. I want to start with some questions for Fiona and Emma. Am I right in thinking that you were both signatories to the letter from what we might call the violence against women and girls grouping to the Deputy Prime Minister, which said that we should not move forward with these proposals? Is that correct? Emma Torr: Correct.

Q I do not know whether you heard the evidence this morning in which the Victims’ Commissioner characterised that letter as predominantly being on behalf of women and girls who end up as defendants. When I read a specific part of the letter that said, “Well, actually, it’s also about victims,” the Victims’ Commissioner said that I was unfairly representing the letter. I wanted to give you both an opportunity to talk about whether, when you put your name to that letter, you included women and girls as victims as part of your considerations. Fiona Rutherford: I certainly did. I cannot speak on behalf of the other organisations, but certainly from my behalf, that is exactly my understanding. Emma Torr: I would agree with that.

Q I want to ask you something else; I do not mean to put you on the spot, but this is in the public domain. You might know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has said publicly online that he understands that some of the organisations that put their name to the letter, or wanted to put their name to the letter, were put under pressure by either officials, Ministers or advisers at the Department not to do so, or to withdraw their names. Are you familiar with any of that? Have you heard anything about that in any way, shape or form? Fiona Rutherford: We have not participated in any of the conversations that may well have happened with or without Ministers or officials. Emma Torr: Not within my knowledge at all, no.

Q Moving on to the substance of what you say in the letter, can you tell us a couple of the points that you think are most important in relation to why—although I am sure you really care, as we all do, about the issue of backlogs and the experience it is creating for victims—you feel that the reforms on restricting the right to elect, creating a new bench division and reducing the use of jury trials are not the right way forward? Fiona Rutherford: We have already heard from Daniel Flury in relation to the way that the magistrates courts are simply not structurally set up in many different ways. We know that magistrates typically undertake 13 sitting days on average. They also receive only three weeks’ training. If we are talking about moving into a situation where the sentencing powers are going to get far higher, that is of significant concern. We all hope that there will be recruitment of magistrates, bearing in mind they have been cut by over 50% in the last 15,16 or 20 years. We know if the recruitment that is being talked about is successful, those people will be highly inexperienced, whether they are the legal advisers or the magistrates who are making decisions themselves. To counter what I think was by said by the previous panel, of the appeals that come from the magistrates court to the Crown court when there is a concern about conviction or sentence, 40%—nearly half—are overturned when it is to do with an appeal against conviction, and 47% are overturned when it is an appeal against a sentence. There is a question mark about the accuracy of the way in which magistrates are making decisions. We have heard about diversity among magistrates, and it is true that magistrates are more diverse than the judiciary, both in terms of gender and age. However, socioeconomically, there is a big gap for both the judiciary and magistracy. When looking at, for example, the number of applications to become a magistrate, only 3% of those people who applied are from manual labour jobs, which of course, again, will not be commensurate or replicative of the people who are going through the system. You have already covered unrepresented defendants. That will only increase in relation to the existing legal aid issues. It will fundamentally mean that the defendants in those positions—particularly with very difficult cases—could be cross-examining their victims. If there is no lawyer to put that barrier in the way, then I can only imagine that the impact on those victims will be tremendous, particularly in very difficult cases. We have talked about minorities and disproportionality. There was a fantastic question from the Committee earlier. We know that there is greater confidence among the public, particularly minority communities, in jury fairness over and above anything else. The Deputy Prime Minister has already written this down and has found that out from his own research. Racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system is and will continue to be a problem if we do not continue to try to work through that and keep juries as the clearest and fairest way of doing that. Emma Torr: The proposal to reduce the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court has been presented as part of a package of measures to reduce the backlog in the criminal courts; however, removing the automatic right of appeal will introduce a multi-step process, which will only increase the workload of both the magistrates and Crown courts. To give a very brief outline of how it works at the moment, the defendant or the solicitor can fill out a very simple form, which results in a quick rehearing at the Crown court. As we heard from the previous panel, that works very well. It takes a couple of hours at most and even less for sentence appeals. What the Government are proposing in the Bill is a multi-layered process. That involves consideration of grounds of appeal, articulation of those grounds in an application, consideration of that application by a Crown court judge—with or without a hearing—followed by a potential remittal to the magistrates court if there is to be a rehearing if leave is granted. That will add to the workload of not only the courts but criminal solicitors who work under legal aid and are chronically underfunded and overstretched in capacity. One important thing to consider when talking specifically about the right of appeal from the magistrates courts is that the Law Commission very carefully considered this in its 700-page consultation paper last year and took views from a number of different stakeholders. Its independent analysis was that the removal of the automatic right to appeal will increase the workload of the magistrates court and the Crown court.

Q I have a question for Cassia from the Institute for Government. Thank you very much for the work you have been doing on this. You have been quoted left, right and centre in Parliament. You produced an initial report and then a second one. Your second report was characterised in Parliament, for example by the hon. Member for Gloucester, as moving away from your previous criticism and that you now accept the Government’s model and think that what the Government have said is accurate. Do you accept the Government’s modelling and think what they have said about what will be achieved is now accurate, fair and reasonable? Cassia Rowland: The approach that the MOJ has taken in thinking about the modelling totally makes sense and is very similar to what we did. I want to make it really clear that our numbers are the same in our first and second reports. We are looking at the numbers in a slightly different way from the MOJ. The 19% overall saving in the Crown court is specifically for the Crown court. Our figure that is a 10% to 13% saving takes into account the increase in demand in magistrates courts as well. That is a big part of the difference. I just wanted to clarify that.

Q Is it accurate to say that you reject the Government’s central assertion about the time saving? Cassia Rowland: There are a lot of uncertainties behind the modelling. Some of that is inevitable because we do not have the information available. In particular, the bulk of the savings come from moving cases into the magistrates courts, rather than from the bench division, the judge-only-trial element, and there are quite substantial questions as to how feasible it is to move that many cases into magistrates courts if the Bill passes and as to the amount of time that those cases might take once they are in magistrates courts.

Great. Thank you very much; I appreciate that.

Q I, too, have questions for the IfG and I agree—thank you very much for both your reports, which are incredibly helpful. As you have just acknowledged and as you acknowledge on page 2 of your supplementary report, there is actually a good deal of consensus both on the merits and soundness of the approach, which we in Government had externally quality assured based on the available data. I think you would accept, as we do, that some of the behavioural changes likely to flow from a reformed system are, as Sir Brian himself said earlier in evidence, quite difficult to model because they are not currently in place. Cassia Rowland: That is absolutely true. We do not know what is likely to happen on plea rates or dropped cases. A lot of cases are dropped at the moment, partly because of the length of delays. The modelling makes certain assumptions about how that might change, but there is a lot of uncertainty there. There is definitely uncertainty in both directions, but what we do not and cannot really capture in modelling in the short to medium term is the effect of the reforms themselves and the disruption that that potentially creates in the system, in the form of short-term productivity and performance problems.

Q You have proposed that thesis, and I will come to that in a moment. You make the point about the disruption that might be caused by bringing in changes, but you also make the assumption that productivity levels can be restored to 2016 levels; that is what we want to get back to. But of course, as we heard from earlier witnesses from the Bar, quite a lot has changed since 2016. In particular, there is something that you alight on—I think that is really useful—which is what has happened to the workforce. We heard that a quarter of publicly funded silks have dropped out of the profession. We know that in other strands of the Bar the attrition rate has been even higher. Indeed, on page 5 of your report, you tell us: “The shortage of criminal lawyers is a crucial source of productivity problems in the criminal courts…with 4%”— this is more than 1,000 cases— “of all scheduled crown court trials in 2024 rescheduled on the day because the prosecution or defence lawyer was absent.” For what it is worth, I agree with that analysis—it is really helpful. However, even with the massive investment that the Government are making, in both criminal pupillages and legal aid, it is not realistic to suppose that we can address that workforce shortage in anything other than years. It takes years to train a barrister; it takes years to recruit lots of judges, does it not? Cassia Rowland: indicated assent.

Q Do you agree with me, on that major productivity driver that we need to address, that it will take years before we see that productivity gain? Cassia Rowland: It does need to be a long-term programme. There are some things that you can do in the short term, and we have already seen that. Just in the last couple of years, there has been an increase in publicly funded criminal barristers receiving legal aid income and so on.

Q But not in anything like the numbers that we would need to address this issue. Cassia Rowland: No, it is not what you would need, but you also have to take it into account that there are risks on the other side with some of these proposals, which would reduce the amount of publicly funded work existing in the system. Potentially you could lose people from the criminal Bar. There is the risk of making things worse, so you do also have to balance that.

Q There is no disagreement between us on the fact that we need to drive greater productivity and we want to get back to a higher target. I think where the disagreement comes is on the air of realism as to how long that will take. I think that in your original report you assumed that an 18% productivity gain could be achieved overnight. We simply do not assume that. We think that it is years away, because of the workforce. In the meantime the backlog continues to go up. The conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts is that investment, productivity gains and reform are the only ways we get the backlog down. Do you agree that productivity and investment alone will not bring down the backlog? Cassia Rowland: I do not think I necessarily agree with that. It will take time but, respectfully, the proposals in this Bill will also take years. There are measures that you can do on the productivity side that will be faster than some of the measures contained in the Bill. A case co-ordinator role, for instance, is really fantastic; we are very strongly supportive of that.

Thank you. Cassia Rowland: We are always banging the drum for more back office and admin staff at the IfG. I worry that some of these reform programmes will move productivity in the wrong direction, in a way that may counteract the benefits of the structural reforms.

Q I do not want to hog the microphone, but I want to understand something about APPEAL and JUSTICE. We have had quite a lot of engagement, particularly with JUSTICE—there was a suggestion that there was no engagement with JUSTICE, or that we could tell you what to think about anything. I think you have been to a number of roundtables in the MOJ, and we have met a number of times. Just to check, you are not an organisation that interacts or provides services directly to victims, are you? Fiona Rutherford: We do not do that, no.

Q Is the same thing true for APPEAL? Emma Torr: Yes, but you have to understand that if you—

Yes, you do provide services to victims. Emma Torr: We provide services to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and unfairly sentenced. You could classify people like Andrew Malkinson and Peter Sullivan as victims, because they have suffered horrendous miscarriages of justice, so in that sense we do.

I would not disagree with that for one second.

Q Thank you all for being here. It is very helpful to have your views as part of today’s evidence gathering. Do any of you share concerns that there is a lower level of legal aid available in the magistrates court, and that that could have an impact when magistrates hear cases that carry higher sentences? Fiona Rutherford: Yes, and I referred earlier to the impact of having more litigants in person, which would be the impact of there being fewer lawyers representing defendants in the magistrates court. If you are looking at it from a victim’s perspective, one of the key things is that you will get the cross-examination directly from the defendant in court. Equally, there are some issues with the way that appeals will take place. At the moment, as Emma has said, there is a reliance on the lawyers to really lead the way with those appeals—that is possibly why only 1% of appeals go from the magistrates to the Crown court. Without a lawyer being present, and of course without there even being the right to appeal directly, you are leaving a whole load of defendants, who may well be wrongly convicted or may get the wrong sentence for the crime they have committed, floundering. From what we know, either about the legislation or the policy that sits around it, I simply don’t know who will inform these people about how they will put grounds of appeal together, what grounds of appeal even are, how you formulate those, what key points you need to make in them to persuade a Crown court judge sitting alone in a room with just some evidence papers and how to put your best case forward. There are a number of ramifications of legal aid being an issue in the magistrates court, or of there not being enough legal aid.

Q Thank you. I have a question for Emma about appeals. Excuse my ignorance, but my understanding is that, if you are appealing from a magistrates court, you already have to have grounds for appeal anyway. You cannot just say, “Well, I didn’t like that; I’d like to appeal and go up to the Crown court.” There is already a threshold that has to be met—is that correct? Emma Torr: There is a simple form where you have to set out your reasons for appealing, but there is no judge in the Crown court looking at that form and saying, “You’re not entitled to an appeal because you haven’t set out the reasons why you want to appeal.” It is an automatic right to a full rehearing in the Crown court. That is so important, because that automatic right acts as an essential counterbalance. We have heard about swift and speedy justice in the magistrates court. It is often rough and ready; we are talking about cases being tried by lay justices, some of whom may be experienced but some may not be, and we are also talking about less experienced judges. You often find in the lower court, the magistrates court, that advocates are more inexperienced and tend to be at the start of their career. The more experienced they are, the more serious the cases they deal with. What I am trying to say is that to have rough and ready justice dealt with quickly, the magistrates court requires that automatic right to redress any mistakes that might have happened. Let me put it this way: the automatic right of appeal is the ying to the magistrates’ yang, in the sense that you have an important safeguard against the miscarriages that do happen. It is worth pointing out that the Magistrates’ Association, in its response to the Law Commission’s consultation paper, agreed with retaining the automatic right of appeal on the basis that justice may occasionally result in rough edges and potential errors in the magistrates court. In its view, the automatic right of appeal operates as a crucial safeguard, and that is essentially what we are saying.

Q I have a quick question for Cassia. The Government proposals rely on the magistrates court taking on a significant amount of additional work and, importantly, sentencing powers. Have the Government adequately outlined how that will be mitigated in the magistrates courts? What assessment have you made about how much quicker they will be able to hear cases compared with the Crown court? Cassia Rowland: We have not done an in-depth assessment of that. If by mitigation you are thinking about the justice fairness outcome, we have been principally focused on the ability of the courts to cope with this, but there is, as Emma mentioned, an acceptance that summary justice is rapid justice and it can be a bit rough around the edges. There needs to be a clear-eyed assessment of the trade-off you are potentially making between swifter justice by hearing more cases in magistrates courts and more robust justice in the Crown court.

Q I have one more question. Has the IfG ever done any modelling around the efficiency savings that could be made by introducing the RASSO courts, as per as the Labour manifesto, or by other reforms to the criminal justice system, such as introducing am and pm sitting days? Cassia Rowland: We have not. Regarding the specialist RASSO courts, the principal arguments for those are about not efficiency, but the experience of the victim and the more trauma-informed and wraparound approach that that kind of set-up would allow for.

Q Emma and Fiona, my questions are directed at you, and I will bring them together, even though they are on slightly different subjects. Emma, I am glad you raised the case of Andrew Malkinson, which was obviously a shocking miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that he had a jury trial at the Crown court, and there was a right to appeal. There is a process that needs to be followed to go to the Court of Appeal, where somebody considers the grounds and whether a person has that right. I assume that it is not APPEAL’s position to removal of that process. Earlier, we heard evidence from victims who supported the change to the right to appeal against a magistrates court decision to include a review from a judge, on the basis that a number of victims drop out of the process because they fear being retraumatised by a system that is not designed to support them. How do you balance that with your position that there needs to be checks and balances? Do you not agree that, by having a judge look at it, we are not refusing a right of appeal but merely qualifying it first? Fiona, JUSTICE has said that the magistrates are ill-equipped to enable the reforms, and you have made that point again today, but the Magistrates’ Association, which is not here to give evidence today, has said that magistrates are ready and willing to play their part. Why does your assessment differ from that of the magistrates themselves? Fiona Rutherford: We already know that the numbers are not where they need to be, given the number of magistrates required to do the huge amount of work that would be placed into their hands. Equally, we have not heard yet —maybe there are plans on this—how magistrates will be better trained to be able to cope with the greater complexity of cases that they will necessarily hear. I have talked about the disproportionality of magistrates in terms of socioeconomic grouping; that is absolutely critical when it comes to public trust. There is a final point, but it has escaped me, so I will let Emma come in on this and I might come back to you. Emma Torr: That was a good question, on which I would like to make two points. The case of Andrew Malkinson is a good example to consider when talking about these changes. Of course, there was a victim in that case, who was certain that the right person had gone to prison, but we know that Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for something that he did not do. When he appealed at the time, a judge looked at his appeal at the Court of Appeal; twice he went to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and twice his case was turned down. That is an example of where a judge has looked at the appeal, but would not give him—

Q Should we remove it at the Court of Appeal stage as well? Is that APPEAL’s position? Emma Torr: No, that is not APPEAL’s position.

Q If that was the case for Andrew, why not? You are making the point that this would create unfairness, but you have just said that there is unfairness at the Court of Appeal stage, so why is it not your position to remove it at that stage as well? Emma Torr: We are dealing with two different sets of processes. You are talking about the magistrates court, where there is more risk of miscarriages of justice happening by the very nature of the system—by who is hearing and who is presenting the case, as I said before. But perhaps the most important thing in magistrates court is unrepresented defendants. Around 50% of people in magistrates court do not have access to legal advice, either for their trial or to help them with their appeal, so it is important that you have the automatic right to appeal.

Q In a case where somebody makes that appeal and says, “I was not advised and there was evidence that was not considered. I think there was a miscarriage of justice here,” are you saying that you have no faith that our Crown court judges would deal with that? We are not saying that a person cannot appeal, but there would be a check on that, for cases where they have no legitimate grounds—I am sure that you see such cases. We are introducing a transcript of the magistrates court as well, so that people can understand the decisions. Would that not lead to an informed process? Do you have no faith in the Crown court judges to make that decision? Emma Torr: It is not about faith in the Crown court judges. APPEAL receives hundreds of letters from people asking for our assistance. In the majority of those cases, they cannot necessarily articulate, in their letter or communications to us, what has gone wrong. They might be concerned about things that have happened during the trial process, but they cannot articulate what could amount to grounds of appeal. It takes a lot of care by us to look at the case, understand what has gone wrong and analyse it before we can decide whether we can draw out grounds of appeal. You would be asking judges to do exactly that; not just to read the application and dismiss it because they have not been able to identify compelling grounds of appeal. Will the judge look at the digital case system, will they review evidence of witnesses or will they simply look at a short transcript? A lot of care needs to go into that analysis to formulate what could be compelling grounds, and giving that job to Crown court judges will increase the workload.

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you all for your evidence. Examination of Witness Tim Crosland gave evidence.

We will now hear evidence from Plan B. We have until 6.44 pm for this panel. Could you please briefly introduce yourself for the record? Tim Crosland: Good afternoon, I am Tim Crosland. I was previously a Government lawyer, working mainly on criminal justice issues. I am now at the climate justice charity Plan B, and I also helped establish the civil liberties movement Defend Our Juries in 2023. That was before this Bill was born, but in anticipation that it would not be long before legislation like this came along that threatened to remove trial by jury from protest cases.

Q Thank you, Tim. I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. To pick up on your final remark, what was it that made you think this issue could be coming down the track? Tim Crosland: There had been a pattern of jury acquittals in protest cases. In April 2021, the Shell six, who had spray painted “Shell Lies” on Shell headquarters, were acquitted by a jury. In January 2022, the Colston four, who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury. In November 2022, members of Palestine Action, who had defaced Elbit Systems—suppliers of drones to the Israel Defence Forces—were acquitted by a jury. In January 2023, members of Insulate Britain were acquitted by a jury for blocking roads. It goes on, and we were seeing the reaction to that. It was nothing to do with the efficiency of the courts; it was the reactions from companies like Shell and Elbit, the meetings with Ministers, and the call, “How do we stop this happening because this is deeply embarrassing?”

Q To be frank with you, I was unhappy with the acquittals in all the cases that you have given examples of, so I am not necessarily sympathetic to the aim that you are putting forward. How important do you think it is that the system allows someone like me to be frustrated and not agree with what the jury end up doing or with what the judges and the establishment might think is right, versus what ordinary members of the public do, as a check and balance against people like me? Tim Crosland: It is a vital component of democracy. The classic example that comes up a lot is Clive Ponting. This is going back few decades—I remember it. In the 1980s, he was a civil servant who heard an account of what happened to the General Belgrano being presented to the public and Parliament that he knew was not true. He knew that the Belgrano was driving away from the British forces when it was sunk, so he leaked that information and was prosecuted for breach of the Official Secrets Act. The judge said, “You have no defence in law.” If it was down to the judge, Clive Ponting would have been convicted as a criminal and jailed. The jury saw somebody who had acted to get good information to the public, so they disregarded the judge’s ruling—a principle known as jury equity—and Clive Ponting was acquitted. That sent a powerful message to politicians about the standards that the public expect: standards of honesty and integrity. If we do away with the principle of jury equity, we do away with a vital democratic safeguard.

Q To pick up on what you said—“do away with”—I think you will agree that we are talking about not the removal of jury trials, but a significant and historically unprecedented reduction in their use. Tim Crosland: What I said was do away with jury equity. Jury equity—the principle that a jury can acquit a defendant irrespective of the directions of the judge—only applies to cases where people are unlikely to receive a sentence of more than three years. It applies to cases of conscience where people have acted in the public interest, at least in their own self-understanding, and that is what they want to present to the jury. Those people are very unlikely to get long sentences of beyond three years imprisonment. In reality, this measure will do away with the principle of jury equity altogether.

We have a quick declaration before the Minister comes in.

I want to declare that, as Crown prosecutor, I was assigned to the team that looked at the Insulate Britain campaign and reviewed the evidence as to whether charges should be brought. I want to make that clear and put it out in the open. Tim Crosland: Thank you.

Q I want to be clear about the scope of this argument. Obviously, the least serious cases that take place in the context of public order would never get to the Crown anyway, because they could be heard within the magistrates—is that right? Tim Crosland: Increasingly they are getting to the Crown court, because of this and the previous Government’s crackdown on protests. We had the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; there is now a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for any act that interferes with the rights of anybody in any way. We are now getting more protest cases coming to the Crown court, and more than 200 people have been jailed in the last few years for peaceful acts of protest. But of those 200 people, only one has been jailed for more than three years. A number of people have been jailed for precisely three years—the threshold in this legislation—but only one for more than four years. Almost any judge would be able to say that it is incredibly unlikely that you will get a sentence of more than three years imprisonment—therefore, no jury.

Q One of the examples you gave was the Elbit case. The indictment there was an indictable-only offence. There were multiple charges, but the case contained an indictable-only offence, so it would have received a jury trial under our reformed system anyway. I took the liberty to check: in the case that you cited, there would have been a jury trial under our reformed system, would there not? Tim Crosland: You mean in the Official Secrets Act case?

In the one that you cited. Tim Crosland: In the Ponting case?

No, not in the Ponting case. In the recent Elbit case. Tim Crosland: No, these were criminal damage cases.

Q It was not purely criminal damage. There were indictable-only offences. That particular case would have still received a jury trial. Tim Crosland: There have been a number of these cases. Mainly, they are either way, because they are usually criminal damage cases. The case now—as it remains, because there is a retrial—is criminal damage, and these are either-way cases. On the tests as set out in the Bill, mainly—and we have a lot of evidence of this—a judge would say that this would be less than three years, because it is mostly spray paint and relatively low-level damage. We have seen cases of high-level damage too, but it is never more than three years.

Q But the point is that low-level damage would receive a magistrates trial anyway. What I am talking about is the scope between us. We are talking about a threshold change applicable to a relatively narrow group of cases, which is intended in part to address the backlogs. Those are not just backlogs in terms of delays in our courts; they also impact on the remand population, which is something that I know you will be concerned about. The amount of time that people are remanded in jail, including for crimes that they did not commit, is another aspect of this when we are talking about addressing the backlogs. Is that something that concerns you? Tim Crosland: Of course it is, but the proposition here is neutral to the wider argument about addressing the backlog. It is about a very niche number of cases where people have taken action to expose Government or corporate wrongdoing. The impact of this proposal is that they would no longer be tried by a cross-section of their peers; they would be tried by someone who, ultimately, is paid by the state, where we all know what the outcome will be, because judges in those trials have directed juries, as far as they possibly can, that there is no defence. Most of these acquittals have involved a jury going, “Hang on a second. I’ve listened to the evidence over a week or two, and I’m satisfied that these people took action because they were desperate and felt that there was no option for getting the truth into the public domain to counter the disinformation of”—for example—“the fossil fuel companies.” Those jury acquittals then send an important signal to politicians that when the public actually get good information—let’s say about the nature of the climate emergency—they are shocked at Government inaction. Those acquittals are meaningful in a profound way, and we will not have them any more. It will just be guilty, guilty, guilty.

Q On your point about challenge, I do not think anyone in this room would dispute the importance of the right to protest. There is a difference where that breaks the law. The Government are fierce defenders of the independence of our judiciary, which often finds against the Government. That may be uncomfortable and we may disagree, but we have to take it on the chin. I do not doubt for one second the fierce independence of our judiciary. You said that we should make an exception for a niche group of cases but, fundamentally, what is the difference between someone who has broken the law—public order laws or otherwise—and a working-class defendant from a marginalised community? Why should they be treated any differently under our criminal justice system? Tim Crosland: I think that is a good question—

It is a good question. Can you answer it? Tim Crosland: I want to talk particularly about cases where people are saying—like Clive Ponting and many activists did—that the motivation for taking the action is that what the state is doing is insufficient to protect the public. That is a fundamentally different situation. Look at the Colston situation: who better to decide whether that action crossed a threshold than a cross-section of Bristol residents, who would understand better than anybody in this room the impact of that statue on that community? That would not happen any more; it would be a paid judge deciding. In my submission, it is precisely those cases where a jury trial is a democratic imperative and where you would lose something really profound. To answer your question, I would not wish to say that other people should not have a jury trial. I am not saying that at all; I am just making a particular argument for these cases.

Q I have a very simple question: what are the risks of ignoring campaigners like you when we talk about fundamentally changing the way we do jury trials? Tim Crosland: The risk is to democracy and to people’s confidence in democracy in cases that explore the boundaries between public interest, the right to protest and criminal law. We lose the essence of democratic rights if people know that they will not get a trial before their peers. It is a very profound danger. It was only in 2024 after 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner had been arrested and prosecuted for holding up a sign outside London Crown court that the High Court said that juries were entitled to acquit as a matter of conscience. Her case came before the High Court, which dismissed the Government’s prosecution of her and said that jury equity is a vital principle of our democracy and she was right to uphold it. It was part of her convention rights. We lose that principle if we ignore protesters when we look at this legislation.

Thank you. We have one minute.

Q A quick question: building on the Minister’s questions, where would you draw the line on this? You mentioned the criminal damage cases, and I can understand your argument there, but theft is an either-way offence. Let us say that somebody nicks a bottle of whisky from Tesco and says, “Actually, I’m protesting against the excessive profits of the supermarket giants.” Does that fall into the narrow set of cases you were talking about? Do they not expand out?

You have 30 seconds to respond. Tim Crosland: We have this in the civil courts. Jury trials in the civil courts are reserved only for cases such as malicious prosecution or unlawful imprisonment—

Q We only have 30 seconds. Where would you draw the line? If someone says, “I’ve stolen a bottle of whisky to protest against Tesco,” would they be included in the cases you are talking about? Tim Crosland: If they argued that they acted in the public interest, then potentially, yes, but drawing that line—

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, thank you very much for your evidence. Examination of Witness Sarah Sackman gave evidence.

We will now hear evidence from the Ministry of Justice. We have until 7.04 pm for this panel. Could the Minister introduce herself for the record? Sarah Sackman: I am Sarah Sackman MP, and I am the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services.

Q I want to start with a question that I raised with some of the earlier witnesses. It has been suggested that the Ministry in some way, through civil servants, Ministers or advisers—I do not know who—placed pressure on groups that were either signatories of the letter against the Government’s proposals or were persuaded not to be. Can you confirm that in no way at all did anybody connected with Ministry of Justice seek to exert any influence on those signatories, either to withdraw from the letter or not to sign it in the first place? Sarah Sackman: We are having, including today, an incredibly open and robust debate on an issue of real national importance. We have had robust debate in the Chamber and we have heard from witnesses with very different perspectives, some of whom are clearly against these proposals—I welcome their contribution to the debate— and some who favour them. There is clearly a spectrum of opinion, and I welcome that debate; I have never shied away from it. Over the last year, on behalf of the MOJ, I have personally engaged with stakeholders, including—this is probably the most engagement I have had—with people and groups that oppose the measures we are bringing forward. They include the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, for example, with which I have good relationships, although we disagree quite significantly on these proposals. In respect of the letter, which was signed by 70 groups, all of those groups can speak for themselves. In advance of the letter being published, engagement took place with those groups to hear them out. Many of them maintained their objections, particularly Rights of Women, which led the objection. But it was important to have that engagement and dialogue on where there were areas of consensus and where we could work together. I would never—you heard the exchange I had with JUSTICE—put pressure on anybody to withdraw their objection. If people have objections, those objections need to be heard. There needs to be constructive engagement, and we have sought to have that in this debate. I think that people would agree that that is what has taken place.

Q Okay, thank you for confirming what you did personally. But obviously other people would have been meeting these groups, so can you clearly answer this question: did anybody from the Ministry of Justice do or say anything that these groups might have reasonably said was putting pressure on them not to sign the letter? Sarah Sackman: Look, I genuinely cannot state every conversation that was had, because I do not know. What I can say is that a number of the groups who led the letter, Rights of Women—I hope it will not mind me saying—being one of them, attended a meeting with myself and Minister Jones. We had a good, full and frank conversation, and that letter then went to publication. You can see what the arguments are, and you have deployed them in your arguments, as well you might—if I were in your shoes, I would do the same.

Q Sure, but do you think that people might be concerned that you cannot say that no one had any pressure applied to them? Sarah Sackman: What I know is that as a Minister, I seek, along with other Ministers, to set the culture of my Department. We keep the channels of communication open with all the stakeholders that you have heard from today, including many who are robustly not just opposing but campaigning against this. I was counting, and I think I must have engaged with the Bar at least 10 times since I became a Minister. I expect my officials to follow that lead, and that is the steer that they get from me: that we want to engage and have those conversations. In advance of the particular engagement I am talking about, I held and led a number of stakeholder engagement sessions where I explained the rationale for the measures and what we were doing for victims. A number of those groups’ signatures ended up on that letter, so I did not persuade them, but the engagement was there—and it was open, convivial and constructive.

Q I have asked you twice, and you have given the answer, and people can make up their own minds about what can be implied from that. Moving on to some extent, I can say to you, “This modelling says this,” and you can point to other modelling that says otherwise; I can say that court judge X disagrees with you, and you can point to a judge who agrees with you, and we can go back and forth. I am not seeking to do that, because I do not think it would be particularly productive. I will instead try to pique your intellectual curiosity about the challenges for any Minister. Let us say we all agreed with your proposals in principle and that, if you were able to secure the changes you are seeking, they would be positive. The question is how you secure reform in Government—particularly major systems reform—successfully, and the challenges and unintended consequences that can arise. Have you spoken to any current or former Ministers who have embarked on a major reform programme similar to this? What lessons or points did they raise about how it can go wrong? Sarah Sackman: There is no doubt that reform is challenging, but defending a status quo that—I think of the words used earlier—is producing shameful outcomes should shame us as a society. The first job of the state is to provide a justice system that is there for the citizen, whether accused of a crime or a victim. We are not doing that at the moment, in my view. As you know, I was appointed a Minister on becoming an MP in July 2024, and I have always tried to approach that with a degree of humility, taking soundings from those with greater experience—including, by the way, Ministers from the previous Government, with whom I do not share politics but whose experience I respect. Over time I have met the likes of Alex Chalk, Jeremy Wright and Dominic Grieve and spoken to them about the state of our justice system and the challenges they faced in Government. Of course, I have also spoken to Ministers in the previous Labour Government, who did a huge amount as a reforming Government. I am always somebody who asks questions. I hope I am intellectually curious and that I have asked questions of those who have administered the justice system, and so know how resistant it has been to reform. I will be really blunt and candid with you: I know when we have undertaken some reforms in the justice system—for example, before my time, the attempted digitisation of the civil justice system—billions of pounds of taxpayer money were spent and, frankly, it was a flop. It is still not digitised. You still go to county courts and they are covered in paper. A number of—I do not want to say bodies, because that is a bit crude—attempts at reform have been made in the past, and they have failed. I am realistic about the challenge we are facing, but I am also clear that the status quo is broken and that if we do not act, it would be a dereliction of duty.

Q Do you also agree that people who have the interests of victims at the heart of their thinking and positions on this can reasonably oppose your proposals, and that that does not in any way reflect a lack of concern for victims or the experiences they are going through? Sarah Sackman: Of course I do. I have always said—and the Deputy Prime Minister has made the same point—that in reforming and rebuilding this system, we have sought to put victims at the heart of what we are doing. You will know that we are doing a lot on the victims code, through investment in victim services and how the reforms reflect that centring of the victims. Of course, victims are not a monolith. I met and spoke to Charlotte Nichols, who opposes aspects of these reforms and has her own experience as a victim. There is no universal victims’ voice, but there are very powerful victims’ voices we have heard today saying that we must improve and work together to get a better system to deal with those shameful delays.

Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s question about what good reform looks like, we have had a period of reform in the justice system. What would be your measure of success? We know the system is creaking under pressure, so what would success look like? Sarah Sackman: There are two tests that I set myself, and neither is going to be easy to achieve within this Parliament. The first essay question is: can you deal with the intolerable delays? Can you ensure swift justice? That does not mean summary justice. That does not mean rushing through the cases, but it does mean getting through the caseload quicker so that people are not waiting for years. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want people waiting years for justice. That is the first test. It is the timeliness, which is the essential ingredient of fairness. The second thing is: we are in a crisis, but we have an opportunity—with justice being the focus of our Parliament and our national debate for the first time in a very long time, and with real investment from the Treasury—to create something better. Our justice system has remained largely unreformed since the 1970s. There are lots of things that people might like about the 1970s, not least the music, but there were lots about our social values and our societal norms that were very different then. It was a different place for women, for black and minority ethnic communities, for gay people and lots of other communities. I do not think the system that was designed then is the one that we would design now. We heard earlier from Katrin Hohl, who is leading work for the Government to embed some of the Soteria measures, which have been so good and progressive in the police and the CPS, into our courts. I know it can sound like a cheesy cliché, but my objective is the idea of building back something better, and designing a system that is not just sustainable and capable of dealing with the delays question but, in terms of its design, centres victims and is fair, particularly to women and black and minority ethnic communities. That is my objective: can we get a more progressive justice system?

Q Do you share my discomfort that we have no pilot to refer to, to see if the proposed measures would work? Sarah Sackman: The difficulty is that any pilot where you are testing the sorts of measures that we are countenancing, which have taken their cue from the IRCC, would require primary legislation. We could not do this without primary legislation in the first place. Secondly, I do not feel discomfort, and I feel confident in the measures, because they are based on expertise that the independent review gave us. Thirdly, as we have heard, the time for pilots was yesterday—it was probably 10 years ago. The state of the backlogs at 80,000 and continuing to grow means that we have to pull every lever to not just reform the system but to invest in it and modernise it, to bring down those backlogs.

Q On pilots, I agree that something needs to be done now. A pilot ran during the pandemic that looked at dual court sitting days. That pilot showed that courtrooms were able to hear 3.5 cases in a week compared with the typical rate of 0.9. It was a short pilot that was run in seven courtrooms. Have you had conversations in the MOJ about alternative reforms to bring down the court backlogs? If you have, why was the decision taken to not look at that proposal? If you have not, why not? Sarah Sackman: We learned a huge amount through the pandemic. To give a personal example, I had a trial that was due to come on the day that we went into lockdown, and we were told that we were going to do it on video link. People had been speaking for years about the use of videos in courts. They said you couldn’t do it: you could not cross-examine a witness; you could not do your advocacy. Yet there we were. We were all told to go on video, and the sky did not fall in—it worked. We learnt and the MOJ got a lot of institutional knowledge through the pandemic. There are also a lot of piloting initiatives that the MOJ is undertaking: for example, our pilots for our new digital listing tool, where we are taking some of the lessons from Liverpool and elsewhere but doing that using data. We are piloting that in Isleworth and Preston. A lot of that evidence would have been put forward to the IRCC. Obviously, it is also held within the MOJ. This package of measures that we are bringing forward, when you model, it is what we believe is capable of bringing down the backlog, together with the investment and modernisation.

Q If I can ask my question again to clarify, have you as the Minister had any conversations with any officials in the MOJ about the pilot that happened in the pandemic, specifically about two cases being heard in a Crown court in a day? Why was that discounted? Sarah Sackman: On that specific example, I would have to go away and ask what was considered by officials because it has not been surfaced to my attention. I have had the blitz courts, where cases are listed very aggressively, brought to my attention, and we are doing them in London as of next month. I do not know about the specific pilot you are talking about. I have not considered that directly, but I am sure that my officials have.

I am happy to send you the Government link to that. Sarah Sackman: I would appreciate that, thank you.

Q Sir Richard Henriques, who we heard from earlier, said that if we were not facing such a huge backlog we would not be here at all. I may have bastardised his language slightly, but do you agree with him? Sarah Sackman: I think that I know where this is going, because I think that you will push me on this. Plainly, we are here, and the nature of the debate is shaped by the appalling backlog in our courts and the crisis we face—we all agree on that. There are 80,000 cases, and behind every one is a victim, and cases are being listed into 2030. This British justice system, which we will have huge pride in, is kind of indefensible. You have heard me say in the Chamber, and I am not going to resile from it, that there are certainly parts of this plan that I would be advocating for anyway, because I think that they will make the system fairer and more sustainable. You heard the police chief talk about the fact that demand pressures come into the picture not just because of the backlog but because of the changing nature and complexity of criminal trials. The system needs to reform itself. You heard Charlotte, one of the victims who spoke earlier, talk about the changes to the right to elect. I find it curious that Scotland, for example, does not have the right of election for a defendant. We know that it exists in Canada—we heard about that example—but it does not exist in Scotland, and there are lots of other jurisdictions where that does not exist. I find it strange that the defendant chooses the mode of trial, rather than the court triaging it. I use a healthcare analogy: if I go to A&E on a Saturday night, I do not get to insist that I get to see the specialist consultant if I can be treated appropriately by a resident health associate. It seems to me that the changes are normative and values-driven, and would be good for the system anyway. We probably would not be here at this time of night with this exact shape of debate if it was not for the crisis, but I stand by the principles that lie behind the reforms we are bringing forward.

Q Finally—I will be very quick—you spoke about making the system fairer, and I think that it is shared across all parties that we would like to see that. Will you be looking to address the disparity between the legal aid provision in magistrates courts and Crown courts during the passage of this Bill? Sarah Sackman: That is a really good question, and you have asked me it in the Chamber. At the moment, 97% of applications for legal aid in the magistrates context are approved. We have to fully consider the IRCC package and see what final version of this Bill, if it passes through Parliament, receives Royal Assent, and then reassess and ensure that the availability of legal aid across both magistrates and Crown courts is not a barrier to access to justice. We have a means test in criminal legal aid, and that is important. It is important that people who can afford to pay their legal fees do but, where you do not have the means, it is important that you can access legal aid to get representation, which is why the hardship mechanism that we currently have exists. That will be a really important feature of the system to ensure that legal aid provision—

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of the Minister. I thank the Minister for her time today. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 April at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written Evidence reported to the House

CTB 01 Frances Carr

CTB 02 Terence Ewing

CTB 03 Lucinda Rowan-Mayberry

CTB 04 Arajpreet Kaur

CTB 06 Warwick Dumas

CTB 07 Magistrates Association

CTB 08 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CTB 09 Professor Rebecca Helm, Evidence-Based Justice Lab, University of Exeter, School of Law

CTB 10 Both Parents Matter

CTB 11 David Lambert

CTB 12 Sean Merrifield

CTB 13 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CTB 14 His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC

CTB 15 Centre for Policy Research for Men and Boys

CTB 16 Mark Wyschna

CTB 17 Tim Crosland, Plan B. Earth