Speeches by Mullan.

“Schedule 1”

“To make it really clear, what is the minimum length that the Minister thinks would constitute a lengthy case?”

“As I have talked about in earlier debates, uniquely in this situation we already know what the Lord Chancellor wanted to do. From leaks, we know that five years was the test, in terms of these proposals. The Opposition are being fair in suggesting that this is potentially the thin end of the wedge.”

“I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley. She has engaged sincerely throughout this debate, so I do not think her comment was a deliberate. We are not saying that someone has to be charged with everything to be eligible; we are saying that anything that they are charged for on that basis …”

“Absolutely, and there is not even anything in the Bill about proportionality. There is nothing. If someone is charged with one of the offences and the trial will be complex and lengthy—which is different to it being serious—that is it. Whatever else someone is charged with, they have already lost their right to a jury …”

“Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”

“The test for complexity is too subjective. The procedural safeguards are non-existent. The evidence for efficiency is weak, and the power to expand these measures through secondary legislation is constitutional overreach. If the Government are truly concerned about the backlog, let them invest in the mechanics of the c…”

“I want to pick up on a couple of points the Minister made, particularly the one that our amendment, in relation to a study, would require primary legislation. That is simply not the case. We specifically identified an element that could be studied without a need to change the law. No law would need to be changed to all…”

“The Minister asked us to reflect on the fact that the Auld review also recommended similar measures around complex and lengthy cases, as the Leveson review has, but I remind the Committee that the Minister is in a pick-and-choose mode when it comes to listening to Leveson and Lord Justice Auld, because both recommended…”

“The tell, so to speak, that the Minister recognises that this is not quite as simple as she makes out is that she was unwilling to make any attempt to give some examples and define it more clearly. I think she knows that if she did so, she would probably become unstuck. The Minister also accepted that there will be a w…”

“Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases”

“I just want to pick up on some points. The point about the scale of the issue was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who pointed to 200 sitting days. She highlighted the criticism from others suggesting that the list of offences was “the work of a moment”, which is probably a fair description of what i…”

“I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 4, page 13, line 30, leave out “trial beginning on or” and insert “cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”. This amendment prevents the provisions in section 4 coming into effect retrospectively. We previously discussed the issue of retrospectivity in claus…”

“rose—”

“Will the Minister give way?”

“The proposal to remove juries from complex fraud trials is a solution in search of a problem. The Minister contested that the tests are legally defined, and then consistently used examples of trials of several months. It is fair to recognise that that is not typical; it is trials of weeks that are more likely to be cau…”

“In opposition to our amendment, the Minister argued that the Government need to remain nimble to the evolving nature of crime and offences. If the Government are creating new offences in primary legislation that respond to a need to change the law, they can use that opportunity, if they see fit, to amend schedule 1 thr…”

“In a previous sitting, it was argued that the right to a jury trial is too fundamental to be left to the whim of a Minister’s pen. If we accept that fraud can be tried without a jury via primary legislation today, we are setting a precedent that the rest of our other either-way offences could be moved to the bench divi…”

“I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 4, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (5)(a). This amendment would prevent the court unilaterally overriding a reason to issue a revocation order so that a case allocated for judge-only trial under this section could be tried by jury.”

“Perhaps the most constitutionally alarming part of these provisions is that they allow the Secretary of State to expand the list of offences that they consider to be fraud and that will lead to complex and potentially lengthy trials, which are thus eligible to be judge-only, through secondary legislation via statutory …”