Speeches by Sackman.

“As the Home Secretary has confirmed to you, there is an intention for there to be a transition from the first-tier tribunal and the IAC to a new independent adjudicator and a phased approach. No doubt the Home Secretary will share more detail with the Committee in due course. I understand that there are plans for the H…”

“I am not going to comment further without having the detail in front of me, but it is an alternative model, and one with merit. It is about an immigration and asylum system that works. I do not see it through the lens of a reduction of judicial powers. You will always have the High Court and the upper tribunal as a bac…”

“I am Sarah Sackman KC MP, and I am the Minister for Courts and Legal Services in the Justice Department.”

“I do believe that. I believe in the idea that decisions about mode of trial should rest with the court, not the defendant, as is currently the case. These proposals, which are born out of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, support that proposition, which we will bring forward in proposa…”

“I am trying to do the opposite. I do not think we should detach any one of these measures from the overall objective here, which is about building a criminal justice system fit for the 21st century. I say that because the last time any Government looked at reform of the criminal justice system in any significant way wa…”

“Critically—if you will allow me to finish one more sentence—it will also ensure that what we end up with is not just the backlog back down to sustainable levels, but being able to sustain that in the face of growing demand. The MOJ data shows that demand coming into the system is not only high but growing. There are mo…”

“I suppose there are two principles underlying that. One is how you proportionately allocate the limited resources within any justice system. We know that currently magistrates process and hear 90% of criminal cases. After the proposals, they will hear a good deal more, but it is about where you draw the line. We have h…”

“It will do all those things, Chair. It is important that it does, and it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise this. While I stand by the point that it is right that we rebalance the interests of justice when it comes to the determination of mode of trial—so that that rests with the court rath…”

“We will, as is usual practice, provide Parliament with the impact assessment, which will include modelling, and an equality impact assessment. It will include our formal response to Brian Leveson’s reports. As part of that, this Committee will no doubt be able to scrutinise what the Government are putting forward, and …”

“First, I have not seen the Institute for Government’s paper. I have huge respect for the Institute for Government, but I think what Cassia Rowland said was that, in her view, on her evidence—I have not seen what she has based it on—the savings that would be realised through the legislative reforms amount to 10% in term…”

“Let me answer that in stages. First of all, we are dealing with an acute crisis, which is a systemic challenge. The Government’s position is that the only way to address that is from multiple angles that comprise structural reform and productivity savings of the sort the IfG outlined, in addition to record investment i…”

“I will address that point in a moment, because it is an important one. It is the interaction of the major reforms that are proposed here—the increase in sentencing power, the removal of the right to elect, the introduction of a permission stage to appeals and the existence of the Crown court bench division. As parliame…”

“I think that is something we have to look at.”

“I think the answer he was giving was in the context of a question around the impact on remand hearings; I think that was the context in which he may have addressed that.”

“That is right, yes.”

“That is the position, because that is the mechanism for pursuing what was needed, which was the urgent implementation of these changes.”

“I can certainly provide a follow-up letter, but just to be clear, I do not know that I regard retrospective as quite the right term here. No one is suggesting that a trial that has commenced or that has gone past PTPH—”

“Yes—”

“If they meet the eligibility criteria, then that is the case.”

“It is a change in relation to the procedure that applies to those cases. They are still getting a Crown court trial under the new proposals.”