Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26

71

Clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert- "(1B) In Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (powers to amend the Sentencing Code), in paragraph 14A (general limit on magistrates' court's power to impose custodial sentence), omit sub-paragraph (3).”

38

Clause 1, page 3, lines 20, at end insert “, but see subsection (10).
(10) Notwithstanding the preceding subsections, the accused may elect to be tried on indictment if he demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried on summary would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”

23

Clause 3, page 5, line 25, leave out “the condition” and insert “one or more of the conditions”

39

Clause 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert “or,
(c) the defendant demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”

This amendment would ensure that trials by jury continue for indictable offences carrying a sentence of less than three years in prison if the defendant can demonstrate that it would be in the interests of natural justice.

24

Clause 3, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The conditions in this subsection are met in relation to a defendant if—
(a) the defendant, if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years for the offence or offences (taken together);
(b) the defendant is of good character;
(c) the defendant has not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence;
(d) the defendant would be treated as a rehabilitated person under section 1 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
(e) if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected;
(f) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity and/or complexity of the case may increase; or
(g) other exceptional circumstances pertain to the case.”

25

Clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) The preceding provisions on allocation for trial without a jury do not apply to cases where a defendant has already elected to be tried in the Crown Court prior to the commencement of this section.”

40

Clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may appeal that decision if he can demonstrate that the circumstances of their case are such that trial without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.
(8) An appeal made under subsection (7), must not be heard by the same judge who made the original determination.”

This amendment would allow a defendant to appeal the decision to have a judge-only trial on the basis that it is in the interests of natural justice for the trial to be with a jury.

41

Clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may request a different judge to preside over the trial than the judge who made the determination that the case was suitable to be tried without a jury.”

This amendment enables the defendant to request a different judge to try the case than the judge who determined that the case was eligible for trial without a jury.

19

Clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”

This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.

26

Clause 3, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(h) fairness when considering the rights and circumstances of the defendant;
(i) the interests of justice.”

44

Clause 3, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(h) whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant for the trial to be conducted with a jury.”

This amendment would ensure that where the decision for a judge-only trial is being considered for reallocation following a change in circumstances, that the judge must consider whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have trial with a jury.

18

Clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”

This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone.

27

Clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”

28

Clause 3, page 9, line 20, after “hearing” insert “only if the prosecution and defence have waived their right to the hearing.”

42

Clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.
(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.

12

Clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4)

This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.

43

Clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out “trial on indictment of a person beginning on or” and insert “cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”

This amendment would prevent the provisions on allowing judges to try all triable either-way offences with likely sentences of fewer than three years from applying retrospectively.

45

Clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”

This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA.

61

Clause 4, page 10, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert—
“(3) The court may make an order under this section only if it is satisfied that—
(a) the case involves exceptional complexity such that a jury would be unable properly to discharge its function, or
(b) there is a substantial and demonstrable risk to the administration of justice which cannot be mitigated by other measures.
(3A) The court must give written reasons for any order made under this section.”

This amendment would restrict the use of judge-only trials to exceptional circumstances and require courts to give written reasons decisions to allocate such trials.

29

Clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(d) the length of the trial is agreed by the defence and prosecution to be likely to exceed 5 months.”

46

Clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.”

This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury.

62

Clause 4, page 11, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“(5) A defendant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision to make an order under this section.”

This amendment provides a defendant with a right of appeal against the allocation of a judge-only trial.

47

Clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out from “is” to end of line 2, and insert “a right of appeal against a decision to make an order under this section on the grounds of natural justice.
(5A) where an appeal is made under subsection (5), it must not be heard by the judge who made the original determination.”

This amendment would add a right for defendants to appeal against the decision for a judge-only trial for lengthy and complex cases.

30

Clause 4, page 11, line 1, leave out “no” and insert “a”

31

Clause 4, page 11, line 38, at end insert—
“(k) an offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving under section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
(n) health and safety offences resulting in a fatality or offences connected to a fatality; and
(o) offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where there has been a fatality.”

32

Clause 4, page 11, line 41, at end insert—
“(c) any offence resulting in a person becoming subject to a notification requirement under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

33

Clause 4, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) an offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving under section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
(f) an offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving under section 2C of the Road Traffic Act 1988;”

50

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.

48

Clause 4, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
“(g) the interests of natural justice for the defendant.”

This amendment would ensure that the interests of natural justice for the defendant are relevant to the decision to revoke an order for a judge-only trial for the offences listed in Schedule 1.

49

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.

51

Schedule 1, page 38, line 3, leave out paragraph 20

This amendment prevents the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations.

52

Clause 5, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The judgment must be given at the time of conviction, except where an adjournment is necessary for preparing—
(a) pre-sentence reports,
(b) psychiatric or medical reports,
(c) victim personal statements, or
(d) further legal advice relating to sentencing.”

This amendment would ensure that judgments are handed down on conviction in all but the circumstances covered by the amendment.

34

Clause 6, page 15, line 28, after “regulations” insert “made under the affirmative resolution procedure”

13

Clause 6, page 15, line 36, leave out lines 36 and 37

This amendment provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months.

21

Clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(1B) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment would make changing the general limit on custodial sentence for an eitherway offence in magistrates’ courts changeable by affirmative resolution only.

53

Clause 6, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(1B) In paragraph 14A(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative””

This amendment ensure regulations to extend magistrates’ courts sentencing powers must be approved by both houses of Parliament.

22

Clause 6, page 17, line 11, at end insert—
“(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert—
“15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court
(1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where—
(a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and
(b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction.
(2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.””

This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in.

63

Schedule 2, page 38, line 33, leave out from “only if” to the end of line 35 and insert ”the Crown Court considers that—
“(a) the appeal has a realistic prospect of success, or
(b) there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.”

This amendment would broaden the test for granting permission to appeal from magistrates’ courts, so that appeals may proceed where they have a realistic prospect of success or where there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

64

Schedule 2, page 38, line 33, after “appeal” insert “against sentence”

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 66.

65

Schedule 2, page 39, line 1, after “(3)” insert “and (5)”

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 66.

66

Schedule 2, page 39, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) There is a right to renew an application for permission to appeal orally.
(6) Grounds for appeal may raise issues of procedure and fact arising in the trial as well as law.”

This amendment ensures a right to appeal orally, and provides that grounds for appeal include procedure and fact, as well as points of law.

54

Schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert “the defendant has made one.”

This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one.

55

Schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert “jury in the Crown Court”

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates court.

56

Schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert “jury in the Crown Court”

This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates court.

57

Schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert “must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.”

This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made.

17

Schedule 2, page 52, line 5, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert “to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”

This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

67

Clause 8, page 19, line 13, after “charge” insert “including any behaviour or communication preceding the charge that is connected to the event itself”

68

Clause 9, page 20, line 12, leave out “substantial probative value” and insert “relevance”

69

Clause 9, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) Where a compensation claim has been made, or an attempt to make a claim has been made, disclosure of the details of that claim is relevant notwithstanding that an application for leave has not been made.”

70

Clause 13, page 27, line 37, at end insert—
“(7) Disclosure of the details of any connection between the independent supporter and the complainant is required prior to seeking the court’s agreement of the independent supporter.”

20

Clause 13, page 28, line 14, at end insert—
“(4) In Part 5 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (Protection for victims, witnesses, etc in legal proceedings), after section 67 insert the following section—
“67A Automatic right of support in family proceedings
(1) This section applies in any family proceedings in England and Wales where a party to proceedings is, or alleges to be, the victim or of domestic abuse or a sexual offence.
(2) A party to whom this section applies is entitled to be accompanied in court by—
(a) an independent domestic violence adviser (“IDVA”);
(b) an independent sexual violence adviser (“ISVA”); or
(c) both an IDVA and an ISVA.
(3) The court may only exclude an IDVA or ISVA where it is satisfied that the presence of that person would be prejudicial to the interests of justice.
(4) Where the court makes an exclusion under subsection (3), it must provide parties to the proceedings with its reasons for making the exclusion.””

This amendment would place the entitlement of the victim to be accompanied by an IDVA or IVSA on a statutory footing. This amendment would allow that IDVAs or ISVAs are excluded from proceedings when it is against the interest of justice.

14

Clause 17, page 30, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.—
“(1) The report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective—
(i) advice, and
(ii) representation
particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised;
(b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including—
(i) the number of judges,
(ii) court staff, and
(iii) available hearing time,
to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J;
(c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including—
(i) training relating to coercive control,
(ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and
(iii) child safeguarding.
(d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure—
(i) the repeal operates effectively, and
(ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.””

This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.

NC1

To move the following Clause—
“Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea
(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 73 (Reduction in sentence for guilty plea), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) The maximum level of reduction in sentence for a guilty plea that the court can apply is two-fifths.
(2ZB) The reduction set out in subsection (2ZA) may not be limited to a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings.
(2ZC) A reduction of sentence under subsection (2ZA) is available to the defendant prior to a retrial.””

NC2

To move the following Clause—
“Specialists courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases
(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations establish specialist courts for cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse.
(2) Any case heard in a court established under subsection (1) must be conducted with a jury and specialist judge.
(3) Additional guidance or directions may be formulated by the judiciary in relation to—
(a) the nature and dynamics of behaviour including—
(i) coercive control, and
(ii) honour-based abuse;
(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(4) Regulations under this section must make provision for such courts to have specialist facilities for alleged victims.
(5) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary resources for judicial, administrative and legal support, including advisors, prosecution and defence, to be made available to operate such courts.
(6) Any case heard by a court established under subsection (1) must be subject to such considerations regarding—
(a) time limits for case preparation,
(b) fixed dates for trial, and
(c) third party material review and disclosure,
as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.
(7) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of hearings and trials for such cases in such specialist courts, including the prioritisation of cases where the defendant is on bail.
(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would establish specialist courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with those cases heard by a specialist judge and a jury. It makes further provision including for victim support, and to prioritise cases where a defendant is bailed.

NC3

To move the following Clause—
“Extended sitting hours for Crown Court Proceedings
(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, designate specific Crown Court locations or individual court rooms as extended capacity courts.
(2) Proceedings in any court designated under subsection (1) must consist of—
(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and
(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.
(3) Any court designated under subsection (1) will not have a limit on the number of cases that can be heard on the same day.”

This new clause would restructure the court sitting day to introduce a morning and afternoon session, to allow two different cases to be heard in the same courtroom on a given day.

NC4

To move the following Clause—
“Review of the Feasibility of Two Court Sittings per day
(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament an independent report into the feasibility of conducting two trials per day in designated court rooms (“the Scheme”).
(2) The scheme would allow for proceedings in a Crown Court to consist of—
(a) a morning session, commencing at 09:00 and concluding at 13:00; and
(b) an afternoon session, commencing at 14:00 and concluding at 18:00.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the scheme—
(a) on the efficiency and timeliness of court proceedings;
(b) on the availability of judges, legal practitioners, and court staff;
(c) the potential impact on defendants, victims, and witnesses; and
(d) the cost and resource implications of the scheme.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must, within three months of the laying of the report under subsection (1), publish a response.
(5) The response must include proposals for a pilot scheme based on the findings of the report including the proposed scope and duration of any such pilot.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources, and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next steps.

NC5

To move the following Clause—
“Targets for Backlog Reduction
(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, set and publish annual targets for the reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales.
(2) There must be a target for the—
(a) overall reduction of the Crown Court backlog in England and Wales, and
(b) reduction of the backlog in each different HMCTS region.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against these targets.
(4) Any report under subsection (3) must include any steps taken to address the failure to meet the targets. ”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress.

NC6

To move the following Clause—
“Fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences
(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations make provision for specialist court capacity for cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”).
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of RASSO cases.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary judicial, administrative and support resources to be made available to operate such court capacity.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of RASSO cases.

NC7

To move the following Clause—
“Victim-led Intensive Case Management
(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the implementation of Victim-Led Intensive Case Management in proceedings in the criminal courts (“The Strategy”).
(2) The strategy must outline steps to prioritise the experience of victims in relation to proceedings in the criminal courts.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings.

NC8

To move the following Clause—
“Judicial training: anti-discrimination
(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to discrimination against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the identification and prevention of racial bias, including unconscious bias, and
(b) the impact of discrimination on access to justice and judicial outcomes.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and its impact on judicial decision-making.

NC9

To move the following Clause—
“Judicial training: violence against women and girls
(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to violence against women and girls.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the nature and dynamics of violence against women and girls, including—
(i) domestic abuse,
(ii) sexual violence,
(iii) coercive control, and
(iv) so-called honour-based abuse;
(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls.

NC10

To move the following Clause—
“Judicial training: domestic abuse
(1) Any member of the judiciary who may be assigned to proceedings for a trial on indictment without a jury must have access to training on matters relating to domestic abuse.
(2) Training provided under subsection (1) must cover—
(a) the nature and dynamics of domestic abuse, including physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse, as well as controlling or coercive behaviour;
(b) best practice in the management of cases involving domestic abuse, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations specify how often members of the judiciary must undertake such training.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must lay an annual report before Parliament on the provision and uptake of training provided under this section.”

This new clause requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse.

NC11

To move the following Clause—
“Pilot of trial allocation reforms
(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 7 of this Act into force unless—
(a) he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)
(b) a statutory instrument containing regulations for the commencement of sections 1 to 7 of this Act has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) A pilot scheme may—
(a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act;
(b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period does not exceed 24 months beginning with the day on which this section is brought into force;
(c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify;
(d) apply to proceedings in the criminal courts as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.
(3) Before the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) commission an independent review of the pilot scheme, and
(b) Lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).”

This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact.

NC12

To move the following Clause—
“Access to free court transcripts for victims
(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—
(a) judicial summings-up,
(b) bail decisions and conditions
which are relevant to their case.
(2) HM Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

NC13

To move the following Clause—
“Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system
(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system.
(2) A report under this section must—
(a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on—
(i) witness participation;
(ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system;
(iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system;
(b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii).
(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of a report under this section,
(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system.

NC14

To move the following Clause—
“Duty to provide trauma-informed training
(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training is made mandatory for members of all court staff on best practice in relation to victims' trauma.
(2) Training under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the nature, prevalence, and impact of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and rape and serious sexual offences (“RASSO”);
(b) the dynamics and psychological effects of trauma on parties and witnesses involved in proceedings;
(c) the identification and appropriate handling of cases involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and RASSO offences;
(d) the ways in which trauma may affect memory, communication, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings;
(e) best practices for reducing retraumatisation within court and tribunals settings.
(3) Training provided under this section must—
(a) on initial appointment to a role within a court, and at regular intervals thereafter;
(b) reflect current best practice and be informed by up-to-date research and guidance;
(c) be developed in consultation with appropriate experts, including specialist support organisations and persons with lived experience of abuse and trauma.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must keep the training under review and revise it as appropriate.
(5) The Lord Chancellor must publish guidance on the implementation of this section.”

This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that members of the court staff receive mandatory, consistent training on trauma-informed practice to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ evidence, behaviour, and engagement with court proceedings.

NC15

To move the following Clause—
“Regulation of Expert Witnesses
(1) In proceedings in the family court, a person may not give evidence in the capacity of a psychologist or psychiatrist unless that person is registered with the appropriate regulatory body.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate regulatory body” means—
(a) in the case of a psychiatrist, the General Medical Council;
(b) in the case of a psychologist, the Health and Care Professions Council; or
(c) such other bodies as the Lord Chancellor may specify by regulations.
(3) In this section “expert evidence” has the same meaning as in section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

This new clause would ensure that individuals giving expert evidence in family proceedings as psychologists or psychiatrists are appropriately qualified and subject to statutory professional regulation. It would prevent unregulated individuals from providing such evidence.

NC16

To move the following Clause—
“Protective relocation and presumption of reasonableness
(1) This section applies to family proceedings in which—
(a) a parent (“the relocating parent”) has relocated, or proposes to relocate, with a child; and
(b) it is alleged that such relocation has adversely affected, or is intended to affect, the child’s relationship with another party.
(2) Where the relocating parent demonstrates that the decision to relocate was made in consequence of domestic abuse, and this is supported by documented advice from a relevant authority or support service, there is a presumption that the relocation was reasonable and in the best interests of the child.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “documented advice” includes advice, guidance, or referral from—
(a) a police force;
(b) a local authority exercising social services functions;
(c) a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC); or
(d) an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) or equivalent specialist support service.
(4) The presumption in subsection (2) can be rebutted if the other party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the relocation is not reasonable or not in the best interests of the child.
(5) In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the court must have regard to—
(a) the nature and impact of the domestic abuse;
(b) the circumstances in which the advice or referral was given; and
(c) the welfare of the child as the court’s paramount consideration.
(6) The court may disapply the presumption in subsection (2) where it is satisfied that—
(a) the evidential basis for the documented advice is insufficient; or
(b) it is otherwise necessary to do so in order to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
(7) In this section—
(a) domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
(b) “child” means a person under the age of 18;
(c) “family proceedings” has the same meaning as in section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003.”

This new clause introduces a rebuttable presumption that a parent’s relocation with a child, undertaken in reliance on documented advice from authorities or support services in the context of domestic abuse, is reasonable and in the child’s best interests, unless the contrary is shown.

NC17

To move the following Clause—
“Review of Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System
(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 24 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider the impact on the efficiency of the criminal justice system of—
(a) the provisions of this Act;
(b) The wider criminal justice system;
(c) the standard of delivery by court contract providers, including PECS contractors;
(d) the condition of the courts estate; and
(e) the use of technology.
(3) In considering “efficiency”, the review must consider the impact on—
(a) delays,
(b) backlogs, and
(c) the experience of victims and witnesses.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before Parliament.
(5) The report under subsection (4) must include recommendations for further legislative or administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Act has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including impacts on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses.

NC18

To move the following Clause—
“Expiry of sections 1 to 7 in specified circumstances
(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the provisions contained in sections 1 to 7 of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must be laid—
(a) within 24 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, or
(b) within 24 months of the latest date on which any of sections 1 to 7 is commenced,
whichever is the later.
(3) The report must describe—
(a) any time saved in court as a result of the measures included in those sections;
(b) any change in the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court since this Act was passed;
(c) the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court at the time at which the Report is prepared;
(d) any other effect of the provisions of sections 1 to 7 on the criminal justice system.
(4) The report must provide a conclusion by the Lord Chancellor on whether the reforms have been effective in reducing the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown Court.
(5) Where the report concludes that the provisions have not been effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations providing for the immediate repeal of sections 1 to 7.
(6) Where the report concludes that the provisions are effective, the Lord Chancellor must make regulations making provision for repeal of sections 1 to 7 subject to the condition in subsection (8).
(7) The condition is that the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor reduced to a sufficient extent.
(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause introduces a sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the provisions. If the report finds that the measures are not effective, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to repeal them. If the report finds that the measures are effective, the Secretary of State must set a deadline for their repeal and a return to fully jury trials.

NC19

To move the following Clause—
“Disclosure of a party’s medical history in the Family Court
In section 63 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (Special measures in family proceedings: victims of domestic abuse), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A party to the proceedings who is a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act may not be ordered by the court to disclose their counselling or medical records to another party to the proceedings, except where the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances require such disclosure.””

This new clause would mean that in family court proceedings domestic abuse victims cannot be ordered to disclose their counselling or medical records except in exceptional circumstances.

NC20

To move the following Clause—
“Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions
This section applies in family proceedings in which—
(a) party A alleges that party B has perpetrated domestic abuse, and
(b) the court is invited to consider whether a party A has engaged in conduct intended, or having the effect of, undermining a child’s relationship with another party.
(1) Where this section applies, the court must determine, as a preliminary issue, any allegation of domestic abuse before considering any allegation falling within subsection (1)(b).
(2) The court must treat the determination of allegations of domestic abuse as a matter of priority and, so much as reasonably practicable, must not proceed to determine any issue relating to the child’s relationship with either party until such allegations have been determined.
(3) Where the court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that party B has perpetrated domestic abuse against another party or the child—
(a) there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by the child to spend time with party B constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse; and
(b) the court must not consider any allegation that party A has engaged in conduct falling within subsection (1)(b) unless satisfied that the presumption in paragraph (a) has been rebutted.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the presumption may be rebutted only where party B demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.
(5) Subsections (2) to (5) apply only where the allegation of domestic abuse meets such minimum evidential threshold as may be prescribed by rules of court.
(6) Notwithstanding the above, the court may disapply the presumption in subsection (4)(a), or the requirement in subsection (2), where it is satisfied that to do so is necessary to secure the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
(7) In this section—
(a) domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
(b) references to a child are to a person under the age of 18;
(c) references to “family proceedings” have the same meaning as in section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003.”

This new clause requires courts to determine domestic abuse allegations before considering claims of parental alienation. If abuse is proven, a child’s reluctance to see the abusive parent is presumed a justified response. This presumption must be rebutted before the court can entertain allegations of alienating behaviour against the protective parent.

NC21

To move the following Clause—
“Sending cases to the Crown Court
(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 51 (Sending cases to the Crown Court: adults), at the end of subsection (1) insert “, provided the case is ready to be heard in the Crown Court”
(3) In section 51A (Sending cases to the Crown Court: children and young persons), after subsection (2) insert “provided the case is ready to be heard in the Crown Court”

NC22

To move the following Clause—
“Remote Court Participation: Strategy
(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (“the strategy”).
(2) The strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings;
(b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload;
(c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings;
(d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and
(e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy.
(4) The progress report must consider—
(a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented;
(b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and
(c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “remote proceedings” means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.”

This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system.

NC23

To move the following Clause—
“Report on the effect of the Act on prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences
(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on proceedings of cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.
(2) The matters the report must consider include—
(a) the effect of the Act on the time taken to dispose of cases;
(b) the effect of the Act on witness participation in proceedings; and
(c) the effect of the Act on experience of victims during proceedings.
(3) The report must make recommendations to improve each of the matters set out in subsection (2).
(4) Recommendations may include—
(a) recommendations about how the Act is implemented, and
(b) recommendations about further provision necessary to improve each matter.
(5) In this section, serious sexual offences are such offences as the Crown Prosecution Service may from time to time specify.
(6) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of a report under this section,
(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”

This new clause would require a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of RASSO cases, and require the Lord Chancellor to respond to these recommendations.

NC24

To move the following Clause—
“Expiry of sections 1 to 7
(1) Sections 1 to 7 of this Act expire three months after the date on which the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court has been below pre-pandemic level in each of the previous four quarterly reporting periods.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the number of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is that which is calculated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.”

This new clause sunsets sections 1 to 7 of this Act so that they will not longer be in force once the court backlog has been resolved.

NC25

To move the following Clause—
“Courts for rape and sexual offences—
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a specialist sexual offences court to be established at each Crown Court location in England and Wales for the purpose set out in subsection (2).
(2) The purpose of any court established under subsection (1) is to ensure that trials relating to sexual offences, sexual abuse, and rape are heard as quickly as possible.
(3) Any court established under subsection (1) must make provision for support from independent sexual violence advisers to be accessible to victims.
(4) Regulations under this section must make specialist trauma training available for staff working in each such court.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment would set up the specialist rape courts promised in the Labour Party Manifesto.

NC26

To move the following Clause—
“Unduly lenient sentences scheme: application to the magistrates’ courts
(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “Crown Court” insert “, or the magistrates’ court where the sentence is in respect of an either way offence,””

This amendment would ensure that those affected by any case that was triable either-way before this Act was passed shall still be subject to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

NC27

To move the following Clause—
“Pilot of trial allocation reforms
(1) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations bringing sections 1 to 5 of this Act into force unless he has first made arrangements for a pilot scheme for the provision of those sections in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) A pilot scheme must—
(a) be for the purpose of trialling all provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Act;
(b) be for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify, provided that the period under paragraph (a) is met;
(c) take place in at least one location in England and Wales as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.
(3) Within 12 months of the conclusion of the pilot scheme under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) assess the impact of the pilot scheme on—
(i) the timeliness of the disposal of cases included in the pilot scheme,
(ii) appeal rates relating to those cases,
(iii) the outcomes of those cases,
(iv) defendants’ access to trial by jury, and
(v) public confidence in the criminal justice system; and
(b) Lay before Parliament a report on the assessment under paragraph (a).”

This new clause would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation, and to report to Parliament on its impact.

15

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until he has published a response to the recommendation of Part II of Independent Review of the Criminal Courts—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4).
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts)
(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts)”

This amendment would make the publication of the Government response to Part II of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts a precondition of Clause 1 to 7 of this Bill coming into force.

16

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance of section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4);
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts);
(g) Section 7 (Appeals from magistrates’ courts).”

This amendment is consequential on NC12.

59

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the sections set out under subsection (3B) until he has taken reasonable steps to increase Crown Court sitting capacity, including but not limited to—
(a) using buildings not currently in use as courts to hear cases where cells are not needed, and
(b) reducing lost sitting days as a result of late guilty pleas and prison transport delays.
(3B) The sections referenced in subsection (3A) are—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4).
(f) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts)
(g) Section 6 (Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ courts)”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act could not be commenced until the Lord Chancellor has used alternative means to increase Crown Court sitting capacity.

60

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert “, subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).
(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make regulations under subsection (3) relating to the following sections until the pilot in accordance of section [pilot of trial allocation reforms] has been concluded—
(a) Section 1 (Removal of right to elect trial on indictment);
(b) Section 2 (Written indication of guilty plea: removal of right to object to venue);
(c) Section 3 (Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation);
(d) Section 4 (Trial on indictment without a jury: complex or lengthy cases);
(e) Section 5 (Consequential amendments relating to sections 3 and 4).”

This amendment is consequential on NC27.

35

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for at least 130,000 sitting days in the Crown Court in the financial year following the coming into force of this Act,
(b) HM Courts and Tribunals Service has made an assessment that the Crown Court has, so far as possible, used the allocation of sitting days provided under subsection (3B)(a), and
(c) the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House of Commons that the funding provided under subsection (3B)(a) has not reduced the number of cases pending trial in the Crown Court compared to the start of the financial year.”

This amendment prevents the provisions in sections 1 to 7 from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor has provided funding for 130,000 sittings days in the Crown Court; HMCTS has assessed that the Crown Court has used its allocation of sitting days; and the Lord Chancellor has made a statement to the House that this has not reduced the backlog.

36

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 1 to 7 into force until he has—
(a) undertaken a consultation on the potential benefits of introducing extended sitting hours in the Crown Court, and
(b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation.
(3B) The consultation under subsection (3A) must consider—
(a) potential rates of fees and renumeration for legal professionals and court staff working extended hours, and
(b) the availability of HM Courts and Tribunal Service staff.”

This amendment would ensure that sections 1 to 7 of the Act did not come into force until the Lord Chancellor had reviewed how to increase sitting hours in the Crown Court.

37

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.”

This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates court decisions unless the rate of successful appeals from the magistrates courts has been below 10% in the previous two years.

58

Clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing sections 3 to 5 into force until he has—
(a) commissioned an independent review to assess the length of time required for a judge sitting alone to deliver a judgment after conviction,
(b) laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of the review under subsection (3A)(a), and
(c) made a statement to the House of Commons on the Government’s response to any recommendations from the review.”

This amendment would stop sections 3 to 5 coming into force until the Government had an evidence base for how long these provisions might delay the issuing of judgments after convictions.

10

Clause 6, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) in subsection (1)—
(i) after “imposes” insert “, in respect of two or more offences,”;
(ii) for the words from “exceed” to the end substitute
“exceed—
(a) where each of the offences is a summary offence, 6 months;
(b) in any other case, the longest term that could be imposed in respect of any one of the offences”;”

The effect of this amendment is that, where a magistrates’ court imposes two or more terms of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution to run consecutively, and the offences in question are all summary offences, the aggregate of the terms may not exceed 6 months.

11

Clause 6, page 16, line 13, leave out “paragraph” and insert “paragraphs 16(a) and”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.

1

Page 1, line 4, leave out Clause 1

2

Page 4, line 16, leave out Clause 2

3

Page 5, line 12, leave out Clause 3

4

Page 10, line 5, leave out Clause 4

8

Page 36, line 2, leave out Schedule 1

5

Page 14, line 7, leave out Clause 5

6

Page 15, line 23, leave out Clause 6

7

Page 17, line 13, leave out Clause 7

9

Page 38, line 9, leave out Schedule 2