Found: Q28 Chair: Ms Berry, the Committee has published today a report on the Courts and Tribunals Bill—we

Found: 1st Report - Courts and Tribunals Bill HC 192 Report

Found: CTB0048 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Vesselinov Written Evidence

Found: bill record here). 21 These were the Armed Forces Bill (first reading 15th January 2026), Courts and Tribunals Bill

Found: CTB0132 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association

Found: CTB0108 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Rights of Women Written Evidence

Found: CTB0001 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill UniSALESIANO Written Evidence

Found: Similarly, the Courts and Tribunals Bill is currently going through Parliament.

Found: CTB0113 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Society of England and Wales Written

Found: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 Date of commencement: some

Found: CTB0131 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales

Found: CTB0130 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SafeLives Written Evidence

Found: CTB0129 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Red Lion Chambers Written Evidence

Found: The Courts and Tribunals Bill aims to reform special measures, but without investment there will be

Found: The Courts and Tribunals Bill aims to reform special measures, but without investment there will be

Found: The Courts and Tribunals Bill aims to reform special measures, but without investment there will be

Found: CTB0090 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill SOCIETY OF CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS Written Evidence

Found: CTB0002 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Ewing Written Evidence

Found: CTB0068 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Ms Karin Radicke Written Evidence

Found: CTB0064 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Theresa Millward Written Evidence

Found: CTB0053 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0128 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Dr Laura Janes KC (Hon) Written Evidence

Found: CTB0127 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Garden Court Chambers, and The University of

Found: CTB0126 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill London Victims' Commissioner Written Evidence

Found: CTB0125 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Bar Council Written Evidence

Found: CTB0123 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill UNSW Sydney, and University of Nottingham Written

Found: CTB0122 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Commission Written Evidence

Found: CTB0121 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Commission Written Evidence

Found: CTB0119 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill CALA, YPA, NAYJ and APPEAL, CALA, Claire Bostock

Found: CTB0118 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Free Speech Union Written Evidence

Found: CTB0117 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mountford Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0116 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0115 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill TRINITY HELIX AI Written Evidence

Found: CTB0114 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Oxford Written Evidence

Found: CTB0113 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Law Society of England and Wales Written

Found: CTB0112 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Criminal Law Solicitors' Association Written

Found: CTB0111 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0110 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Both Parents Matter Written Evidence

Found: CTB0109 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Support Not Separation Written Evidence

Found: CTB0107 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Miss Louisa Hollely Written Evidence

Found: CTB0106 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Miss Jill Griffin Written Evidence

Found: CTB0104 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr William Keyte Written Evidence

Found: CTB0103 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Transform Justice Written Evidence

Found: CTB0101 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill University of Cambridge Written Evidence

Found: CTB0100 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Independent Written Evidence

Found: CTB0098 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Zac Fine Therapy Written Evidence

Found: CTB0097 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Justice Written Evidence

Found: CTB0096 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill City of London Law Society Written Evidence

Found: CTB0093 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Anne Robson Written Evidence

Found: CTB0092 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill No 5 Barristers' Chambers Written Evidence

Found: CTB0089 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Matthew Slocombe Written Evidence

Found: CTB0088 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Dennis Silverwood Written Evidence

Found: CTB0087 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Victim Not Suspect Written Evidence

Found: CTB0086 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mrs Kelly Tweedie Written Evidence

Found: CTB0083 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Sue Cook Written Evidence

Found: CTB0082 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Ms Nell Pursey Written Evidence

Found: CTB0081 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Streetwise Law and Lartey and Co Written Evidence

Found: CTB0079 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Queen Mary, University of London Written Evidence

Found: CTB0078 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Self employed Written Evidence

Found: CTB0076 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys

Found: CTB0074 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill H H Christopher Kinch KC Written Evidence

Found: CTB0073 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill The Family Services Foundation Written Evidence

Found: CTB0070 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr. Chris Underhill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0066 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mrs Underhill Written Evidence

Found: CTB0065 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Alan Fellows Written Evidence

Found: CTB0065 - Legislative scrutiny: Courts and Tribunals Bill Mr Alan Fellows Written Evidence

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress he has made on establishing specialist courts for rape cases at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.

Answered by Catherine Atkinson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

We remain fully committed to our manifesto pledge to introduce specialist rape courts. As part of this, we are carefully considering how best to deliver specialist court models, recognising that any approach must work alongside wider efforts to reduce Crown Court caseload and ensure sufficient judicial and legal capacity. We continue to work closely with the independent judiciary and will set out further detail in due course.

Alongside this, we are taking forward a range of measures to improve the experience of victims of rape at court. This includes introducing independent legal advisors for adult rape victims, rolling out trauma-informed training to all court staff, and bringing forward reforms through the Courts and Tribunals Bill to strengthen protections for victims in the courtroom.

More broadly, these reforms form part of our wider mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, ensuring that victims are better supported and able to have confidence in the criminal justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2026.

Alongside the Bill, an impact assessment of our proposed justice reforms was published. This includes an assessment of the impact of proposed changes in the threshold for who can access a jury trial - Courts and Tribunals Bill - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Department is taking to reduce delays for court cases involving child or vulnerable witnesses.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising caseload. We know that some victims are waiting years for justice – justice delayed is justice denied. This is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to make recommendations for how to restore stability and confidence in the criminal courts. Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that it is only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – that we can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to swifter justice for all. The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting the reform blueprint into law.

For vulnerable witnesses, through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we are also strengthening access to special measures, including a measure to enable vulnerable witnesses to be accompanied by a supporter when giving evidence.

For children - the listing of cases is a judicial function, but all cases in the magistrates’ and Crown courts that involve child witnesses are prioritised and regularly reviewed to ensure they are being listed as expeditiously as possible. Special measures may also apply to allow the child to pre-record their evidence. Later this year, the Lady Chief Justice plans to issue a revised practice direction, which should, amongst other things, make the prioritisation of cases requiring hearing more effective, consistent and predictable.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government is grateful to Sir Brian and his panel of expert advisers for their Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. Sir Brian’s Review makes 180 recommendations aiming to reform the Criminal Justice System and drive improvements to efficiency.

Part 1 of Sir Brian’s report sets out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts. The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. This Bill will enable much-needed reform of the criminal courts.

Part 2 of Sir Brian’s report makes 135 recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. The report is thorough and I welcome his ambition to see real improvements to the system.

We are carefully considering the remaining recommendations from parts 1 and 2 of Sir Brian’s review, many of those require cross criminal justice system coordination with other agencies and Departments. We will set out a full response in the summer.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that the prosecution and processes that support sexual offence cases, are compliant with the Victims’ Code.

Answered by Catherine Atkinson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Victims’ Code sets out what victims can expect from the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice recently consulted on a draft Victims’ Code (this closed on 30 April) and the Department is currently analysing the consultation responses to ensure the Government gets the foundations right for victims in the new Code. The new Code will be complimented by a Code compliance framework which, once implemented, will place new statutory duties for criminal justice agencies, including the courts, to demonstrate compliance with victims’ rights under the Code.

To ensure victims have the support they need whilst engaging in the court process, the Courts and Tribunals Bill, will strengthen access to special measures to help victims be able to participate effectively in the justice process. For example, screening the witness from the defendant or enabling evidence via video link can help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give their best evidence.

The Crown Prosecution Service also offers pre-trial meetings to adult victims of rape and serious sexual offences before they give evidence at court or before they pre-record their cross examination. Through the Code consultation, the Department will consider whether to make pre-trial meetings a specific Code right for these victims.

In addition, in 2025 the Ministry of Justice published statutory guidance on Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs), setting out best practice for supporting victims. ISVAs offer practical and emotional support, such as accompanying victims when giving evidence in court or via live link.

The Department also funds the Witness Service which provides emotional support and practical assistance in court on the day of trial, such as providing information on the court process, providing a visible presence in a court building when trials are listed and (if requested by the witness and agreed by the judge) accompanying them into the courtroom when they give evidence or for the reading of their Victim Personal Statement.

The Ministry of Justice also provides significant funding for victim and witness support services, including community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services. This is complemented by core funding to Police and Crime Commissioners who commission local services based on assessed need.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to expedite cases involving sexual offences.

Answered by Catherine Atkinson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis with a record and rising number of criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown Court. Victims are facing unacceptable delays and without action, the situation will continue to spiral, far beyond the point of recovery.

The reforms being brought forward through the recently introduced Courts and Tribunals Bill are designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of rape.

The uncapping of Crown Court sitting days in 2026/27 will mean more rape and other sexual offence cases can be heard.

Alongside this, judges will continue to prioritise cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, including rape and other sexual offences.

We must continue to support victims until these reforms take effect, and the Deputy Prime Minister has announced investment of £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of this Spending Review period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether there has been an impact assessment of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on fathers in prison who are trying to retain parental responsibility.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is better to protect children from harm, including harm which might result from contact with abusive parents or resulting from decisions made by abusive parents.

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at fathers who are prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of a parent being involved in their child’s life – through contact or through holding or exercising parental responsibility - where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts, when making decisions, including applications related to parental responsibility, will adopt an openminded enquiry as to what is in a child’s best interests rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989. In making decisions about the exercise of parental responsibility, the court will continue to be guided by the welfare checklist in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the impact of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the ongoing implementation of the 2017 and 2019 Farmer Reviews on the importance of maintaining male prisoners' and female offenders' family ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crime.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is to better to protect children from harm, including from harm which might be caused by contact with abusive parents

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of parental involvement and contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts will adopt an openminded inquiry enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989 when making decisions, guided by the welfare checklist, in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his answer of 18 March to question 120027, whether he will publish the results of his department's engagement with the judiciary about their personal safety and security associated with the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

We engage regularly with judicial leaders on all matters including security. It is standard practice not to publish or comment on the specifics of discussions between Ministers and the judiciary.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of extending existing rules on mediation in the civil courts to the tribunals system, in the context of proposed changes to the Office of the Senior President of Tribunals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Government recognises the value of mediation and other forms of dispute resolution in helping parties resolve disputes more swiftly and consensually. We continue to explore and assess the potential merits of dispute resolution across different jurisdictions, including tribunals.

However, any changes to the Tribunal Procedure Rules will be made by the Tribunal Procedure Committee, an independent statutory body, who are responsible for the making of rules that govern tribunal practice and procedure. The provisions in the Courts and Tribunals Bill relating to the office of the Senior President of Tribunals concern judicial leadership and do not alter day-to-day decision-making in tribunals cases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what data and statistics they hold that shows that removing the right to jury trial for cases with sentences of less than three years will reduce waiting times and pressure on the jury system.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice has published the data and analysis underpinning these measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment (the IRCC Impact Assessment (IA)). The IA sets out the relevant assumptions, evidence base and methodology used, drawing on the best available data, operational insight and engagement with the judiciary.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether judges have been consulted about possible increased personal risks of replacing some jury trials with named judge trials as proposed in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.

When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.

Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the level of risk to named judges who replace juries in trials.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.

When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.

Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across the process is essential.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting that blueprint into law. Coupled with record investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid and modernisation of listing practices and use of case coordinators and blitz courts to boost efficiencies, we are taking a neglected service and bringing it, finally, into the 21st century.

Found: The Courts and Tribunals Bill would reform the criminal courts and tribunals system in England and

Found: carry-over motions have been agreed so far for five public bills: • Armed Forces Bill • Courts and Tribunals Bill

Found: The announcement comes as the Courts and Tribunals Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons

Found: This announcement comes as both the Victims and Courts Bill and Courts and Tribunals Bill progress through

Found: This Bill (formally titled the Courts and Tribunals Bill) is the first step to putting that blueprint

Found: This Bill (formally titled the Courts and Tribunals Bill) is the first step to putting that blueprint

Found: This Bill (formally titled the Courts and Tribunals Bill) is the first step

Found: Letter dated 08/06/2026 from Sarah Sackman MP to Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee Chairs regarding