Asked by: Lee Dillon (Liberal Democrat - Newbury)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing juries from trials on an individual’s right to a free and fair trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many additional cases are expected to be heard each year under the new swift courts compared with existing Crown Court processes.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Of the 3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform. The remainder would be expected to stay in the magistrates’ courts or would be allocated to the new ‘swift courts’.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court, and this means they will be dealing with the same cases that come into the Crown Court. As mode of trial allocations and trial listing remain a matter for the independent judiciary and are dependent on case mix, the Ministry of Justice is unable to comment on how cases arriving at the Crown Court will be distributed between ‘swift courts’ and jury trials.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is planning to take to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained if the use of jury trials is reduced.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. The significant delays in our courts are corrosive of public confidence in our justice system. In many cases, witnesses and victims are pulling out of the court process, resulting in the collapse of trials and justice not being served. That is why this Government is determined to tackle the crisis and why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation. The central purpose of these reforms is precisely to restore public confidence in the justice system.
Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposals to remove jury trials for offences other than the most serious crimes on defendants’ rights.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect or right to insist on a jury trial irrespective of the seriousness of the offence is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conduct fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff within the HM Prison & Probation Service reliant on visas for employment have been employed since 5 July 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested information requested data in an easily accessible format. Right to Work data is collected during the vetting stage but is not retained within the employment record. As a result, extracting this information would require a manual review of individual vetting files, which would incur a disproportionate cost.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury for triable-either-way offences on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing the right to elect for a jury trial on perceptions of the justice system of a) victims, b) witnesses and c) defendants.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what funding his Department has committed to providing specialist support services for survivors of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade.
The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.
I have committed two years of grant funding to the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales. They commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls. The funding from the Ministry of Justice includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the right to jury trial on the number of appeals and judicial review applications.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Following reforms to the criminal courts, appellants will continue to have the right to appeal convictions and sentences received in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Permission to appeal will be granted by the judiciary where the appeal has a real prospect of success.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury for offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will apply retrospectively to defendants who have already entered a plea of not guilty and elected for jury trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.