Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Debate: Crown Court criminal case backlog and impact on evidence, victims and fairness of proceedings Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

in some way have come into contact with the criminal justice system. I

16:22

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

know that Lady Longfield will have a very important contributions to make in Your Lordships' House today and in the future. In recent days, the in the future. In recent days, the government has made a welcome announcement which was repeated in Your Lordships' House. The Your Lordships' House. The government has indicated that its attention is focused on the subject attention is focused on the subject of this debate and that they intend to take appropriate steps to reduce to take appropriate steps to reduce delays in the Crown Court and without dilating justice.

They have appointed the distinguished retired judge, Sir Brian Langstaff to prepare recommendations on this difficult subject. Like Sir Brian, I was there when the Crown Court started in 1971, often appearing in cases alongside him. So was Lord Thomas of Gresford. We may have been in the very same courtroom on the first day -- on the first day of the Crown Court. Sir Brian's many years in the Court of Appeal as well as his practical experience in the Crown Court in the past will have given him a view, as it were, from the bridge of the criminal justice system.

I know that he will be paying close attention to the advice and help offered to him by those ratings who have spent the recent In the Crown Court watching the delays accumulate. Some statistics, my Lords. In September, 2024, there are 73,105 open criminal cases. Nearly double the figure for 2019. Seriously delayed cases included 21% for violence, 18% for sexual offences, public funding for justice declining 24% in real per person terms between 2010 and 2023. This is an unacceptable situation.

As it happens, last Friday, I attended the valediction of a judge at the Maidstone Crown Court. His Honour, Judge Philip Stefan, is not a famous judge but he has been an exceptionally good one, admired over 20 years in two Crown Courts. Those who took the trouble of attending were there because we knew he was an outstanding member of the judiciary who should be the centre. In a courtroom with standing room only, we congregated to say a reluctant farewell to someone who has been the very model of modern a circuit judge.

Has tried everything, for example, matters. Like all good judges, he is also judges, judged judges, he is also judges, judged He told us of how in his last He told us of how in his last three weeks as a circuit judge, during what he described jocularly as the bits and pieces caught, he dealt with 10 cases each day in his first three weeks, 150 cases. One judge, 150 cases. He commented that too much judge time is spent filling the roles of case progression officers and that every hour spent on administration is an hour away from judge craft, as he put it, from getting it right for all those coming before the court and seeking justice.

Judge statement was not grumbling but he was giving a gentle nudge to allow judges to judge and do right by all manner of people -- Judge Statman. As he said, we need more judges, more competent criminal advocates, more sitting days. There is, how does one explain inordinate delay to grieving families in cases of murder, death by dangerous driving, sexual abuse? I adopt for this debate, my Lords, his reference to the case of the Queen in the Court of Appeal.

In that case, to experience judges commented that all too often judges although too little time for sentencing hearings, too little time for the hearing itself and for the judge should take time to reflect and to weigh up all relevant, often conflicting, considerations in arriving at the appropriate sentence. Today, I received, through an email, a message from a judge who will remain anonymous who described that they had had to do 30 hours of unpaid preparation of a case they were about to see in the Crown Court.

Court listings said the Court of Appeal inside a should ensure there is sufficient time for the judge even if they know the case will. The judge must take the time to read and prepare sentencing remarks in age and appropriate language. Judges must have time to think. Wise and correct words, my Lords. Again, errors views expressed by judge Statman. The jury trial is the jewel in the crown of the Crown Court. As he reminded us, rights take territories -- centuries to learn but they can be brushed away at a stroke.

That we should remove the right of jury trial from some cases to save time and cost is easily said but in my view, neither prove nor justify. There is no need to replace jury trial for smaller cases. In any event, what is a small case? A small case to some is a huge case to others. A small case for some means the end of their working life, of the reputation, of their marriage, of their family. If a police officer in a case of assault triable either way might end his career, should that attract a lesser tribunal that asking for a trial by his peers? If a teacher or doctor or for that matter, my Lords, one of us, is accused of relatively minor offence of dishonesty, if convicted, it will likely end our professional lives and destroy reputations.

Should we deny such people trial by their peers? Having been in the courtroom conducting those cases both for the defence and prosecution, during half a century of my legal career, I challenge in principle the removal of jury trial and especially because it is completely unnecessary. For what our time savings that it is asserted could -- would take days if jury trial was removed from some potentially significant cases? If a judge were sitting either alone or with magistrates, unlike jury 's verdict, the judge would have to be recent.

We could not simply have guilty or not guilty without any explanation. That reasoning would be very similar to the legal directions and summary of evidence given by the judge in jury trials and take just as much time. There might be a very small net saving and court time dealing with the jury after it has retired but generally, that represents only a tiny slice of time It's likely that decisions from such intermediate courts would give rise to significant increase in appeals and more use of court time.

It would be difficult to exclude appeals on questions of fact which are not appealable from jury verdicts, saving the importance of new evidence arising after the jury verdict. I know subsequent speakers will address alternative and effective ways to recuse judges more effectively. In addition, time can be saved by the more effective use of amended Crown Court rules. Prosecution and defence advocates should be required to provide short skeleton arguments ahead or well ahead of the hearing date for all cases, including guilty plea cases not requiring a jury.

The prosecution should be required to indicate in advance any sentencing guidelines that are relevant. The defence should be required to indicate the number of their mitigation submissions, including indication of what they should -- submit should be an appropriate sentence of the case. Advocates should be paid for the work they do on such intermediate documents. Currently, almost the entire fee payment in a criminal case is loaded into the final trial or plea hearing. I do welcome the presence in this debate of Lord Bellamy who have done valuable work in relation to legal aid.

I look forward to what he says about payment of advocates. Advocates should be required to adhere to the timesaving rules and remunerated for the currently unpaid work they do on preparing documentation. I have no doubt there would be a favourable cost benefit evaluation of such work. I'm absolutely sure from my experience that that sort of exchange of information would mean many cases would be over in minutes with such a system. And there should be a target of no more than two hearings in every ordinary case.

You would not believe how many hearings there are sometimes in small cases in the Crown courts. In an excellent House of Lords library briefing produced on the In an excellent House of Lords library briefing produced on 13 March this year, one of the three courses of the current situation was described as more ineffective trials. Saying 27 percent of trials do not go ahead on the day scheduled, almost doubling since 2017. Key reasons included witness and defendant unavailability and the late arrival or non-arrival of prisoner transport.

This shocking figure calls for severe contractual financial penalties for such failures. Another cause of the backlog is that decline in the number of criminal law barrister is available for publicly paid criminal available for publicly paid criminal work. Declaring my interest as a member conducting predominantly criminal work... Elsewhere in their profession would produce sharper, quicker, better prepared cases. Sitting days need to increase, which in my view would show a cost benefit gain. Part of the cost benefit analysis should factor in the paraphernalia of problems for those involved, including worsening mental health until the cases are determined and 20 percent of defendants retained in custody and acquitted later with significant financial loss.

Of course we have to recognise that work can be done better, doing cases a little faster can improve the quality of a trial. That should be subject to judicial directions, particularly where there is interminable documentary evidence which could be summarised more effectively, which juries struggle effectively, which juries struggle with. A major area for first more than I have done a number which have lasted months and months, far longer than 20 days. In cases where it can be agreed between prosecution and defence that a nonjury trial would be satisfactory, subject to specific provisions that would be acceptable, we could speed up the courts, such provisions may include a maximum sentence of say seven years in prison, a judge sitting with two experts alongside the Competition Appeal Tribunal's model, which was presided over by Lord Bellamy when I became a chair of that tribunal, and a full written judgement along Competition Appeal Tribunal lines.

These courts could be separated from the general Crown Court. In addition, there should be more and earlier diverging orders in suitable cases to ensure that young offenders can be diverted from crime. In increasing the credit for guilty pleas when the case has not yet reached trial. Unfortunately, we have a crisis in the Crown Court, we should not waste that crisis. I suggest that careful and moderate organisation of the Crown Court system, including more efficient management at every level cannot solve current problems without solve current problems without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

damaging the fundamentals of our trusted justice standards and principles. The question is this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I draw attention to my interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I draw attention to my interest in the register. It is a privilege to be part of this debate today. And to be part of this debate today. And an honour of my life to be giving my Maiden speech in this great House. I want to start with thanks to all of want to start with thanks to all of my new colleagues on these benches and noble Lords from across the House for all of your warm welcome. To my sponsors for their huge support and encouragement, not just

16:38

Baroness Longfield (Labour)

- -

lately, but over the years, and the House staff for being helpful and kind as I find my way around this place, the corridors and procedures, place, the corridors and procedures, they have been tolerant, courteous and ways pointed me in the right direction. I checked this debate today because it relates to so many today because it relates to so many of the issues I have spent 40 years of my working life focusing on. Families and children growing up in poverty, poor housing, with poor mental health, living with domestic abuse and addiction.

Those children abuse and addiction. Those children most likely to fall through the most likely to fall through the gaps. I will come back to this but wanted first to give you an idea of my own journey to this place. I grew up in a small town in West Yorkshire, my father's family worked as engineers and he designed engines for aviation. My mother was a carer for her parents who had lost their sight early on in life. We all lived in the same House.

I knew first-hand the challenges life could bring you, but also how vital support was. Their values of hard work, enterprise, caring for your community and a strong dose of that Yorkshire, get on with it, spirit, alongside a good deal of encouragement from some great teachers, what I took with me when I left to be the first in my family to go to universities. As I threw myself into working with children myself into working with children and families in London.

New to the capital in the '80s, the inequalities of childhood experiences were stark, the families I work within the East End had no expectations, the explosion of creativity, creativity and wealth along the river in Canary Wharf would change their lives. They also showed me how things can be different, with the right support, families can overcome challenges and share in the opportunities. I spent the last four decades working to enhance those opportunities for all enhance those opportunities for all children.

The national children's charity and worked to deliver the Sure Start program and Number 10's strategy in it, I campaigned for better childcare at a time when many so the issue is quite niche. As children's commissioner for England, I spent six years championing the rising interest of children with those in power who make decisions about children's lives. I'm particularly proud of the pioneering work my office did, highlighting the barriers that hold children back in their life chances. My list year -- last year of Children's Commissioner coincided with the COVID pandemic, I saw then how children can too often slip from you and be an afterthought.

We should celebrate that most children and families in our country are doing well but a sizeable group or not and we need to be ambitious for them also. We lost so many of the early intervention programs, Sure Start, youth clubs, family support projects, we now put billions into acute, late intervention services. The one million children who come into care to late and cost £250,000 or more year to care for. We should pay year to care for.

We should pay tribute to... Misogyny at this time. When I asked children, in prison, how they end up there, almost everyone can pinpoint when things got worse and what could have been done differently. It is almost like a blueprint. The first excretion at school, moment losing her job, professional interventions that came too late. Four in 10 children in custody now are on remand. Most will not receive an immediate custodial sentence once they get to court. I have argued we should do everything we can to keep most children out of custody during remand.

We see promising results from a Ministry of Justice pilot that keeps children are remand in Manchester. It will not surprise My Lords to hear that I will continue to work on causes like this in the House. I believe in the potential of public services to stand alongside people to bring about positive change. I also believe, as I'm with these to say to me, quite often, where there is a will, there is a way. I know everyone in this House one children in our country to flourish, but my experience has taught me it will not happen for a lot of children, they need help to prevent problems becoming barriers.

I will be doing all I can to ensure that we in this House do all we can to provide the kind of help and support that can change those lives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure and an honour to follow Baroness honour to follow Baroness Bloomfield's Maiden speech. She is a legend, she has spent decades legend, she has spent decades campaigning to improve the campaigning to improve the experience of children. In her powerful, moving speech just now, she demonstrated her continued determination to fight for the determination to fight for the rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens stop her persuasive expertise will make her a persuasive expertise will make her a valued member of your Lordship House, I look forward to working with her in the future.

Other noble Lords expressed concerns on the impact of the backlog on victims and defendants. What is less well-known is there is a looming recruitment and retention crisis in the

16:44

Baroness Levitt (Labour)

- -

judiciary. The caseload of Crown Court judges is unsustainable. The recent judicial attitudes survey found very high levels of stress and disillusionment in judges, 35 disillusionment in judges, 35 percent of them are planning to take early retirement. When you add this to those who will retire by virtue of age, 42 percent of Crown Court judges will be gone by 2029. Of the judges will be gone by 2029. Of the part-time judges of whom knew judges are appointed, only 22 percent are planning to apply for a full-time role.

There are things that can be done and some of them do not need to cost much money. It just requires the system to think about things differently. It has been a tenet of faith over many years that what is needed is judicial case management. Until now, it has been said by senior judges and others, defining criminal proceeding rules and timetables. They have been wasting much of their time. Most of the parties to a criminal trial have barely heard of the rules, far less having read them.

In the Crown Court there are no sticks and precious few carrots, cannot make the parties comply and there is no incentive for them to do so because they are paid the same whether they do it or whether they do not. The result is a large number of pointless hearings in court, achieving little other than increased blood pressure and an increased backlog. I do not have to imagine these problems because until just before Christmas, I was one of those judges. I used to think constantly, I have 35 years experience as a criminal barrister, 12 of which is a KC, I never thought I would sit in hearing at the hearing, day after day, saying the council, so you have done none of the things you were ordered to do? OK.

Let's set the new timetable which you and I both know you're not going to comply with either. Crown Court judges are a precious resource. Many of them came to it because they regarded as public service. Yet, they cannot get on with the things they ought to be doing because they are spending a large proportion of their working lives messing around setting timetables. I also have reservations about an intermediate court with no jury. My concerns include the impact on diversity and public confidence.

Most juries are economically and socially diverse. The judiciary, My proposal is for an intermediate judge who could for example be a district judge interested in a promotion to the Crown Court. The master good here the small, routine applications were presiding over jury trials and passing sentences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- While presiding over jury trials. May I first of all congratulate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I first of all congratulate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I first of all congratulate the noble Baroness Lady Longfield on her maiden speech and welcome her to this house. And thank Lord Carlile this house. And thank Lord Carlile for reading this debate. In my view, for reading this debate. In my view, we have two fundamental problems with the court system. First of all, there are not enough terminal there are not enough terminal lawyers to go around. Whether it is CPS, prosecution or defence.

16:48

Lord Bellamy (Conservative)

- -

Secondly, as the noble Lady Levitt has also said, there are many inefficiencies within the court system. If we can tackle those, we might not need radical reform. I might not need radical reform. I would like to take a very brief I would like to talk very briefly with would like to talk very briefly with four points. I understand that in 2025, stairs Crown Court would still 2025, stairs Crown Court would still 2025, stairs Crown Court would still be unable to use more than 25% capacity.

Another cohort -- Crown Court coast last month. And only 8/20 courts at the Old Bailey were actually working. My Lords, at the present time, the court backlog is an emergency. There is no justification in such an emergency for an outdated accounting rules to restrict court settings. On the question of costs, the court system has high fixed costs. But the marginal costs are relatively low. Part-time recorders fee is 800 Part-time recorders fee is £800 a Part-time recorders fee is £800 a day.

It is basic economics. The correct economic response is to maximise to reduce unit costs. Prison restrictions laid absurdly to the opposite result. Higher unit cost but lower court disposal. It is not an efficient system. More fundamentally, under the Courts act fundamentally, under the Courts act 2003, tribunals ... Under section 17 of the Constitutional reform act 2005, the Lord Chancellor takes a formal oath to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient running of the court.

It is not subject to Treasury or political change. So would the Minister accept that by virtue of those steps, court resources must be ring fenced from spending cuts? Lastly, given the astonishing figure from the MAO that 27% of trials are ineffective, as mentioned by Lord Carlile, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that although listing is traditionally regarded as a judicial function, the general efficiency of listing practices as distinct from decisions on individual cases is a legitimate subject of public debate and scrutiny by Parliament -- NAO.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From these benches, we welcome the noble Baroness to her place and the noble Baroness to her place and congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech and look forward to hearing more from her. The lady

16:51

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:54

The Lord Bishop of London (Bishops)

- -

also like to welcome the noble Lady Baroness Longfield to her place. It continues to be a great shame that the criminal justice is one of those Cinderella public services. We often talk or feel like spending money on schools and healthcare is good, and of course it is, but talking about spending money on prisons, probation and the court is much less frequently affirmed. This is despite the fact that not spending and the courts has a terrible implication for victims.

I wonder whether improving public understanding of the importance of a well-functioning court system for victims and dependents -- defendants may be a key to gaining wider support and resources that are so desperately needed. What decisions has the government made to improve public understanding in this way? As has already been mentioned, the new report of the Victim Commissioner lays bare the extent of the support. It includes a significant toll on victims mental and physical health with a risk that they may, in the words of the noble Lady Baroness Newlove, give up on seeking justice altogether, a second justice -- injustice compounding the first.

The report published last week details the distressed experience of victims of rape and sexual -- serious sexual offences. Many found the delay so traumatic that they withdrew from the process. And adult rape cases, 59% of victims were dropping out precharge in June 2024. Perhaps the most distressing part, as already mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Carlile and Lord Bellamy, is the increasing number of ineffective trials. Scheduled trials that do not go ahead on the day.

As we've heard, according to the National Audit Office, published last month, the proportion of ineffective trials has increased from 16% in 2019 to 27% in 2023. Is referred, some of the reasons mentioned, include field or delayed transport. I wonder if we should ask the question, if money is being saved in one part of the system at the cost of another? What steps are the government taking to look at spending holistically across the system so that increased investment can be shown to pay for itself in the longer term? Finally, I welcome the government's wider focus on reforming criminal justice and the call for creative thinking.

This is especially seen through the sentencing review to which my noble friend the Bishop of Gloucester submitted a paper proposing a new approach to sentencing reform. I hope we will continue to think creatively but always with victims and defendants in mind to reduce the Crown Court luggage. -- Blockage. Crown Court luggage. -- Blockage.

16:57

Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)

- -

May I join others in congratulating the noble Lady Baroness Longfield on her instructive maiden speech? The outstanding caseload in the Crown Court has reached a level, which is irretrievable without a radical change to the way in which many Crown Court trials are conducted. I repeat just a few figures. In January, 2019, the outstanding caseload was 33,000. It rose to 40,000 as COVID lockdown engulfed us in 2020. The end of September 2025, in 2020. The end of September 2025, it was over 73,000.

The December figure will soon be published by the Ministry of Justice. There is no doubt that it will be significantly higher. The backlog continues to grow and that is because the volume of cases coming into the system has greatly increased. There is no sign of those volumes diminishing. The proportion of cases taking more than one year to conclude at the Crown Court has roughly doubled over the same period. My Lords, all those involved in the system are working hard to I ran out problems which result in too many hearings, ineffective trials or date guilty pleas and much else that has been referred to.

I'm afraid those changes and improvements will not changes and improvements will not solve the problem. They would help. Similarly, extra sitting days will not solve the problem but would help. There is an obvious solution and in this, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Lord Carlile who must be congratulated for this debate. A substantial proportion of cases that can be tried either in the magistrates court or Crown Court but which currently go to the Crown Court should be decided, in my view, in that court by the same composition that deals with appeals from the magistrates court.

That is a judge and to magistrates. -- two. Obvious cases for such trials would be all offences which carry a maximum of two years imprisonment. It is the maximum sentence that enables a defendant to elect for a jury trial. Many other cases, including drugs offences, criminal damage, regulatory offences, and others were on conviction, the sentence would inevitably be non- custodial or short term of imprisonment, might also be considered for should be such trials. Such trials would take hours rather than a couple of days because that is how long they take in the Magistrates Court.

Perhaps, more importantly, much of the technical not guilty pleas that are entered in the Crown Court at the moment would The limit which I notice I have reached makes it impossible to develop the arguments or deal with the reasoned arguments in the opposition. Having pondered this question for some time, this solution first mooted 25 years ago by Sir Robin Ormond stands a good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chance of reversing what is other -- otherwise an inexorable decline. I would like to add my

17:01

Baroness Hazarika (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to add my congratulations to my honourable congratulations to my honourable On her excellent Maiden speech. She has been such a force for good in public life, speaking up for young people and I know she's going to make a fantastic contribution. She is also my roommate so I don't know if that is a blessing recurs for her, it's certainly very lucky from my point of view. We are all rightly concerned about the huge backlogs in the court system as we heard reports the court system as we heard reports , profoundly shocking.

We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. How can we look at victims of crime in the eye and say we do care when the trial could take years and they have to live in limbo waiting for their day in court, particularly women, particularly those female victims of sexual violence. These delays cause anger, hurt and frustration to all parties and we heard they can also make people drop the case. The system which this new government has inherited is broken. That's why it is good that there is some radical thinking going on and I welcome that the government has asked Brian Everson to conduct this review.

I know that many of my Lords and ladies will disagree with me but I do think it's time to examine whether we can move away from trial by Jury's in some, not all cases was because I ask this question, how can it be right that a class a drugs offence sits in the Crown Court while a vulnerable rape victim has to wait five years from reports to courts? I also hope we can use magistrates courts more, they do excellent work and having spoken with many in the profession would be keen to step up.

Could the Minister tell us the -- if there are plans to recruit more magistrates as we may need more of them if we are looking to change the system. Could he also update us on plans to improve court infrastructure, including crumbling buildings and the national computer system which often goes down and causes delays. We all have a shared interest in sorting this out. We are a country that is built on the rule of law and we believe in having a strong legal system.

If we do not find a way to clear these backlogs and in a reasonable time space, there is a real danger that people not only lose trust in our system, but feel that we now live in a society which is essentially lawless. And that crimes go unpunished for years and years and years and then maybe just wither away. That is something none of us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want. To congratulate Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To congratulate Baroness Longfield on her excellent speech. I should declare an interest as a practising barrister and a former record of the Crown Court. There is record of the Crown Court. There is no doubt of the disastrous no doubt of the disastrous , unfair to defendants, to witnesses, particularly complainants, and they bring the

17:04

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

complainants, and they bring the whole justice system into disrepute. When I was a member of the Constitution Committee we considered the effect of COVID on court backlogs. I think we were right to do so it's a constitutional issue. I was anxious to explore the possibility of reducing jury trials and replacing them with trial by judge only or judge and to magistrates for top my colleagues were a bit uneasy about the suggestion, although I spoke about his neurologic house. I then asked the question addressed to Lord Bellamy, I suggested that a defendant should have the right to choose to be tried by a judge rather than a jury.

A pretty modest proposal and I was met with a very firm response in the negative. I do think it is time to think quite seriously about jury trial. Of course we have a strong romantic attachment to it. We know very little about why juries come to their decisions. Anecdotes about the process are not always as reassuring. We infantilised juries by only allowing the admission of evidence we think they can handle rather than allowing them to decide what is important.

We do not require any -- reasons to be given to their decisions which makes the appeal process difficult. It was standing back and considering why it is desirable that more than 90% of all offences are tried by those with expertise either district judges or magistrates who are trained and have a legal advising. For the five% or so of the most serious offences we think it wise to allow them to be tried by a random selection of citizens who would no doubt do their citizens who would no doubt do their best.

It should perhaps be borne in mind that we used to have jury trials for personal injury cases and libel cases, absence is not missed. Nora juries a universal feature of the Criminal Justice System. I have course paid great regard to what Lord Carlile said about this and I congratulate him for bringing forward this debate. Three minutes is not long enough to develop this important topic. But I would commend a chapter by the late and much missed Barnaby of Eaton-under- Heywood and his book 2nd helpings.

It was more than 50 years ago that Lord ROSCO suggested that fraud trials should not be tried by juries. These backlogs allow us to think about the future of this mode of trial. I hope this government is rather more amenable to the possibility than its predecessor. At least restricting trials by jury and perhaps by intermediate trials. It's not a good idea to abolish something because of the backlogs, but the backlogs do allow us to think carefully about what we need to do by way of trials.

17:07

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

The failure of the to use -- of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The failure of the to use -- of us to use qualified interpreters can add to the backlog not to mention the costs. I declare interests as the costs. I declare interests as co-chair of the all-party group and modern languages and vice president of the chartered and linguists. I of the chartered and linguists. I have warmly welcomed this week's publication by the MoJ of the review of qualifications and experience required by public service interpreters and thank the government for accepting all its recommendations.

During the COVID lockdown was a major shift towards remote court hearings, but a series of reports found serious concerns about remote interpreting with misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology and Mr verbal and non-verbal cues. The University of Surrey Centre for translation studies has produced cutting-edge research on the use of technology in court interpreting. This research and best practice guidance have been divided to the MoJ, could the Minister say whether they have been distributed to the courts, because they will always be certain situations where remote interpreting as appropriate or unavoidable.

Remote interpreting generally takes more time and slow things down, so if the primary driver is cost saving that the impact on court time and therefore backlog clearing must be factored in when weighing up the imagined savings vs true costs. The other strategy which might well backfire and cause greater delays is the uncontrolled use of AI enabled machine translation rather than a qualified human being. Accuracy must be nonnegotiable but according to the CRL for interpreting as opposed to translation it is very unlikely in the near term that AI or machine translation will be usable as anything other than a support tool for human interpreters without major risks and the likelihood of appeals and legal challenges.

It works pretty well for the standard European Romance languages and for German, but significantly less so for languages with many dialect like Arabic. It can be nearly useless for languages which are rarely included in AI training data including many Asian and African languages. Given this disparity it will be almost impossible for the courts to maintain equality of treatment maintain equality of treatment before the law. AI and machine translation, -- commonly failed to detect sarcasm, irony or humour, but to mention slang and euphemism, often used in crime to disguise meaning.

Which human interpreters readily understand which leave AI befuddled and hallucinating. Mayo therefore asked the Minister if the MoJ is fully engaged with DSIT in his work to develop policy on AI including for machine translation so that the courts can derive the benefits without the pitfalls. Finally the Minister also reassure the House that the amendments to the Victims' Code to ensure that the use only professional qualified translators and interpreters and which she supported so strongly when in opposition will be brought into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice without any further delay. May I also start by welcoming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I also start by welcoming owners Longfield and thanking her owners Longfield and thanking her for an important Maiden speech. The issues of sentencing presence in the court system simply cannot be court system simply cannot be separated. The backlogs that have triggered this debate today must be

17:11

Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)

- -

triggered this debate today must be looked at in that wider context. The recent Public Accounts Committee report looks specifically at the Crown Court backlog, looking at specifically at the Crown Court backlog makes the point that the end of last year, 11% of the prison population was made up of remand inmates, the highest level in 50 years. 32% of the remand population have been held on remand beyond six months with five% on remand for more than two years. The report makes the point that even getting levels down to where they were in 2019, just six years ago, would free up as many as 8,000 prison places.

The state of our prisons and the very difficult Work Work of Work of helping Work of helping equip Work of helping equip people Work of helping equip people for Work of helping equip people for a life beyond their releases made even harder with such a high proportion of inmates there on remand. The situation is also not helping the remand prisoners themselves, the longer someone waits before coming to court for resolution of their guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, the more removed they often become from the day-to-day fabric of their life, from their job, their family, their friends.

This helps no one. There has been political consensus for a long time now that much sentencing is not optimal, with people being sent to prison were in many cases of the sentences would be more appropriate. Courts sit at the heart of this conversation, the sentencing review which has been referenced being undertaken by David gawker is hugely important. These reforms shouldn't be looked at piecemeal. As Levinson also undertakes his review, into this issue around backlogs and the criminal courts more poor -- broadly, the two reviews absolutely must be dovetailed together into one coherent whole.

Reform is long overdue and it requires us to look at the system as a whole, sentencing and the courts. With both court backlogs and prison capacity forcing these issues to be addressed, we should see this as an opportunity. I Two specific points of the noble Lord the Minister. Firstly can he please outline what has been done to consider the impact of the large number of remand prisoners on the wider pressures, and capacity issues with the prison system. Secondly can he commit that the government will respond to the two reviews when they report in an integrated way and consider changes to sentencing and changes to the court system as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole. The essential causes of the backlog we are debating are clear enough. They are to be found in enough. They are to be found in prevalent or austerity measures, underfunding of legal aid, sales of the court state and underinvestment the court state and underinvestment in the remainder. What has been described as the unmitigated disaster of privatisation of the disaster of privatisation of the probation service. A bad situation was made worse, the courts and was made worse, the courts and forecourt users by the pandemic.

Some of which I spent in a subterranean Nightingale courts. The response of all court staff to the pandemic was impressive, and should be acknowledged. The effects of the backlog are also clear. Particularly for victims. The courts have to prioritise some types of cases inevitably to the disadvantage of others. Delays impair the court process, evidence does get mislaid, witnesses disappear or disengage. Juries require specific necessary directions on the effect of passing

17:15

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

time on memories of events and of the availability and reliability of witnesses. Of particular concern to witnesses. Of particular concern to family judges are cases in which there are parallel proceedings in a criminal and family court. It used criminal and family court. It used to be possible to defer hearing a family case which was likely to be family case which was likely to be determined by the outcome of a criminal case. Delays now mean that simply cannot be done. The situation is now reversed, the charging decision is often awaiting the decision of a fact-finding hearing in the family court.

Produces yet further delay in the criminal case and prolonged uncertainty for the family and in particular for children. In the short-term, clearly courts and the court estate should be worked fully to capacity without artificial and frustrating restrictions on committee sitting days will stop that would allow for use of trial and sentencing blitzes and for more use of part-time judges including those authorised to sit in retirement, but I agree with Lord Bellamy that it is really time to end the fiction that listing is a end the fiction that listing is a Long-term consideration should be given by the Bar Council requiring a Crown Court trial is to start within six months of the first hearing.

Which, in time will prove no more unrealistic than the 26 weeks for disposal of public law, children's law in the family court, to which legal and other professionals have responded resolutely. That should be underpinned by rigorous case management, while procedural judges, leaving the full-time judiciary, particularly court centres, from work which cuts into and holds up ongoing trials. Time does not permit to consider the all the longer term suggested solutions eroding jury suggested solutions eroding jury trials.

We should recall the Lammy Review and researcher that concluded that the one stage in the Criminal Justice System, where a minority group do not face disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.

17:16

Lord Lemos (Labour)

- -

Can I also congratulate my noble friend, Lady Longfield on her maiden speech. I greatly welcome the arrival of such a powerful advocate for children, in your Lordships' House macro. I should declare my own interest. I have been non-executive director of His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, since 2018. I welcome the government's efforts to reduce the court backlog and the timely system is fundamental to public confidence in justice. However this is only one of the steps are needed for a sustainable Criminal Justice System.

Prisons are at best, once offenders will be held into police cells under safeguard. Introducing various early release measures, otherwise offenders would have had no prison to go to. Latest logistical challenges and public protection risks involved deciding who to release and when. They are obviously tremendously complex. Prisoner building will not resolve this crisis, My Lords and certainly not soon. As I think the Lord Chancellor has recognise. Normally, prisons would operate at about 90% occupancy, not 99% plus.

Even these lower levels often mean serious lower levels often mean serious crowding, in a Victorian prisons alike HMP Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs. They are often restricted, particularly when there are staff shortages. The consequences are starting to appear in boredom, disorder and violence. The truth is, a whole system of courts, prisons and probation is operating way beyond capacity. And increasing activity, in one part of the chain simply increases demand pressure, elsewhere. We need much more than temporary fixes.

Locking up more and more people, for longer and longer has led to the current crisis. It has done little to reassure the public that they are adequately protected. I eagerly anticipate the reviews of survivor Levenson into court backlog and into court sentencing. It is through the greater use of non-custodial punishments. I use the word punishment to convey the seriousness of the intent. Currently less than 10% of tags and are less than 2% or on home detention curfews.

In my view we will need a new branch the probation service to supervise increased numbers of offenders, in the community. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Criminal Justice System can only be brought back into a long-term sustainable balance, bite fundamentally re- concealed and radically approved Probation Service, which will need considerable investment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also congratulate Baroness Longfield on an excellent speech and look forward to hearing from you,

17:20

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench)

- -

look forward to hearing from you, later on. I think we must accept that the Criminal Justice System currently does not have the capacity, in terms of the CPS, defence lawyers, prison places, to actually get a grip, to deal with the delays that we have, in the judicial system. And I want to, as a former Commissioner, talk in relation to what is happening now on the streets and in relation to policing. And the noble Lord the Minister has heard from me on the rape cases previously and others, which took place 10 days ago.

It takes four years for a rape case to arrive at the Crown Court. At the present time, 91 trials listed at Snaresbrook will not be heard until the latter part of 2028. This is the same delays that have some, Woolwich, and Central criminal Court. --'s book. What is the answer? There are some in my view, low lying fruits. The first would be to reopen and continuation of the Nightingale courts. The second would be the turning of the magistrates be the turning of the magistrates court, in to a Crown Court which is what happened at Hendon when Harrow was close.

They have to be at the right standard. I recently went around some courts, they were filthy, the toilets were disgraceful and the whole atmosphere was not one that you would want to spend much time in. I believe that the court hearings should go from 10 in the morning until four in the afternoon. And in addition to that, I think greater credit should be given to a defendant pleading guilty, on the first day of his appearance, rather than on the third appearance, when than on the third appearance, when he or she turns up for trial.

I think the question determining trial, in a way should be decided by the judge and not the defendant. I think greater consistency should be given to a listing the process, allowing the police to prioritise caseloads, and given times. They have made a plea for me to actually talk about that today. The only way that this can be dealt with by cross-party, cross departmental attack on it. Chaired by someone who has the power to get different departments to deal with this problem.

Because it must be solved. It is a scandal, at the present time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a former Chair of the Bar Council and a recorder of the Crown Court. I begin by congratulating and welcoming Lady by congratulating and welcoming Lady Longfield, into this House. The context, today, was set for me, by context, today, was set for me, by the survey just published, that one in three criminal barristers is considering leaving a criminal work, considering leaving a criminal work, because they say they work too hard, for too little. That will only make for too little.

That will only make

17:24

Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)

- -

things worse. From 2009/2010, two 2022 for /2023, public funding for 2022 for /2023, public funding for justice in England and Wales had declined by over 22%, in real terms. declined by over 22%, in real terms. It is worth noting that the ministry of justice budget is about 1% of the health budget. Obviously some backlog in the Crown Court is inevitable. Cases waiting to be inevitable. Cases waiting to be tried need time for proper preparation. So the issue is not preparation.

So the issue is not having a backlog, but the deficit, the failure of the system, properly to cope with it. The backlog, we have heard, is caused by many different factors, but especially, I suggest, reduced quarter sitting days and too few criminal barristers and those with the right certification and approval to do serious criminal cases and rape cases and so on. So I welcome at the Government's recent decision to raise the sitting day cap to a 110,000, in the next financial year.

But there must be adequate funding to ensure that these new available sitting days are properly used. The number of Crown Court cases, coming into the Crown Court, routinely exceeds the disposals. In the third quarter of 2024, there were over 30,000, 1000 cases, received into the Crown Court. That was a 12% increase on the previous year. This rising tide must be controlled and reversed. The number of cases in the backlog, as we have seen now, continue to rise over time.

What are we going to do to tackle that backlog? We have had a number of suggestions, one I suggest and this was one suggested by the bar Council, was that the CPS was given more consideration to the better use of cautions and conditional cautions, for low-level offending, by those of good character who are not likely to receive prison sentences. The Crown Prosecution Service should also be considering whether a summary charge, of the consequences of the summary trial may actually be sufficient for many cases? Particularly now that the magistrates courts jurisdiction has been increased.

I endorse the suggestion of Lord Bernard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his experience as a Lord Chief Justice, that we should be looking very seriously at intermediate Court, of a judge sitting with justices. The court estate must be used to full capacity, Sitting Days of the Crown Court Must Be Removed. Better Fees Must Be Paid to Criminal and Defence Barristers, to Ensure We Have Enough to Meet the Demand. 20 Years Ago, as a Chair of the Bar Council, I urged the then Department of Constitutional affairs to pay properly for pre-trial place management.

Nothing was done, we have the best we have, because of that. So there we are, delay damages, damages and victims, damages this is, damages defenders. It destroys of this country's reputation for justice, we must do better. better.

17:27

Lord Hacking (Labour)

- -

I must begin by congratulating my new colleague, the Baroness Longfield on her maiden speech. And give her a very big welcome in your Lordships' House. I really speak in these Thursday backbench debates, for I fear I do not have the necessary expertise. I'm not really sure that I have the necessary expertise, for this debate, but I did, long ago practice as a long barrister, in the courts of quarter session, laid at the Crown Court, in the 1960s and the 1970s.

I then was not aware of any backlog, any backlog at all of criminal cases, waiting for trial. It is now a big problem. As recorded in our briefing notes, provided by our library, 73,205 criminal cases are waiting, were awaiting trial in September last year. A bar student, who was my guest last night, told me that he worked recently in the Birmingham crowned court, which has only three ushers. The result was the great underuse of those courts.

Lord Bellamy has made that comment. I endorse all he said. Clearly there is something wrong. The great difference, my Lord, because of days of long ago, when I was in practice of the bar and these days is the length of trials. Murder trials and then, seldom went over a week and were often much shorter. Now they are double, triple or even more. And it is exactly the same, my lords, with other criminal trials. Indeed, colleague and this is a civil matter, told me the other day that he couldn't make further commitments, because he was about to start a trial, which was scheduled for a year.

This was quite unheard- of, in those days of long ago. It is a very difficult to cut down the length of criminal trials. It will be perceived there is too much at stake for both the prosecution and the defence. We have got to play our part in reducing this terrible backlog. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his excellent opening speech identified, greater efficiency, in court process could

17:30

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

This has been a wide ranging and This has been a wide ranging and impressive debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile for securing it and for the comprehensive and persuasive way in comprehensive and persuasive way in which he opened it. I also join, with everyone, in congratulating the noble Lady, Baroness Longfield on her excellent and are moving maiden her excellent and are moving maiden speech. Long experience with the speech. Long experience with the charity, and as Children's Commissioner will be invaluable.

She Commissioner will be invaluable. She has shown today how she would give us a full insight into how the Criminal Justice System impacts on the lives of children and young people. Lord Carlile's motion are rightly concentrates on the impact of delays on evidence, victims and the fairness of proceedings for defendants. Last Tuesday, following the Lord Chancellor's statement to the House of Commons, I described the current backlog of 73,000 cases awaiting trial, as an after disgrace. Lord Carlile and others have given us the figures.

I do maintain that the Government could mitigate these delays, with a determined and urgent action to Free lawyer who has worked in trials civil and criminal well knows that evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time. The accounts of honest witnesses often differ markedly, even when events are recent and reasonably fresh. But discerning the truth becomes much more difficult as time passes. Recollections fade, witnesses become available, unavailable and details are forgotten. Often details which could help distinguish accuracy from false and whether deliberate or unintended.

Then documents get lost, or their meaning and import are not recalled. Unreliable evidence means unreliable trials. Often leading to surprising acquittals where juries cannot be sure of guilt. There is also a risk of unsafe convictions, particularly where defence evidence cannot be found or witnesses traced and called. As Lord Carlile and Baroness Levitt pointed out, the problems are compounded by having a demoralised, frustrated and often overstressed judiciary. As Lord Thomas Lord Sandhurst said, and underpaid and unhappy Cader barristers.

The motion speaks of the effect on victims and in that context we rightly stress the effects of years of delay in victims of sexual violence. With many dropping out of prosecutions because they simply cannot take the strain as the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of London described. That is desperately unjust for the victims. Who feel they have no option but to let the perpetrators go free and to live with the guilt that goes with the fear that those same perpetrators would reoffend against other victims.

So perpetrators are not brought to justice and that means a widespread lack of public confidence in the justice system as a whole. The noble Lord the Minister mentioned last week that there were courts, he mentioned Bristol, where sexual violence cases were treated separately and brought on faster than other cases. Should not that be a general practice? But it's not just sexual violence cases where victims suffer from these delays, court delays light the entire system. When the motion speaks of unfairness to defendants, innocent defendants are deprived, sometimes for years of the chance to clear their names.

They and their families suffer unjustly through the process, often off to shop -- ostracised by friends, losing employment and suffering intolerable strain for extended periods. Defendants who are guilty can lose the chance of early access to rehabilitative services. Sometimes in ways that might surprising. Many defendants as we all know need help with mental health issues. But they can be cut off from treatment. My daughter, an NHS doctor, has referred me to the exclusion criteria of one NHS Trust for access to talking therapies.

Such therapies are not available to and I quote, individuals who are undergoing court or legal proceedings which involve harm to others. I do not believe this is atypical. Defendants to a charge of violence cannot access sometimes for years of delay, a service that might really help them to address the mental issues that brought them before the court in the first place. Thus the cruelty of justice delayed takes a serious toll on the lives of all those affected. So what is to be done? First the MoJ must take up in my view all the sitting days the honourable lady Chief Justice says are available.

Lord Thomas referred to her views, and I have no doubt that she is right, whatever the exact figure there are several thousand extra days that could be utilised. The first reason given by the Minister last week for not taking up those extra days was competition for resources. But long delays in court hearings do not save money, they cost money. A delayed trials have to be paid for in the end and meanwhile there are more defendants in prison on remand as Baroness Porter said.

They may be acquitted or receive community sentences at the end. There are more defendants and victims and families with their lives on hold, making greater demands on public resources as they await delayed trials. I agree with Lord Bellamy's views on increasing efficiency to reduce costs in this area. The second reason given by the Minister last week was the need to have some headroom in the system. To accommodate surges in demand for court time caused by events like the riots last summer.

I accept that that argument has some force, but in my view it would be better for such headroom to be provided if the need arises by emergency measures in the short-term rather than by tolerating in the long-term unjust and unacceptable delays. Then as others have pointed out the court maintenance program needs to be put on an emergency footing. So that our frankly decrepit courts, many unusable and unused as Lord Bellamy also pointed out, can be restored to full service.

With temporary buildings used as necessary while the necessary repairs are undertaken. I suggested last week that the government should consider evening and weekend settings for uncontested cases leaving more court days available for trials. Might the noble Lord respond that suggestion? I also agree with the suggestion of Lady Levitt that we should have criminal masters to deal with a raft of applications that don't need the attention of justice -- judges. One of the Nightingale courts may have to remain open for longer than planned, even if they are not ideal as Mersin pointed out.

As Lord Stephen said, they can be used. We do need to improve procedures so that fewer cases are adjourned because of the listing errors and prison transport mistakes which currently bedevil the Crown Court. I also agree with the procedural suggestions of Lord Carlile for more advanced notice of argument to be deployed. For skeleton arguments. I've always agreed I should say with Baroness Coussins on the need for efficient interpretation. The government accepts that more must be done, and that even with the measures they are taking the backlogs will grow.

They pin their hopes on proposals for structural reform. But we cannot rely only on the hope that the Levinson review will solve the problem. Certainly in time structural reform of the system may help for my part I am loathe to restrict jury trials not least for the reasons given by Lady Hazarika and Lord Meston, that juries are multiracial and tend to be non- discriminatory. I do see the possibilities mentioned by Lord Carlile of the new solution for long fraud trials.

But Sir Brian's report when it comes will have to be carefully considered, the government will need to respond, any reforms will take time to input and even more time for them to have an effect on the backlogs. Given the urgency we do not have that time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I begin by extending my thanks to Baroness Longfield for her

17:40

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

thanks to Baroness Longfield for her Maiden speech. And for the insight she gave to the issue of children in the justice system. An area where she no -- I know she will continue to make their important contributions to the proceedings of the South. -- Very important. Mary also thanked Lord Carlile for securing this debate on such an urgent and important issue. I will not seek to repeat all the damning statistics that we have heard already, in a sense they speak for themselves.

But for 40 many victims, justice now feels out of touch. For far too many accused, the resolution of a criminal complaint feels out of reach. Victims of serious crime such as rape, mom -- murder and robbery are being told that their cases will not be heard until 2027, or indeed as Lord Stevenson -- Kirkwhelpington pointed out, in some cases 2028. Half of victims of other Crown Court trial is adjourned or rescheduled. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency, it is a failure, it is a failure of society to deliver justice that victims deserve and expect, and it's a failure of our society to give accused their right to resolution of a criminal complaint within a reasonable and rational time.

Listening to these contributions I note that some would adopt the view that there are somehow an absolute Somehow an absolute right to trial by jury. I would not accept that proposition. Almost 90% of criminal complaints are disposed of without the requirement for a jury. It may be regarded as some sort of fundamental right, but it is not absolute and we should not regard it as something that is inviolate at all. We face a situation in which the proposal for modest change or careful and moderate improvements is simply not going to be enough.

The present lady justice lady Chief Justice has pointed out that the backlog continues to increase despite the best efforts of the Ministry of Justice, the courts and the legal profession to see it go the legal profession to see it go otherwise. The noble and learned Lord, a predecessor Lord Chief Justice pointed to the situation we are in is being essentially in need of radical change. And radical change is the only thing that is going to improve matters in the present situation.

We heard from a number of Lords about the difficulty of maintaining the appropriate number of lawyers at the criminal bar. And indeed it is clear that over many years now, the recruitment to the criminal bar has been rendered far far more difficult by reason of the very limited legal aid made available to those who practice in that critical and important area. Indeed Baroness Levitt also made the point that not only is there an impact upon the practising bar and impacts upon the judiciary themselves who in many instances feel overburdened by the situation that has now been allowed to develop in the last few years.

Again we have to look at how we can approach this, I would respectfully adopt the view already expressed by Lord Burnett and indeed Baroness Hazarika and touched upon by Lord Foulkes that we should look at some sort of intermediary court structure. There is clearly room to deal with the either way cases that I understand represent something like 40% of the existing backlog in the Crown Court. There are a number of ways in which it could be done, the adoption of something similar to the Diplock courts, where the Crown Court judge sitting with two magistrates for example would be one way forward.

Whether that should deal with only specified offences or whether it should deal with for example a sentencing power of up to two years or I might venture up to five years is a matter for debate. And cannot be resolved at this time. But there is clearly a need to address that issue and to potentially introduce such an intermediary court. I don't with respect accept Lord Carlile suggestion that this would give rise to a greater number of appeals, that was not as I understand that the experience of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland.

But again it is an issue that bears examination, and it will also be necessary to take into account the points made by Lord Meston about the impact of nonjury trials uncertain parts of our society, and I appreciate the importance of that but it's something that can be examined going forward. The reality is that we forward. The reality is that we We We cannot We cannot continue We cannot continue with We cannot continue with the We cannot continue with the backlog in the Crown Court that is simply increasing.

It is out of control. There are some interim measures that can be taken. The noble Lords Stevens referred to the Nightingale courts. I understand that originally about 16 and Nightingale courts were established of which about only 16 are in use at the present time. -- 16. Do we actually have the judiciary to man those additional courts. Do we have the practitioners of the criminal bar, who are going to be available to prosecute and defend, in those additional courts, there are so many factors coming together here, that create, not just one problem, but a chemistry of problems.

And one that cannot be resolved by one or two simple steps. It is going to take a leap of imagination, by the noble of the Minister and his department to actually address this, in a capable, credible and effective way. The noble Lady, Baroness Poulter and the noble Lord, Lord Lima's both made a very important point. There is an inextricable link between the present backlog and this increasing backlog and the immediate problem that we face with our prison population.

I understand, from the library statistics that something like 20% of our prison places are taken up by prisoners on remand. And of those a very large proportion represent, will be regarded as certain cases. If we can relieve the backlog, when immediate advantage may be that we take some of the pressure off of our present prison estate. We have to look at this, in the round. It is not just a case of saying we need more judges. It is not a case of saying we need to pay lawyers more, although I always think that is a very good idea.

It is not a case of saying that we need more court rooms and it is not a case of saying we can just introduce an intermediate court. We have to bring all of these features together. And having regard to that of course, we are immediately faced with the issue of resources. So can I make this request of the noble Lord the Minister. Will he ensure that the Hansard report on this debate is passed, by him, to his colleagues thank you.

17:48

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

This has been a fantastic debate, it has been a wide ranging, it has been extremely well-informed and it was opened by my noble friend and with her excellent maiden speech, and I very much look forward to working with her and learning from her, in the future... And particularly young people. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile for securing this debate and I think there is no doubt that the government faces a profound challenge in the Crown Court.

Our ability to provide justice to the public is of utmost importance and I'm very glad we have had this debate, here today. I will rehearse some of the statistics, even though other noble Lord have given the statistics. When this government came to power, it inherited a record and rising court backlog, which as of today stands at over 73,000 cases. It was around half of that figure, five years ago. The issue is more difficult to tackle, then just rising numbers.

Receipts are increasingly high and the outstanding caseload is different than before the pandemic. As it is made up of a greater proportion of more serious and complex offences. Those offences take up more court time and tend to have a lower guilty plea rate. In July, the Lord Chancellor made an immediate decision, upon entering office to reduce Crown Court sitting days by 500, on top of the allocation provided by the previous Lord Chancellor, and the previous government. This was followed by a further increase in 2000, sitting days, in December, of last year.

We also increase a magistrates court powers for a single trial or offence. Previously they can only impose a six-month prison sentence, for these offences, it has now been increased to 12 months and in doing so will free up capacity in the Crown Court here the most serious cases. The capacity that will be freed as an equivalent to an extra 2,000 sitting days in the Crown Court. We did not stop there, earlier this month there was funding for a record high occasion, 10,000 sitting days, in the next financial year, to deliver swift justice for victims.

This is 4,000 more days than previous government funded. However, we are aware that increase capacity alone is not enough and only fundamental reform to tackle the issue. Which is why we appointed Sir Brian Levinson, one of our testing was judges to conduct wholesale review of our criminal courts and propose long-term reforms. Tackling the outstanding case, for the Crown Court is a top priority, for this government, who will look to act on recommendations, from the report, as soon as possible.

I want to touch on other jurisdictions. Of course, the department has been focused on the tackling demand within Crown Court. It is important to recognise that it is part of an interlinking court system. We must work to tackle across the whole system. Over 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with the magistrates courts, where cases continue to be completed swiftly. While the caseload has arisen, from $72,000 and 151 cases to 333,000, 349 cases, between September, between September 23 and September and September 2024.

However my Lords, I think this is important. The timeliness of getting through that increased caseload, within the magistrates court I think that is a real achievement which we should acknowledge of the MoJ for managing and the courts themselves. To deal with the increased demand we continue to invest in criminal magistrates. This is going to be the point made by Baroness Hazarika. We are aiming to recruit similar to the numbers in the next couple of years, but we need to increase that figure and one of the things I spend my time doing is working out how we can increase the recruitment of the magistrates.

When I started as a magistrate, about 20 years ago, 30,000 and magistrates in England and Wales, there are now 14 When I started as a magistrate, about 20 years ago, 30,000 and magistrates in England and Wales, there are now 14,000. We need to get the numbers back up to 20,000 and then back up recommended. Also talking a bit about family courts, the caseload within a family courts, both in public and private is actually reducing a bit. So again that is a good story. There are other problems in the report arena, which I'm aware of, but I think the family courts as well, is not an emergency situation, which we are seeing in the crown cause.

Returning to the issue of the Crown Court backlog. Many noble Lords have asked about the impact of delays on the reliability of evidence. The point at which a number of noble Lords made, Lord Marks, amongst others. Of course this affects the victims, it affects witnesses and of course many witnesses are victims, as well. And there are a number of the measures in place to support them giving in place to support them giving their evidence. These are questions asked by the Lord Bishop of London, about the support for victims, which we do regard as very shortened.

We do have a separate victims start to drop out, the longer the cases are delayed. The Criminal Justice System already works together to give vulnerable and intimidated victims an early opportunity to provide evidence, after a not guilty plea is entered. Under section 28 of the act 1999. Victims can have their cross- examination pre-recorded, enabling victims and witnesses to give evidence at the earliest stage, when their recollection of events is likely to be better. The police, the CPS and others enjoy a joint protocol to expedite cases involving witnesses under 10 years old.

Maximising and providing of the best evidence and reducing the result. Prosecutors also have guidance on allowing witnesses to refresh their memory. This usually involves the witness rereading their witness statement on the day of the trial. The Department funding of the national witness service also means crucial emotional and practical support is provided to us occasion witnesses, in all criminal courts in England and Wales. To enable a them to give best evidence. I now wish to address at the undeniable impact court battle cover victims, the human costs of these is considerable.

Witnesses who are often victims of well play a crucial role in ensuring that justice is served. And, indeed, as the Victims' Commissioner mentioned in her report, the delays in court system can have a particularly adverse impact on victims of rape and serious sexual offences. To ensure ongoing communication, in the pre- trial period. Every CPS area now has at least one dedicated to liaison officer and its rape and serious sexual offence unit and pre-trial meetings are offered to all adult victims of these crimes.

This government is also committed to introducing free, independent legal advice for the victims and survivors of adult rape, across England and Wales, to help them understand and uphold their legal rights. We hope to begin a phased rollout on this, later this year. The Government is also committed to implementing the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The act contains a package of measures that, once implemented will improve victims experience of Criminal Justice System and often better access to information stuck the first tranche of the victim -related matters, from the act commenced in January this year.

They simplified the complaints process for victims and halves the commissioner's To account. We are implementing provisions to ensure local commissioners collaborate, on a certain support services for certain victims. We will consult on a new Victims' Code, so that every victim of crime knows the right that they should receive, by the code. Finally, in terms of the support for victims. I agree with Victims' Commissioner that support services have an important role in keeping victims engaged with the Criminal Justice System and this can help mitigate the impacts of court delays.

That is why in the upcoming financial year, we have protected dedicated victim spending in the department, by maintaining this year's funding levels, following sexual violence and domestic abuse support. Moving on to fairness of proceedings, for defendants. We recognise that the prolonged uncertainty awaiting trial can be overwhelming for some defendants. We do not underestimate the impact this has on defendants and their families. The judiciary and the Crown Court are responsible for ensuring cases are heard properly, and efficiently as possible. They continue to work to prioritise cases, including those involving custody time limits.

Custody time limits and safeguard defendants by preventing them from being held in prison for an excessive amount of time, prior to the trial. If the trial cannot be heard before the limit expires, the court must release the person, on bail, unless the prosecution successfully applied to extend it. Fairness is integral to the Criminal Justice System and whilst this carriage of injustice is currently rare, it is important or appeal system, including the possibility to apply through the commission, functions well.

There was a public consultation, on the law related to criminal appeals, and ensuring the system is fair and effective. We look forward to receiving the final recommendations from the Law Commission, once this consultation has concluded. Reducing the Crown Court backlog and improving the experience of victims, through the process of seeking justice continues to be the priority of this government. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile for racing this subject. Turning to the contribution of noble Lords, in the debate.

Both noble Lord, Lord Bellamy and Lord Meston spoke about the... Judicial function of listing. They both expressed scepticism on that. I think the point at which Lord Bellamy made, genuine listing, he said argued was a legitimate subject for debate in Parliament and genuinely the point he made with a specific listing of specific cases, should remain a matter for the judges. I thought that was an judges. I thought that was an interesting point. I wonder whether we agree with that point.

I will make sure that point is spread back to colleagues., Spoke about the transaction. We agreed with that. We are acting, we have two extremely are acting, we have two extremely Baroness Porter I can assure you we think daily about dovetailing these two reviews and how they will work together because this is an integrated system, a point at which Lord Keen made and we really need to look at the whole system to try and get the benefits which we are hoping to achieve through the reforms.

Lord Faulks pointed out that jury trials, there are a number of areas where jury trials have stopped and the world hasn't stopped turning, and it may be we wait to see what Sir Brian recommends but there may be recommendations from the intermediate court for cases save up to two years sentencing or maybe five years as Lord Keen suggested. We wait to see on that matter. Baroness Coussins asked about interpreters. There is of course a requirement for professional translators in the code, it is an absolute requirement and the government will consult on a new code in due course but I absolutely recognise the points you made about the importance of interpreters to enable fair trials and fair hearings in courts.

Lord Meston, I want to thank him particularly for raising the Lammy review. The Lammy review quite rightly pointed out the trust that people have in jury trials are particularly people from ethnic minorities. That is a gold standard, I absolutely recognise that, the government recognises that. However it doesn't necessarily mean that all trials or the same proportion of trials as we have now will continue to be jury trials but I think the point is well made and one which we need to reflect on as we consider proposals as they come forward.

I would also add of course that magistrates are more diverse than the rest of the judiciary, particularly here in London I might particularly here in London I might add. I say we, I was a magistrate, we are a pretty diverse bunch within London. Nevertheless I thank the noble Lord for making that point. Lord Lang worth spoke with great authority of problems of overcrowding and of course I aspire to great investment within the whole system but I think the points you made about the knock-on problems -- Lord Lemos, within the prison service were absolutely right.

Lord Stevens made a detailed series of proposals I'm sure the officials will read them with great interest but I won't comment on them individually now but I thought they were well made and Lord Sandhurst spoke about there being too few criminal barristers, that is obviously quite right. This there is no shortage of trade unionists for criminal barristers in this House I have to say, doesn't mean it's not merited. The other point Lord Sandhurst said was to advocate for the increased use of out-of-court disposals.

It is worth reflecting that one of the great successes we've seen over the last 20 years is the reduction of youths in custody. That is very much driven by the increased use of out-of-court disposals for youths when I started as a youth magistrate therewith 3,000 youths in custody now it's a matter of a few hundred, out-of- court disposals were a part of that transition if I could put it like that. Lord Hacking gave me one of his usual history lessons for which I'm very grateful and the points you made about trials getting longer and longer were of course absolutely right.

I think the other points I right. I think the other points I would like to make, Baroness Levitt and Lord Thomas and Lord Marks spoke about the legitimate judicial attitudes survey and asked what the government is going to do with it. One thing the government will do obviously is to continue to invest in regular recruitment, and recognise the factors that have come up through that survey. There will be a major review of judicial pay which has been commissioned and it will look at the issues affecting judges and particular judged types.

We recognise the point my noble friend has made. The other point which was made by Lord Carlile was about prisoner transport and how, as I know from my own experience, this is often a source of delay. I can concern, confirm that when the transport supplier, when the delays are unacceptable and there is performance failure, then direct action can be taken by the MOJ, that is done occasionally and it is absolutely recognised that a completely unreasonable amount of delays are caused by the prisoners simply not getting to court on time.

I absolutely recognise that point. Baroness Longfield, I've already welcome to but what I wanted to say was I'm very glad she is going to be joining my colleague Nick Dakin and his roundtable discussion on the topic of youth in the Criminal Justice System, my office is literally next door to Nick Dakin so I'm sure I will hear all about it. I think the big point to close on, I think it's been accepted by all noble Lords you have spoken is that we really have a very profound challenge in front of us and we as the government are taking a bold actions to try and address the problem of the two main problems that affect our Criminal Justice System which is Crown Court backlogs and prisoner overcrowding.

These two problems are hugely interlinked and we are determined to address these problems and turnaround tanker but there are many aspects to this and I look forward to the interest of

18:09

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

noble Lords as we continue along this road. this road. -- in the closing firstly can I thank Lord Ponsonby for his considered reply to me are gently urgent to look at the research of urgent to look at the research of the Gerald Thomas of University College into rape cases were the victim does not give evidence in the presence of the court. The results of that research are very of that research are very unfavourable to the procedure. It is just not working well.

Secondly can just not working well. Secondly can I thank Baroness Longfield for her Maiden speech, I will simply say she did not disappoint. I noted the Reverend pilots -- prelates comments about creative thinking. I think there should be some creative thinking which does not immediately assume that we have to get rid of jury trials in the large number of cases because we are so pessimistic about the future we can be optimistic and indeed surely, as one noble Lord said, it's time to get on with what can be done now without waiting for sub Brian Everson's report.

Some of it is staring us in the face. For example, my noble Kent woman suggestion of the introduction of criminal masters or procedural judges, that could be started tomorrow. It would make a huge difference in causes -- courts likes as brick for instance which has been much mentioned in this case. I also would urge upon the government that my noble friend Lord Meston's reference to allowing criminal and family courts to work much more closely together could also be used with civil courts and major fraud trials.

And that there is a great deal of work can be done that would shorten lists and delays. Lord Hacking in his interesting historical analysis which was before my time but like Lord Thomas I had heard all about it when I started at heard all about it when I started at Be ushers in every court, it's such a simple thing. If there is an Usher and a clerk in the court, the work gets done. If there is no usher no clerk the witnesses can't be brought in, the charges can be read out properly, there are unreasonable burdens placed on the judges.

Those are simple things we can do immediately. We have a difference about juries, I would say both to my about juries, I would say both to my noble friend Lord Marks and to Lord Keen that in my view they are actually wrong about juries. Firstly I would say that the reference to civil juries is irrelevant to this discussion. Civil juries did not send people to prison for a long time effectively. Judges have to send people to prison if they have been convicted by a jury of a serious offence.

In relation to the Diplock courts I would say with enormous respect to the noble Lord who I admire greatly it is a poor analogy. The Diplock courts deal only with the most serious cases and were created in an atmosphere that did not want to get rid of a single jury trial but was because you could not get a fair trial in Northern Ireland at that time for special reasons, and I really don't think that Diplock courts take us anywhere. Enclosing and I hope I will be forgiven for not referring to everyone who has spoken, I want to thank all noble Lords of taking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part and to say the government has got a very big task on its hands. The question is that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. We now move to to Statutory Instruments previously

18:12

Business of the House

debated in Grand Committee, online procedurals specified procedural regulations 2025 and one of the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the two motions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name en bloc. Question is that the two motions in the name of Lord Ponsonby be in the name of Lord Ponsonby be agree to en bloc. As many of -- As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The "Contents" have it. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. now adjourn.

18:36

Oath taking

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 20 House of Lords - 20 March House of Lords - 20 March 2025.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page