Justice and Home Affairs Committee
Tuesday 27th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 13 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:36
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
For. So welcome, Minister, and your colleague, to this fourth evidence session of the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into support for jurors. We're absolutely delighted to have the Minister with us. And just for the record, I'd be very grateful if you could introduce yourself and then if your colleague could introduce himself.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you for that question. Let me just preface what I'm about to say. By recognising that jury service is a crucial civic duty, and it's one that we are grateful to all the individuals from various backgrounds who undertake it. And I think it's important to say, before addressing the very important question that you raise around support, that the majority of jurors have a positive experience. I think it's something that many people that we see, both from our experience survey, but also anecdotally tell us that they welcome the opportunity to participate in such an important civic duty and one that people take seriously and actually end up learning a lot about our justice process and indeed our society.
But you're right, the support that we give jurors through that experience, both before they come to court, when they're summonsed at court and follow up is something that we I'm glad to say, and I want to express my gratitude to the committee. We're paying far more attention to than we ever have done in the past when we just invited people to jury service. And and, you know, the aftercare and support was limited, to say the least. The main thing we've done in terms of an assessment is I think there's twofold. Daniel, you'll add something if if I if I've missed anything.
Firstly, we undertake a jury survey which asks people about their experience and provides the court service with data around how we can improve our operations to make sure that they're consistent, that the information and the support that we're providing is consistently applied across the court estate. And secondly, the committee will be aware that last year we commissioned Doctor Hannah Fawcett and Doctor Matt Brooks to examine current practice across 16 Crown Court centres to consider what good looks like. That was the title of the assessment in terms of understanding juror needs and what support they needed.
And and they looked at things like the facilities in terms of the waiting room, the deliberation, what support was offered to jurors, and in particular tested a structured end of trial intervention. It tested enhanced jury officer training and whether a dedicated support line was something that was of value. So we have a much richer picture than we have had for some time. To understand the jury experience, the juror experience and what might be needed in terms of support.
But you're right, the support that we give jurors through that experience, both before they come to court, when they're summonsed at court and follow up is something that we I'm glad to say, and I want to express my gratitude to the committee. We're paying far more attention to than we ever have done in the past when we just invited people to jury service. And and, you know, the aftercare and support was limited, to say the least. The main thing we've done in terms of an assessment is I think there's twofold. Daniel, you'll add something if if I if I've missed anything.
Firstly, we undertake a jury survey which asks people about their experience and provides the court service with data around how we can improve our operations to make sure that they're consistent, that the information and the support that we're providing is consistently applied across the court estate. And secondly, the committee will be aware that last year we commissioned Doctor Hannah Fawcett and Doctor Matt Brooks to examine current practice across 16 Crown Court centres to consider what good looks like. That was the title of the assessment in terms of understanding juror needs and what support they needed.
And and they looked at things like the facilities in terms of the waiting room, the deliberation, what support was offered to jurors, and in particular tested a structured end of trial intervention. It tested enhanced jury officer training and whether a dedicated support line was something that was of value. So we have a much richer picture than we have had for some time. To understand the jury experience, the juror experience and what might be needed in terms of support.
10:40
Baroness Buscombe
-
-
Baroness Buscombe
Could we talk a little bit about the Rivers Centre in Scotland, where for the past 30 years we understand that NHS specialists psychological support has been offered to those who have suffered or believe that they've suffered some kind of trauma through the process of being a juror. Is that something do you know that you're looking at?
10:41
10:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So we're certainly aware of what's happening. I think, in Lothian and the River centre, where it's explicit and explicit offering of, of, of psychological support after the jury trial. You know, our approach in Hmcts is, as you probably know, to sort of refer them either to their GP, who we think are best placed to sort of make a clinical assessment or Samaritans or any other sort of charity. So whilst we do have lots of material to signpost those who've undertaken jury service, we don't make an explicit offering. Again, this is something that we are looking at.
We are considering as part of the our response to the Fawcett and Brooks report. But at present we don't have. We no intention of replicating what they do in the River centre.
We are considering as part of the our response to the Fawcett and Brooks report. But at present we don't have. We no intention of replicating what they do in the River centre.
10:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And just to just to build on that point, I mean, I think, you know, we're always looking to other jurisdictions, particularly those close to home to to identify what best practice looks like, as we should. But I think one of the things that's important to, to sort of highlight that out of the Fawcett and Brooks study, which was fairly broad in scope, looking at 16 Crown Court centres, when we think about the importance of and this is one of the things we are going to institute, we might come to it national minimum standards, which we've never had before.
So I think that is a really important sort of step change in terms of consistent standards and support for jurors, irrespective of where they are in the system or in the country. But but what the study found was that the uptake for that really specialised counselling service, which it provided, was actually pretty low. Now, that's not to say it isn't a, you know, particular value to those who are sitting on a jury where there is particularly traumatic content or whether a particular vulnerabilities, of course. That's right. But what we found is, is that in in general terms, the majority of trials didn't evidence a demand for that specialist service.
That doesn't mean that jurors aren't entitled to expect a decent waiting room, proper direction from both judge and jury officer, proper information throughout the process. Of course they should. That's the national minimum standard. But I think it's really important that we distinguish between where there really is a need, where you've got trials which raise particularly, you know, grim and awful evidence, which is likely to trigger a need for additional support versus the majority of trials where actually what the study showed there wasn't really the demand there. But, you know, but we can continue to look at this, of course, and we should continue to see what the results from the, you know, Scottish work shows.
So I think that is a really important sort of step change in terms of consistent standards and support for jurors, irrespective of where they are in the system or in the country. But but what the study found was that the uptake for that really specialised counselling service, which it provided, was actually pretty low. Now, that's not to say it isn't a, you know, particular value to those who are sitting on a jury where there is particularly traumatic content or whether a particular vulnerabilities, of course. That's right. But what we found is, is that in in general terms, the majority of trials didn't evidence a demand for that specialist service.
That doesn't mean that jurors aren't entitled to expect a decent waiting room, proper direction from both judge and jury officer, proper information throughout the process. Of course they should. That's the national minimum standard. But I think it's really important that we distinguish between where there really is a need, where you've got trials which raise particularly, you know, grim and awful evidence, which is likely to trigger a need for additional support versus the majority of trials where actually what the study showed there wasn't really the demand there. But, you know, but we can continue to look at this, of course, and we should continue to see what the results from the, you know, Scottish work shows.
10:43
10:43
10:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That point a little further. So, you know, for example, during the Lucy Letby trial, the Manchester victim support intervened and provided support to jurors who underwent or sat on that trial. We also had something similar with with the David Fuller trial in Maidstone in Kent, you know, particularly harrowing evidence and so on. He eventually pleaded guilty, so it wasn't required. So, you know, we can obtain support directly for very specific trials and we can work you know, the judge may also direct us to sort of obtain specific support for certain again, for certain trials, but these really are the exception rather than anywhere near the norm.
10:45
Baroness Buscombe
-
-
Baroness Buscombe
Okay. If I could just follow with two very short follow ups because others have questions to ask. So some of us were lucky enough to go last week to the Old Bailey, and we had a really interesting discussion, both with the recorder and those who actually managed the court. And of course, the Old Bailey is in some ways exceptional in terms of some of the kind of cases and very difficult cases. And whilst we understood that the take up might be quite low in terms of people needing more support, I would argue, if I may, that knowing the support is there is in itself a huge support.
Just knowing you've got that if you need to turn to it, but also quickly, do you have a timeline for publishing minimum standards that you would like to see applied across the board?
Just knowing you've got that if you need to turn to it, but also quickly, do you have a timeline for publishing minimum standards that you would like to see applied across the board?
10:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No, I think again, all really good points. And you're right, the Old Bailey in many ways is exceptional, both in terms of the kinds of trials that are heard there, but also the nature of that as a crown court centre. I mean, you know, I'm not going to gloss over the fact that there are parts of our court estate that are not where we would want it to be. And it's why we're making, you know, major investment, more significant investment in maintenance than we have for a very long time. But to answer your question, the national minimum standards, which, as I said, will set clear expectations for the information that jurors are provided with, including that signposting to.
You're absolutely right. You may not need support, but if you do, this is where you can get it. That practical support, but also how jurors can raise concerns during the process, because one might be feeling pretty resilient at certain points and then at other points in a trial feel really quite different. So that will be incorporated within the national minimum standards. And our ambition is to introduce those national minimum standards next year. So that's the timeline. And so so I should say, whilst we've got a pretty good idea of what we expect to be in them, this, this work for this committee is really well timed.
You're absolutely right. You may not need support, but if you do, this is where you can get it. That practical support, but also how jurors can raise concerns during the process, because one might be feeling pretty resilient at certain points and then at other points in a trial feel really quite different. So that will be incorporated within the national minimum standards. And our ambition is to introduce those national minimum standards next year. So that's the timeline. And so so I should say, whilst we've got a pretty good idea of what we expect to be in them, this, this work for this committee is really well timed.
10:46
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Well, can I, can I raise an issue about what might be contained? You said that following the work that was done in trial, that you had a better idea of what is needed, and clearly accepting that even though it might not necessarily be for all jurors, that some jurors will need it. And picking up the point that's just been made by Baroness Buscombe, the idea of jurors knowing what help is available is clearly advantageous. I have in front of me the main government document, which lists all the details about jury service. Nowhere on the list of, I think it's about 12 headings.
Is there any reference to support for jurors? However, it is contained in the document which is very encouraging. Amazingly, you have to find it under the heading discussing the trial. That's where you find what help there is for jurors. If I then look at what it tells me, it says, if you find the trial distressing, you may be upset by the trial and want to speak to somebody privately, speak to court staff, they'll give you advice, and in a minute we'll go on to the issue of court staff's ability to do that. But it also says for emotional support, speak to your GP to find out what support is available and you can contact the Samaritans, although they cannot give advice.
So you're told you can go to your GP who'll try and find some help for you, but himself or herself can't give it and the Samaritans can't give advice. That is the sole reference to support for jurors in the official detailed government document about jury service, however, they are given a handout and the handout doesn't actually say that the Samaritans can't give advice, but it says you can talk to them day or night and your GP can help you find free counselling services.
Do you think that is adequate?
Is there any reference to support for jurors? However, it is contained in the document which is very encouraging. Amazingly, you have to find it under the heading discussing the trial. That's where you find what help there is for jurors. If I then look at what it tells me, it says, if you find the trial distressing, you may be upset by the trial and want to speak to somebody privately, speak to court staff, they'll give you advice, and in a minute we'll go on to the issue of court staff's ability to do that. But it also says for emotional support, speak to your GP to find out what support is available and you can contact the Samaritans, although they cannot give advice.
So you're told you can go to your GP who'll try and find some help for you, but himself or herself can't give it and the Samaritans can't give advice. That is the sole reference to support for jurors in the official detailed government document about jury service, however, they are given a handout and the handout doesn't actually say that the Samaritans can't give advice, but it says you can talk to them day or night and your GP can help you find free counselling services.
Do you think that is adequate?
10:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So first of all, I mean, I'll defer to Daniel in relation to whether that represents the totality of the information that jurors are given, because I believe they're also sent information in the form of, you know, email and which includes a video link. There's also information, as I said, that is provided at court. But, you know, frankly, if one of the things we need to take away and one of the things that one of the things we need to take away from this exercise as we institute national minimum standards, and I say this because I see by analogy in, for example, the correspondence we now produce within the Ministry of Justice.
When people write about quite distressing subjects routinely. Now the signposting that we provide is really quite clear. If one of the takeaways is that we need to improve that signposting, then that I think is a valuable takeaway. But Daniel, I don't know if you want to come in.
When people write about quite distressing subjects routinely. Now the signposting that we provide is really quite clear. If one of the takeaways is that we need to improve that signposting, then that I think is a valuable takeaway. But Daniel, I don't know if you want to come in.
10:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, certainly accept the guidance is in need of some codification, if I can call it that. In some ways, this is what the new standards are about. You know, you shouldn't have to look in in other areas to sort of find out the full facts on it, accept that point, but the guidance will or the standards will cover, you know, information, including the details of the video and so on. It will cover things about expenses. It will cover sort of signposting, it will cover facilities available, reasonable adjustments. It will cover details of what to expect in court and support you will be provided with.
So it I do accept it.
So it I do accept it.
10:50
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
I'm grateful for that. And we'll come on to each of those issues you mentioned in a minute. What I am concerned about is whether or not you. First of all, accept that you need to do more to highlight which I think you've said you agree with. But secondly, whether you think that what is on offer that you're going to highlight is remotely adequate signposting to a GP who may help you find free counselling and signposting to the Samaritans who, quote, cannot give advice. Do you think that that is adequate, however much you advertise it with huge posters and videos and everything?
Even so, is it adequate?
Even so, is it adequate?
10:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Can I can I just sort of address that in a couple of ways? First of all, we clearly don't think it's adequate because that's why we're instituting national minimum standards. If we thought the status quo was good enough, why bother? So we do see that there's room for improvement. Building on the evidence base that we obtained through this study. And I think that will consist, you will see that that will consist of, I think, a couple of different areas of work, one which is around internal monitoring of standards to make sure that we've got consistency of practice everywhere, but also the ambition to produce a public facing jurors charter, which will explain what every juror, irrespective of where they are in the country, can expect from His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.
And also what to do if those standards aren't met. So I think that is a really big step forward in terms. So there is a there is a point around information and how that information is presented to jurors, which I think we all accept can be better. And I think a takeaway should be what goes in that initial summons letter, as well as the information that is provided throughout, because you might not retain that letter. The second part of your question relates to the adequacy of signposting people to their local GP, NHS 111, which has a mental health element , and Samaritans.
And I think there I think our view is we come back to the point that for the majority of jurors, that probably will be adequate. It will be adequate to know that there's a recognition that sitting through a criminal trial can surface things which have a psychological impact, and the best port of call are going to be, you know, dedicated charities like the Samaritans or the NHS. However, that is not to say and this is to come back to Daniel's point, that targeted support is is not going to be, you know, is going to be warranted where you have particularly traumatic subject matters.
And also what to do if those standards aren't met. So I think that is a really big step forward in terms. So there is a there is a point around information and how that information is presented to jurors, which I think we all accept can be better. And I think a takeaway should be what goes in that initial summons letter, as well as the information that is provided throughout, because you might not retain that letter. The second part of your question relates to the adequacy of signposting people to their local GP, NHS 111, which has a mental health element , and Samaritans.
And I think there I think our view is we come back to the point that for the majority of jurors, that probably will be adequate. It will be adequate to know that there's a recognition that sitting through a criminal trial can surface things which have a psychological impact, and the best port of call are going to be, you know, dedicated charities like the Samaritans or the NHS. However, that is not to say and this is to come back to Daniel's point, that targeted support is is not going to be, you know, is going to be warranted where you have particularly traumatic subject matters.
10:53
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
I stop you there if I can, minister, because some of the issues, in terms of the details of what that will be, will, I hope, emerge during some of the subsequent questions. So I think what we're getting is a clear understanding. You accept that the signposting, whatever it is, is currently inadequate and needs to be.
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
-
-
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Sorry, the victim support, I'm so sorry to jurors as well as to victims. And I just wanted to know really a little bit more about that. Was this something that was planned in advance that victims support would would get involved? What was the nature of the support? Was it during the trial or did it extend to the period after the trial? And you did mention one other case that I think pleaded, but are there other examples of victim support being used in this way, and are there plans to roll it out more broadly or make it more widely available?
10:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's very much an advocate arrangement. So in Manchester we were approached by victim support in Manchester as someone who could offer this service. And when we spoke with the trial judge during the trial, it was something that was suggested would be a sensible thing to put in place. There's another case I know about. I can't remember the defendant's name, but it was a sort of multiple, multiple rape trial in Manchester again as well. In the same victim support provided that that service. So it's not something that happens routinely. It would happen either because the judge asked for it to happen, or Hmcts identified a particular need to support a jury through a particularly distressing trial.
And there is a process whereby whereby we can either contact victim support or other charities to provide this. And this is something that Hmcts, if it's not free of charge, pays for itself.
And there is a process whereby whereby we can either contact victim support or other charities to provide this. And this is something that Hmcts, if it's not free of charge, pays for itself.
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. If I may, I just I just think just to just to put some. Data, just to provide context in, in the study that was undertaken, the force at Brook study, where there was an end of trial intervention and a bespoke counselling service was made available to all of the jury trials that were covered within the scope of those 16 Crown Court centres. So of the 17,811 jurors that were captured by the trial, ten took up the service. Now, I absolutely acknowledge the point that for those ten who attended at least one session, that will have no doubt, I hope, had real value.
And I also absolutely acknowledge the point that Baroness Buscombe made earlier, that the fact that you knew and know that there was this bespoke counselling service and this helpline available, a dedicated helpline may well have provided comfort and sort of reassurance and resilience to to many of those. But I think it does paint a picture, you know, ten out of nearly 18,000 jurors. You know, we I think what what that tells me, and I'd be interested to see what the committee's conclusions are, is that it may well be that we need something more than is currently there, but it needs to be targeted.
It needs to be proportionate. The demand case for maintaining that counselling service, given the cost of it at a national level for all jurors, was not made out by that study. I've got to be in a tight fiscal environment, really thoughtful about how we target our money. So I do think that that context is important for the committee.
And I also absolutely acknowledge the point that Baroness Buscombe made earlier, that the fact that you knew and know that there was this bespoke counselling service and this helpline available, a dedicated helpline may well have provided comfort and sort of reassurance and resilience to to many of those. But I think it does paint a picture, you know, ten out of nearly 18,000 jurors. You know, we I think what what that tells me, and I'd be interested to see what the committee's conclusions are, is that it may well be that we need something more than is currently there, but it needs to be targeted.
It needs to be proportionate. The demand case for maintaining that counselling service, given the cost of it at a national level for all jurors, was not made out by that study. I've got to be in a tight fiscal environment, really thoughtful about how we target our money. So I do think that that context is important for the committee.
10:57
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
-
-
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I think you're saying, or perhaps you're still thinking about it, that the answer to that question is not victim support, and it might very occasionally be appropriate, is it seems to have been in the Lucy Letby trial. But you're not saying that that limited number of jurors could get the support they want or that they need from victim support?
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm saying that in the context of the Lucy Letby trial and and the local context in Manchester, informed by the judge in that case, provided presiding over that and ascertaining what they thought was necessary, that the the the skill set, that victim support. And I understand in that case, there was a phone number available that that would provide something that would be of benefit to a set of jurors that were looking at a pretty distressing case. But I'm not necessarily saying that that is the only way that you could support jurors that we're we're we're saying that the support that's currently available is obviously takes different forms.
What's going to be right for one person? You know, some person, one person might prefer to go to their GP, another might prefer to call the Samaritans. The point is to target support and signpost it to people know what's available to them, because many people might not have heard of Samaritans. I mean, we have in this room, but there'll be some people that haven't.
What's going to be right for one person? You know, some person, one person might prefer to go to their GP, another might prefer to call the Samaritans. The point is to target support and signpost it to people know what's available to them, because many people might not have heard of Samaritans. I mean, we have in this room, but there'll be some people that haven't.
10:58
10:58
10:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
At a point on the Samaritans? We do offer a little more than just here's a number. Good luck. It's. We have what we call a specific referral pathway, which court staff can use, which does get us through to an enhanced level of service in the Samaritans. So it's a little more than just referring them to a telephone number or website.
10:59
10:59
Lord Moraes
-
-
Lord Moraes
Thank you, chair, and thank you, Minister, for your time this morning. It's much appreciated. Could I ask I mean, we've already alighted on the role of court staff, and we've been looking specifically at the training for them, which is now already come up. But could I ask you specifically what training is available to court staff for supporting jurors?
10:59
10:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I'm sure or I hope the committee has seen our what we call our training workbook for jury officers, jury bailiffs, which sets out the skills and expectations and the role of jury officers. We can certainly send it to the committee if you haven't seen that. And that sets out what is required. You know, the role has changed quite considerably over the years from one that was there principally to sort of administer the oath . Oaths, deal with expenses, usher jurors in and out of the building. You know, I talk to jury officers now. They play a far more of a what they call a social worker role.
And these are the sort of people we are looking for, and especially in our court ushers as well as the jury officers in that, you know, we are looking for people with good listening skills, with good, with empathy, the ability to defuse situations and deal with people who are upset in Hmcts as well. We've recently rolled out a package of what we call trauma informed training, which sort of sets out how the consequences of trauma affect certain individuals and what you can do in response to that. And it's our ushers and jury officers that really are at the front line of all of this.
So we last updated our training, our workbook in 2025. I'm expecting to further update it probably after the findings of this committee emerge, because, you know, we clearly can see that the role of the usher in particular has changed quite a lot. And we want to help them adjust to the change level of expectation.
And these are the sort of people we are looking for, and especially in our court ushers as well as the jury officers in that, you know, we are looking for people with good listening skills, with good, with empathy, the ability to defuse situations and deal with people who are upset in Hmcts as well. We've recently rolled out a package of what we call trauma informed training, which sort of sets out how the consequences of trauma affect certain individuals and what you can do in response to that. And it's our ushers and jury officers that really are at the front line of all of this.
So we last updated our training, our workbook in 2025. I'm expecting to further update it probably after the findings of this committee emerge, because, you know, we clearly can see that the role of the usher in particular has changed quite a lot. And we want to help them adjust to the change level of expectation.
11:01
Lord Moraes
-
-
Lord Moraes
So can I just quickly follow up? I mean, it's becoming clear to the committee, and we've been looking at this very closely that the the role of court staff is much more important than it would first seem on investigation. And it's a highly sensitive role. And it's it affects them, as we've just heard, but it also affects the jurors quite profoundly. So, I mean, could I just follow up by asking whether you think the training is adequate and whether you think, you know, we are identifying best practice that has been whether whether that is at the moment satisfactory.
11:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I always think there is more to be done to improve the situation. And, you know, the difficulty with a lot of this is it's about sort of it's about people's personalities and certain jury officers difference, whether jury officers, you know, in terms of how they empathize with people and so on. But there's always done, there's always room to identify and spread best practice a little further. Can I just focus on two specific things we've done for Russia's and jury officers in the last 12 months. So firstly, you know, we accept, as I've just mentioned, that the role has changed quite considerably over the last ten, 15 years.
We've recently upgraded them. So they were at the lowest level of the civil service grade, what's called an administrative assistant. They've now been moved up to the next grade above. So that's changing grade. And of course, change in salary reflects the increased level of expectation and the role that they play. And you know, that has been an important step of, of, of recognising, I think the role they play.
And again, but, you know, there's more to be done, as you say, on spreading best practice and so on.
We've recently upgraded them. So they were at the lowest level of the civil service grade, what's called an administrative assistant. They've now been moved up to the next grade above. So that's changing grade. And of course, change in salary reflects the increased level of expectation and the role that they play. And you know, that has been an important step of, of, of recognising, I think the role they play.
And again, but, you know, there's more to be done, as you say, on spreading best practice and so on.
11:03
11:03
Baroness Berridge
-
-
Baroness Berridge
Thank you very much for attending today. I, a group of us had the pleasure of going to Southwark Crown Court, not the Old Bailey, and was surprised to learn that actually administrative staff who deal with the jurors, not the jury officer or the jury usher, were receiving calls 2 or 3 a month from those people who had served on juries in Southwark Crown Court and who were struggling, and some of those were quite serious. And obviously the staff we saw, I really felt for them in their distress that they didn't feel they had adequate nature.
So I'm wondering when you say about not routine, routinely defendants have an access service, judges have an access service, barristers have an access service, CPS have an access service. Court staff are moved out. If they're struggling with a trial, they're actually routinely to prevent your staff who aren't trained and this is happening, they said across the London courts at that level, 2 or 3 a month are phoning in with these concerns. Do you do you not accept that there does need to be a routine service, otherwise staff who aren't trained in this are picking up really distressing calls from jurors who are struggling after sitting on a on trials.
So I'm wondering when you say about not routine, routinely defendants have an access service, judges have an access service, barristers have an access service, CPS have an access service. Court staff are moved out. If they're struggling with a trial, they're actually routinely to prevent your staff who aren't trained and this is happening, they said across the London courts at that level, 2 or 3 a month are phoning in with these concerns. Do you do you not accept that there does need to be a routine service, otherwise staff who aren't trained in this are picking up really distressing calls from jurors who are struggling after sitting on a on trials.
11:05
Lord Tope
-
-
Lord Tope
Yeah, we would expect you know, it's quite a large pool of admin staff in the Crown courts. Those answering the phones one day may act as an usher the following day. So they will undergo the same level of training again. They'll all be required to do the trauma informed training. But yeah, I accept your point that, you know, these phone calls are made and, you know, they are can be particular harrowing. And we are reliant on that referral back to a GP or the Samaritan in the same way that an an usher is. We do support our staff, as you suggest.
You know, if they have been sitting on a particularly harrowing trial, you know, we look to find them what we call a lighter trial. It's the same for clerks as well in the following week to give them a break. But again, we are reliant on the referral routes that we've already mentioned in these circumstances.
You know, if they have been sitting on a particularly harrowing trial, you know, we look to find them what we call a lighter trial. It's the same for clerks as well in the following week to give them a break. But again, we are reliant on the referral routes that we've already mentioned in these circumstances.
11:05
11:05
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
I sorry, I just want to pick that you keep saying that you, you, you are reliant on the referral route. But the point that Baroness Berridge made in the introduction of her question was everybody else in court, whether they're barristers, whether they're judges, whether they're you know, the whole lot have all got procedures in place with specifically qualified people to provide them with support. The jurors don't. And that's the sort of the missing bit, surely.
11:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Look, I think that the you're right, there isn't dedicated provision, but I think I'd make two points. First of all, that the court staff that are receiving those calls, as we've heard, receive, no one's claiming that they are there to provide mental health support, but they but they do receive the training that Daniel Fleury just referred to and can direct those people to where they can access that support. That's the first thing. The second thing is, of course, you know, the the examples that you've heard, perhaps cut against, but we did do an assessment, an academic led assessment.
I don't believe that Southwark was included within those 16 Crown courts, but. 16 Crown courts is obviously a significant sample. And in that case, within the context of that study, people were directed to something which was specialist and was a specialist counselling service, end of trial service for jurors. The uptake, as I've indicated, was incredibly low and didn't substantiate the demand. The demand for what we're talking about here.
So I I'm not here saying that, you.
I don't believe that Southwark was included within those 16 Crown courts, but. 16 Crown courts is obviously a significant sample. And in that case, within the context of that study, people were directed to something which was specialist and was a specialist counselling service, end of trial service for jurors. The uptake, as I've indicated, was incredibly low and didn't substantiate the demand. The demand for what we're talking about here.
So I I'm not here saying that, you.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, this is this is the service services that barristers can access. I don't I don't have that data to hand, but I, but I know that, but I do know from engaging with the bar that it is around self-care, wellbeing, those engaging in traumatic subject matters, not just in crime, of course, in family as well, is something that is a an area where a lot of work is being done by the bar. So, look, no one is suggesting that that jurors are just, you know, pure spectators. They're obviously actively engaged in every stage of this.
But but there are pathways. And when a dedicated counselling service was put in place in an empirical study, the take up was low. So we've got to identify what is a proportionate response to the demands such as it is. I'm not for one second denying that the that the evidence that you heard or anecdotal evidence that you picked up at Southwark suggests that there isn't demand within Southwark. I mean, there may well be one.
But but there are pathways. And when a dedicated counselling service was put in place in an empirical study, the take up was low. So we've got to identify what is a proportionate response to the demands such as it is. I'm not for one second denying that the that the evidence that you heard or anecdotal evidence that you picked up at Southwark suggests that there isn't demand within Southwark. I mean, there may well be one.
11:08
Baroness Berridge
-
-
Baroness Berridge
Specific follow up. Have you made any comparison, though, between the fact that the jurors are the only people in the room who are compelled to be there, they are compelled, and they are also cut off from all of the ordinary support mechanisms that we know from massive studies protect you peer group being able to talk about it afterwards. They are compelled to be there, so they might need more support than anybody else in the courtroom.
11:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think we're all I think we accept, not least by the provision that is that is in place, that in certain cases, jurors may need support. There may well be. The the majority of cases. I think it's factually correct to say that in the vast majority of cases, there is there is no demand for this. That's not to say that in certain types of cases, targeted support and the availability of pathways is not going to be needed. But the fact that in our jury experience survey, you know, some 60% or thereabouts report a positive experience means that we just need to be, I think, quite targeted and proportionate in how we in how we meet the demand such that it is.
I don't deny that in the sorts of cases we've been referring to the Letby trial, the sorts of cases that the Bailey or the Southwark Crown Court might play host to, that there won't be you. There won't be an enhanced need. But in the majority of trials, which may or may not involve violence, which may be at a lower level, it's not going to be needed. And and that was, you know, we conducted an assessment. This is not this is not us, you know, searching for answers in the wind.
I don't deny that in the sorts of cases we've been referring to the Letby trial, the sorts of cases that the Bailey or the Southwark Crown Court might play host to, that there won't be you. There won't be an enhanced need. But in the majority of trials, which may or may not involve violence, which may be at a lower level, it's not going to be needed. And and that was, you know, we conducted an assessment. This is not this is not us, you know, searching for answers in the wind.
11:10
11:11
Baroness Buscombe
-
-
Baroness Buscombe
Very quickly, because I think a lot of us feel when we're saying, let's signpost to our GP, I can't get to see my GP and a lot of people can't. Just an idea. Have you looked at or should you be looking at social prescribers? The problem with Samaritans and I've chaired the advisory board, so I know them so well. They're only a listening service. They're not there to tell you what to do. But social prescribers who are trained to focus on the individual through the NHS could be an option that you look at. People could somehow link into to make them feel that there's something a bit extra there which can get them back into normal life if they've suffered trauma.
Just an idea.
Just an idea.
11:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think it's I think it's a very valuable idea. I think we should take it away and look at it. I don't think we could undertake to embed the social prescribers within court. But I think, as we've acknowledged, better signposting, enhanced training for our court staff who, by the way, I do want to just take the opportunity because I've got the platform here. You know, they are the eyes and ears and the sort of public facing, almost customer facing part of the court and from somebody who's toured, as you have all done, courts, the length and breadth of the country.
By and large, they actually do a tremendous job for not very much money. And I want to acknowledge that.
By and large, they actually do a tremendous job for not very much money. And I want to acknowledge that.
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I saw this in the in the notes in preparation for this, and I'm not sure that's right. We shared details and information and social media about it. There's no suggestion that we as government don't appreciate jurors or indeed their wellbeing. And the fact, as I said, that we commissioned a study to look at this very issue, I think is demonstrative of that.
11:13
Lord Tope
-
-
Lord Tope
Are you saying that you did support juror jurors? Well, I'm sorry I keep getting it wrong. Jurors Appreciation Week this year. We we we did, we didn't I anything that supports the wellbeing and the good functioning of the court system, we we we would support and we did support this through sharing links and so on. And you know, we're happy to do more in for future weeks by way of support supported it in previous years will, will will wait to hear from authoritatively for about this year. Will you support it next year? Yes. I see no reason why we wouldn't.
11:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean, I just want to be really clear here that we in our government communications supported jurors during that week. We've got our own mechanisms for engaging and recognising the work of jurors. Anybody who's heard me in the House of Commons will have heard me do this all the time. So what I would say is perhaps there is something more that we can do on that specific week, but a. specific week. But but I, but I but but but but my, I want to offer you some reassurance. I wouldn't read too much into this.
We are supportive of juror well-being. Clearly we are. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing all the work that we're doing on national minimum standards.
We are supportive of juror well-being. Clearly we are. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing all the work that we're doing on national minimum standards.
11:14
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
To save time if we can. We were categorically told by the group that organizes Jurors Week that this year the government didn't support it. That's what we were told. So if you could be kind enough to go away, have a look at that and come back, because if we've been given misinformation, then you can correct us, and that would be very helpful. And if you can tell us in what way you supported it, other than publicising it, whether there was cash involved or whatever, all of that would be very helpful and will pick that up a little later.
Baroness Berridge.
Baroness Berridge.
11:15
Baroness Berridge
-
-
Baroness Berridge
Thank you. I'm drawing again to the enhanced support for juror pilot and the evaluation of that. In that evaluation, there was no comparison to existing best models of practice. We are fortunate to be in a situation now where through we do know how to support people, whether emergency service workers, whether they are journalists, whether they are people in NGOs, reading accounts of torture, like secondary trauma. So can you explain why the evaluation doesn't make a comparison with the models of best practice that we know can help people before, during, and after this kind of experience?
11:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The evaluation and the whole study was conducted by two highly experienced academics who took into account a large data set and conducted a structured assessment. Any omissions or failure to go wider is ultimately something that that that, you know, they looked at what they looked at. We are, of course, and I'll bring in Daniel here if he wants to come in. We are, of course, always both within the Ministry of Justice and Hmcts , looking at what best practice looks like, looking at other jurisdictions to see what they do, what we might learn from them. So not least in part of my briefing for this committee, I was furnished with information that the Department routinely looks at from not just Scotland, but also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, so other similar jurisdictions.
So, you know, the fact that it wasn't captured in the study, there were some choices made by the academics involved in that study, and they've got to be left to get on with their work and the scope of their study. But we do look at what best practice looks like.
So, you know, the fact that it wasn't captured in the study, there were some choices made by the academics involved in that study, and they've got to be left to get on with their work and the scope of their study. But we do look at what best practice looks like.
11:17
Baroness Berridge
-
-
Baroness Berridge
And you keep making reference to targeted and proportional. Now, we have had evidence that there are on occasion trials that collapse because of jurors not being able to sit through the entirety of the evidence, and of course, not realising that they would not be able to cope doing that. Have you, in your costings taken into account, lost trials, also trials that have to restart that. That's also common that the opening happens and people realize at that moment, I'm not going to do that. The costs of that are balanced against the costs of extending support routinely to jurors.
11:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, we do look at that every ineffective trial, and I don't mean to try and sound too technocratic about this, where there are real, you know, human beings and psychological impacts involved. Every ineffective trial is a colossal waste of time, effort, taxpayer money, and has knock on implications not just for in the example you're giving for the juror involved, but obviously for witnesses, victims, defendants whose lives are put on hold. But again, I think it's really important to contextualise this. We have an all too high, ineffective trial rate in this country. The by far the biggest drivers of that ineffective trial rate are the absence of counsel on either side.
So prosecution or defence counsel. There are other drivers and jurors as. And not necessarily for the reasons that you say, but juror absence. So it could it could be something nothing to do with the psychological impact of the trial, as I understand it, account for in the region of 1% of those ineffective trials. And you'll tell me if I've got that stat wrong, but I believe it's around 1%. And of that, there could be, again, lots and lots of drivers of that childcare juror fall sick. So again, I understand where the the question is coming from and any trial that collapses or has to be earned for this reason is one trial too many.
But but but just to put it in context, when we talk about overall system efficiency, our evidence is not that this is a major reason for trial collapse or ineffectiveness.
So prosecution or defence counsel. There are other drivers and jurors as. And not necessarily for the reasons that you say, but juror absence. So it could it could be something nothing to do with the psychological impact of the trial, as I understand it, account for in the region of 1% of those ineffective trials. And you'll tell me if I've got that stat wrong, but I believe it's around 1%. And of that, there could be, again, lots and lots of drivers of that childcare juror fall sick. So again, I understand where the the question is coming from and any trial that collapses or has to be earned for this reason is one trial too many.
But but but just to put it in context, when we talk about overall system efficiency, our evidence is not that this is a major reason for trial collapse or ineffectiveness.
11:19
Baroness Berridge
-
-
Baroness Berridge
If you could, maybe you need to write us ineffective trial. What I've outlined, which I think we've had more evidence of, is you start the trial and then you lose a juror and you have to start again with 11, and you add a 12 to that. Is that an ineffective trial, or is that an effective trial for your statistical.
11:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Can continue with. And again, we'll write to in the detail. But even if one. But even if one juror can't continue, the trial can still continue. I think it's nine and above nine and above the trial can continue. So look, there may well be. I'm very sorry for the jurors who for whom. That is the experience that is clearly distressing and they deserve support. But and I'm happy to write to you, but I, I believe the numbers of trials where multiple jurors pull out for this reason will be very, very exceptional.
11:20
Lord Tope
-
-
Lord Tope
The principal reasons really are a sickness. Or if a juror has to be discharged, you know, they it's where they realise that they actually know somebody, the defendant or witness in the trial and have to tell the judge that, you know, that they can no longer do it. You know, it's very rare. You know, there's no published stats on this where a juror would say, you know, I can't quite cope with the material and I need to come away from this trial. And if they did, you know, that is when the judge would make the decision whether they could be discharged.
11:21
Lord Bach
-
-
Lord Bach
So welcome. I'm asking this factual question. So it may be that would be best to answer this. But there's also a supplementary, which I think I know the answer to already. So a bit embarrassed to ask it. But the question, the main question is do you have any plans to alter the juror experience survey that was done to include questions on juror mental health or wellbeing? That's the first question. And the supplementary that really follows on. I think the answer is definitely you don't. But do you know how many jurors go on to need support as a result of the jury of their jury service?
I wonder if you could answer those.
I wonder if you could answer those.
11:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If I may take the first question. Your question highlights the fact that in the current Anonymous Juror Experience survey, there is no explicit wellbeing question. I think in light of the study that we've been discussing in light of the subject matter of this committee investigation, I don't see why it can't include that. And as we embark upon an effort to get these national minimum standards right, I think it ought to.
11:22
11:23
11:23
Lord Dubs
-
-
Lord Dubs
Prime minister, welcome. You've referred on a number of occasions to looking at practice in other countries. I wonder if I can continue on that theme. There are therapeutic exemptions in jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia, which allow jurors to discuss deliberations with a registered medical professional. Have you thought of introducing such a system in this country, in England and Wales?
11:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We have thought about it. We're aware of it. I have enormous respect for those jurisdictions and had the privilege of visiting the Supreme Court in Ontario and engaging with their leaders there. These therapeutic exceptions, they do create legal and clinical questions, which we would need to grapple with as to who can receive disclosure, for what purpose, under what confidentiality duties. And to be perfectly honest, no change is currently be considered. But as I've said to the committee, we're always looking at comparisons, always looking at the ways other jurisdictions do things. But at the moment we don't intend to change how we operate here.
11:24
11:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, one of the things that I am interested in and where we are putting a very keen focus related to these questions that you're raising about juror well-being and support, is the Scottish model an approach which makes provision for targeted research into what happens in the jury deliberation room? At the moment, we we have no provision to enable that research, partly because of the very important principle that what happens in the jurors deliberation room needs to stay there. However, in Scotland they have now for some time created a framework which allows for research to be done into what goes on.
Now that would, in principle, in theory, could tell us a lot more about what jurors have to go through, not just what happens in a in the jury room, but actually maybe some of the support or the ways that jurors might flag things or, you know, feel that they can raise these some of the issues of concern that you've been talking about. So that's something that happens in Scotland. It would need a change in the law. But you ask me, what are we looking at? That's one of the issues I'm looking at quite closely, not least because it was raised with me by some of our backbenchers in the Commons.
And I think it's a really valid.
Now that would, in principle, in theory, could tell us a lot more about what jurors have to go through, not just what happens in a in the jury room, but actually maybe some of the support or the ways that jurors might flag things or, you know, feel that they can raise these some of the issues of concern that you've been talking about. So that's something that happens in Scotland. It would need a change in the law. But you ask me, what are we looking at? That's one of the issues I'm looking at quite closely, not least because it was raised with me by some of our backbenchers in the Commons.
And I think it's a really valid.
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Yeah. Okay. Can I just pick up a wider issue about what jurors can and cannot do in terms of talking to people? Now, if we're well aware that the current rules are that a juror may, following the trial, talk to anybody they like about the trial, everything that happened in open court, but they may not talk about what happened in the jury deliberation room. And that's the issue that we've just been touching on. However, if I am an ordinary member of the public who I'm observing the trial, then I too can talk to anybody I like.
I can also, as a member of the public post on social media, anything I like, subject to issues around harassment or misrepresentation and so on. But I can still do it. Could you explain to me why it is categorically stated that a juror cannot post comments about the trial on social media, even after the trial has finished? This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison. Could you explain why a member of the public can go on social media, but To prison. Could you. explain why a member of the. public can go .
I can also, as a member of the public post on social media, anything I like, subject to issues around harassment or misrepresentation and so on. But I can still do it. Could you explain to me why it is categorically stated that a juror cannot post comments about the trial on social media, even after the trial has finished? This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison. Could you explain why a member of the public can go on social media, but To prison. Could you. explain why a member of the. public can go .
11:27
11:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But a juror cannot? Well, I think that's a well established principle and for very good reason. I think the member of the public posting on social media might be ill advised to do so. But the whilst the law, of course, does not. prevent jurors from seeking. support and discussing what happened in open court, how it affected them, what support they need, the. principle that jury's deliberations must remain confidential both during and after the trial, I think is a really important one.
I think it preserves the integrity of that trial.
I think it preserves the integrity of that trial.
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Okay. I'm asking you a very different question. Oh. I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood the question. So let me be clear again. I entirely accept that they cannot talk about what goes on in the jury room. And we may have. exceptions for. medical reasons or whatever, or we may not. But they cannot do that. They cannot say anything to anybody while the trial is in.
11:29
11:29
11:29
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Members of the public. There are different rules for journalists, but members of the public sitting in the gallery exactly the same rules. When the trial is over, it is finished. Then a member of the public can post, subject to being careful not to. misrepresent or whatever, because they could be put into court for that. But they can post on social media about what happened in open court. But it.
specifically says that a. juror may not post about what happened in open court, on social media.
specifically says that a. juror may not post about what happened in open court, on social media.
11:29
11:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which is that the juror has been directly. involved in arriving at verdict. Their commentary on what happened in open court on social media will. inevitably stray or bleed into what is likely to have happened in the deliberation room and in the ultimate. determination of in terms of a verdict at which they participated in. arriving and and arriving at. And so I think it's right that jurors be prevented from commenting, commentating on what happened in open court, as well as what happened in the jury room. You know, as for the. differential treatment between the juror and another member of the public, we have a we have an important principle, as well as.
confidentiality in the jury room. And that's one of open justice. And what happens in in in open court is there for anybody to see freedom of expression being what it is. You know, people can, can, can have their say on what happened. I think it would be very, very. difficult to police that distinction between the. deliberation room and open court if a juror were commentating. And I think that would be a really.
unwise move .
confidentiality in the jury room. And that's one of open justice. And what happens in in in open court is there for anybody to see freedom of expression being what it is. You know, people can, can, can have their say on what happened. I think it would be very, very. difficult to police that distinction between the. deliberation room and open court if a juror were commentating. And I think that would be a really.
unwise move .
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the. reason for the constraint on jurors commenting on social media is very clear, and I really do think it could. It could. endanger the. integrity of of what had happened in the jury room. And, you know, you would not expect a judge. post-trial beyond giving of sentencing. remarks to. commentate on what had happened in open court, including on a family WhatsApp group. I would regard that as inappropriate. So insofar as it is helpful and it assists to give definitive guidance, I wouldn't get into the habit of family WhatsApp groups because we know actually that WhatsApp groups that you think are closed groups quickly can end up being broadcast more rapidly.
So I would really, really guard against that. It is not the place of .
So I would really, really guard against that. It is not the place of .
11:33
11:33
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
-
-
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To provide a commentary on what happened in the trial. Okay. Baroness Hughes, thank you, chair. Good morning. Good morning. I hopefully a more straightforward question, although there's been changes in the Courts and Tribunal Bill on. introduction to the Lords from where it started in the Commons, it still contains plans to reduce the number of either way offences, and I think some complex fraud cases being tried by jury. And, you know, that may. suggest that a higher proportion of. jurors will now be on more serious violent and sexual offences. Firstly, was an impact. assessment of this bill.
undertaken before its. introduction and did, if so, did that.
undertaken before its. introduction and did, if so, did that.
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So, yes, there was an impact assessment, as you would expect, and and I'd invite members of the committee more widely, peers, to refer to it as the bill has now entered your place. Did it look. specifically at this question? I don't believe it did. And that's for this for a good reason. I totally. understand the premise of the question. What I would say is that the. reforms to criminal courts proposed in the Courts and Tribunals Bill will not materially affect the juror experience that we are talking about, even under our current system. unreformed jury. trials have always been reserved for the most serious cases.
The fact that 3% of our. trials are. conducted with a jury means that, by definition, the ones that we are, I think, most concerned about in the context of today's.
The fact that 3% of our. trials are. conducted with a jury means that, by definition, the ones that we are, I think, most concerned about in the context of today's.
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, the the really horrible stuff, if I can call it that way. That's always been heard with a jury trial. So that's that doesn't that's not altered by these. reforms because we would we were always preserving jury trial for those cases. I suppose that you're right, given that the reforms have the. effect of diverting some. cases that could that would be heard under the current system in the crown to the magistrates means that as a.
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Be in some way more serious cases, won't they? Won't they? Sorry. The only. cases that will be retained by the magistrates under the reform. system fall in the category of triable. Either way, where the court, under the new system deems them. suitable to be heard with a magistrate. So by. definition they would have to fall within the sentencing powers of the Magistrates Court, which are obviously lower than the Crown Court. Juries are always being reserved for the most serious cases, including those traumatic ones that that doesn't change under the system. I hope that makes sense.
So the sorts of. cases that I expect to be retained within the magistrates court, therefore not requiring a jury are less serious cases of theft, for example. The example that's often given is, you know, shoplifting, theft of a whisky bottle or something, which at the. moment a defendant can elect for a jury trial under the reformed system, that right of election would be removed. The court would triage that case. And in many cases, we think where the CPS makes. representations and the court thinks it can retain it, it will keep it. So that doesn't alter the jury experience.
The the jurors will still be hearing the diet of the most .
So the sorts of. cases that I expect to be retained within the magistrates court, therefore not requiring a jury are less serious cases of theft, for example. The example that's often given is, you know, shoplifting, theft of a whisky bottle or something, which at the. moment a defendant can elect for a jury trial under the reformed system, that right of election would be removed. The court would triage that case. And in many cases, we think where the CPS makes. representations and the court thinks it can retain it, it will keep it. So that doesn't alter the jury experience.
The the jurors will still be hearing the diet of the most .
11:38
11:39
11:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The efficient operation of our criminal justice system. It's something we're going to look at. How is that. triage being undertaken by the court operating in practice? And the other the other aspect to it is that as part of the bill we've laid. We did at report stage laid a government. amendment to incorporate an independent review of how the reforms were operating, in particular, to look at how that. allocation plays out and is impacting those with protected.
11:39
11:39
11:40
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
-
-
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Magistrates court and the Crown Court to ensure we've got a system that's working well. Okay. Just finally, if I may, one last point, chair. For me, you gave an example of theft. You know, obviously that's clearly a case of a certain kind, but either way. offences that may no longer be heard by. juries can include things like threat to kill, possession of a knife, burglary, and some of those.
cases if the court decides they stay in the magistrate's court, I do put to you .
cases if the court decides they stay in the magistrate's court, I do put to you .
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
By juries and therefore the impact on them should be considered right. But the question, the principled. question of whether you think that all these cases should be heard with a jury as they are now, that goes to the principles that lie behind the bill. And I'd remind the committee of a couple of things on that, not to get into the bill, but one, we have a Crown Court backlog of.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And we undertook an independent review of criminal courts led by Lord Leveson, but also with David Ormerod and with very experienced crossbench peers, the likes of Lord Burnett. explaining that for a long time there have been many cases that have gone to the Crown, where both the CPS and Magistrates Court have indicated they could hear them, but driven by the defendant's right to elect, they've ended up in the crown with all the resource implications and impact on the backlog that's had. That's one of the rationales behind these reforms. The other rationale is the principle of removing the right to elect.
We think that it's the court that should triage where cases, the venue where cases should take place so that the resource dedicated to them is appropriate to their seriousness. You know, of course, we can have a debate about the merits of that bill. But in terms of the juror impact, which I think we're here to discuss today, if a case is retained by the. magistrates because the court considers that's the best place for it, that won't impact jurors, who will continue to have to hear, you know, some of the most serious cases as is, right, because we think that.
jurors and. juries are an.
We think that it's the court that should triage where cases, the venue where cases should take place so that the resource dedicated to them is appropriate to their seriousness. You know, of course, we can have a debate about the merits of that bill. But in terms of the juror impact, which I think we're here to discuss today, if a case is retained by the. magistrates because the court considers that's the best place for it, that won't impact jurors, who will continue to have to hear, you know, some of the most serious cases as is, right, because we think that.
jurors and. juries are an.
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
Baroness Buscombe
-
-
Baroness Buscombe
Is the Department doing any work on. Has the diet actually got more difficult for jurors in that. There are. When we were at Southwark, there's more what they call Razo cases. Many rapes now are filmed. And is that going to be taken into account when you're setting, setting national minimum standards that the oral description of evidence is very different of an impact, we believe, on a juror than seeing moving footage.
And, and the introduction of body worn cameras means that like the discovery of a body can, if it's .
And, and the introduction of body worn cameras means that like the discovery of a body can, if it's .
11:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Evidentially valuable, can be much more traumatic on a jury. You know, this is just the sort of thing we do. We know that Raso ground rape and serious sexual offences have massively grown over the last ten years, driven by police, prosecution and so on. You turn the clock back ten years, 15 years. It was lots of what we call acquisitive crimes. It's completely changed, especially in the London Crown Court. You know, it's almost wall to wall assault cases going through. And, you know, you're right as well. Audio visual has completely changed the proliferation of body worn camera.
I think about. 75% of all Crown court trials now have an element of audio visual material. And this drives our training package. You know, I mentioned trauma informed training being rolled out across Hmcts. This is in. response to, well, not just providing a better service to those who use the courts, but it also reflects the changing nature of the material that comes before the court, really. And we will continue to do that either through the work of this committee or through the work of our own teams, in trying to.
reflect what .
I think about. 75% of all Crown court trials now have an element of audio visual material. And this drives our training package. You know, I mentioned trauma informed training being rolled out across Hmcts. This is in. response to, well, not just providing a better service to those who use the courts, but it also reflects the changing nature of the material that comes before the court, really. And we will continue to do that either through the work of this committee or through the work of our own teams, in trying to.
reflect what .
11:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Magistrates court and help our staff and those who use the Crown Court, the jurors and the jurors. Yeah. Can I just can I just add one more point there? I think it's a really good point. The changing pattern of crime and the increase in the number of cases, I think, is a really important feature of the. challenges that the criminal justice system is confronting. And you're absolutely right in that.
context to highlight the impact on jurors. I mean, it's an important.
context to highlight the impact on jurors. I mean, it's an important.
11:45
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In in the whole criminal justice system that more of these cases are coming to court. And in that context, I just want to mention two things in addition to what we've been talking about today. But but I think it's you're absolutely right. It's pertinent to raise the impact on jurors. One is the extension of Operation Soteria. principles to the Crown Court in relation to. cases and the commitment that the government's made and the.
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Razzo courts in every Crown Court centre. Much as you know, we're proud of that commitment. It's about a trauma. informed setting in which all the staff, the ticketed judge, everyone has trauma informed training. Jurors will indirectly benefit from being in a setting where the. material that. surfaces in a typical rape or serious sexual violence case will be being.
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To that is there at the moment might be a national minimum standard. There isn't at the moment. But as I said, we are we are going through a culture shift. Some of the some of that is in national minimum standards. Some of that is in the establishment of courts and the training around that. Some of that is in the measures in the Bill. So. The later, if you like, less controversial measures in the bill, some of those go to, you know, contain Law Commission.
11:47
11:47
11:47
Lord Empey
-
-
Lord Empey
11:48
11:48
Lord Empey
-
-
Lord Empey
If they're in the public sector, the chances are that they'll be paid while they're serving on a jury. Whereas in the private sector, if you have small business person one, one man band, as it were, it comes back to how we pay expenses to jurors. And we know there's not unlimited resources, but when was the last review of juror expenses and when is the next one? Because the figure of. 5.71 is emblazoned into our memories, the supplement people are paid and quite clearly would barely buy somebody a cup of coffee in today's money. So .
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Days, you'll know that jurors can claim allowances for financial loss, additional care expenses, travel and subsistence. But no one is. suggesting that the rates have kept pace with cost of living and inflation. We are asking people to do a civic duty, and I. appreciate that for people from different.
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There are other areas that are yet to receive an uplift, but that is the stark. position in which the Ministry of Justice found itself being on the receiving end of real term cuts for a number of years. So I appreciate the point that's being put to me, and I don't fundamentally disagree with the principle and the force with which it's made. But I think we have to put in context the choices that ministers are faced with. And we are making record investments in sitting days, criminal legal aid and also in court maintenance, something from which, again, jurors do indirectly and indeed directly benefit from the.
£287 million capital budget. Some of that will be going on. The facilities that jurors have to interact with. That is a good thing. So I will look at it and I will consider what can be done within the scope of the next spending review.
£287 million capital budget. Some of that will be going on. The facilities that jurors have to interact with. That is a good thing. So I will look at it and I will consider what can be done within the scope of the next spending review.
11:53
11:53
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
But I think it's important to put it in context and explain the choices that we've made. Could I just ask? I think we all understand the. difficulty both you have in answering as a minister and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer and so on, and we all appreciate that the Department has to make choices. So we all. understand where you're coming from, but I think you will understand the committee's been very. disturbed by some of the. information we have received about the impact. If we take some of the. extreme cases just to. illustrate it, if, for.
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:54
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Almost I mean. it's a huge for most people. For most people. So so there are issues around when people are paid and whether or not we can't go back to a system that used to enable people to be able to pay at the time and so on. So the cost isn't going to go up. There might need to be a bit more monitoring cost. I'll accept the cost might the cost is not overall going to go up.
It's just a case of payment to make it easier for the.
It's just a case of payment to make it easier for the.
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The cost of living being what it is that that this isn't a significant burden. There are hardship exceptions. One can either upon summons or even indeed at court. apply for jury service to be deferred and in rare cases. But there are. cases to be. excused all together. But I think you're right to highlight that the the burden on juries and indeed something we've not highlighted, highlighted, but on particularly where we're talking about small. businesses and, and. employers where, you know, losing a member of a team for some significant. time without. recompense can, can also be a burden as well.
So no one is suggesting that this isn't a .
So no one is suggesting that this isn't a .
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:57
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
Well, anyway, have have a look at the forms you might wish to. consider how they're written. Look, I'm very. grateful for the questions we've had on our main inquiry. And Minister, we've got a few more minutes, but only a few before I know you have to go off to other things, but I know a number of my colleagues would like to use this as an opportunity. Since the Courts and Tribunal Bill is beginning its passage through the House of Lords only today, that there might be some colleagues with the odd question or two, if you're happy to answer them.
So I .
So I .
11:58
11:58
11:58
Lord Bach
-
-
Lord Bach
So do go on. This is very dangerous stuff. But Minister, speaking personally and I appreciate very much what this government has managed to do in terms of those issues you raised just now about raising fees that have not been raised for very, very, very long time, including a time when I was the legal aid minister. So I don't do this with any sort of grandness. Just to ask you really, do you. realise does the department. realise that law centres and I should declare that I'm chair of a. unremunerated remunerated chair of a law centre that law centres.
generally do? I hope you believe very good work are feeling very much at the moment like everybody else, but feeling very much that some are not capable of doing it.
generally do? I hope you believe very good work are feeling very much at the moment like everybody else, but feeling very much that some are not capable of doing it.
11:59
Lord Bach
-
-
Lord Bach
Because because of the world we live in. And Hillingdon Law Centre closed its doors after 40 years just out of the week. Which will have presumably a profound effect on people living in that part of west London. I wonder, given all the fiscal difficulties, that there definitely are for the MoJ, whether you are giving sort of thought as to what you may be able to do in order to help. Now, this is more like a parliamentary question than it is at a committee like this, but it's the first time we've really had a chance of.
discussing these issues of .
discussing these issues of .
12:00
12:00
12:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Early legal advice for people. I'm visiting North Kensington Law Centre tomorrow , and I started my own career at the Free Legal Advice Centre at Toynbee Hall in the East End of London, so my commitment to law centres and my understanding of the value of the work they do runs deep. And it's why, as a first step, the.
12:00
12:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So multi-year. support to legal. support for. several dozen organisations. I think they value that multi-year support, knowing they're going to have the money for future years. But as the minister responsible for legal support and legal aid, I'm really keen. that we move to a more preventative model because getting that early legal advice is often as.
12:01
12:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If not more important. sometimes than than spending lots of money on legal aid, by which time the problem has become very acute. The analogy with health sometimes works a little bit like, you know, being seen early by your GP and nipping a. problem in the bud early before it gets more serious and you end up in court. So the value of law centres is patently obvious to me. I think we need more of it. I would like to shift some of our.
spending to earlier in the.
spending to earlier in the.
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:03
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
-
-
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Both in the magistrates and obviously in the Crown and the delays in people waiting for their case to be heard and the lack of justice that that means for people, magistrates courts, I think, are really struggling. And many people are waiting for trials in very sensitive. cases for years. Can you. report any. progress being made in. reducing the delays in court .
12:03
12:03
12:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Both in the Crown Court and to a lesser extent. But we keep a watchful eye on the magistrates court. But the central insight of Lord Leveson's independent review is that you needed three things. Firstly. investment and the biggest investment, which I've already referred to earlier, is lifting the cap on sitting days , when we had a financial limit on how much Crown courts could sit, it meant that even those crown court centres that are operating really well, really.
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Meant that when they hit their cap, they couldn't sit anymore. We've lifted that. What that means is, is that Liverpool is not just getting through its backlog, it's also taking on some cases from Manchester. I was there the other day. We are sitting more, we're getting through more cases and if you look at the rate of growth of the backlog, I'm not saying it's coming down getting to that. But but but it has stabilised significantly because of the investment we've made. The second thing Lord Leveson said is efficiencies. We've got to make the system more efficient.
We've published our response to the Leveson Review. We're accepting a whole programme of work around efficiencies. You have heard me talk about the video remand hearings. You'll have heard me talk about a case progression officer. In every crown court centre, we're doing short trial courts, sometimes known as blitz courts. You might have seen them at the Bailey on your visit. There are a host of measures we're doing to make the system work more efficiently. But the third one, and this is the most pertinent one for today, the IRC. concluded that without structural reform we would not bear down on these delays.
So are we making progress? We are in areas one and two. We're making progress insofar as the Bill has come from the Commons and is now coming to you for very important scrutiny, but we will not get the backlog in our Crown Court down. unless we look at the whole. system and really ask ourselves, where do cases need to be heard? The most serious cases must always be reserved for a jury trial, but cases which don't need a jury trial and can be heard just as fairly in the magistrates court, should be retained there. That is one of the central.
We've published our response to the Leveson Review. We're accepting a whole programme of work around efficiencies. You have heard me talk about the video remand hearings. You'll have heard me talk about a case progression officer. In every crown court centre, we're doing short trial courts, sometimes known as blitz courts. You might have seen them at the Bailey on your visit. There are a host of measures we're doing to make the system work more efficiently. But the third one, and this is the most pertinent one for today, the IRC. concluded that without structural reform we would not bear down on these delays.
So are we making progress? We are in areas one and two. We're making progress insofar as the Bill has come from the Commons and is now coming to you for very important scrutiny, but we will not get the backlog in our Crown Court down. unless we look at the whole. system and really ask ourselves, where do cases need to be heard? The most serious cases must always be reserved for a jury trial, but cases which don't need a jury trial and can be heard just as fairly in the magistrates court, should be retained there. That is one of the central.
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Are you not going to increase the backlog in the. magistrates courts? Well, you're right to ask the question that I've asked of our officials who are planning, which is that we don't want to divert the problem from one place to another. The way we avoid that is twofold. The starting point is that the magistrates court is is a more efficient jurisdiction. So for a triable either way case. That could be heard in the Crown could be heard in the magistrates. Those cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates. So it is an efficient jurisdiction.
It doesn't have a backlog. It has a caseload, but it doesn't have a backlog. Anything like as bad as the Crown Court. But the second thing we have to do and we are doing is increase the. capacity of the magistrates court. And we're doing this in a number of ways. The committee will know about the magistrates recruitment campaign.
It doesn't have a backlog. It has a caseload, but it doesn't have a backlog. Anything like as bad as the Crown Court. But the second thing we have to do and we are doing is increase the. capacity of the magistrates court. And we're doing this in a number of ways. The committee will know about the magistrates recruitment campaign.
12:07
12:07
12:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
An additional 7000, but to get up to. 21,000 magistrates, which is where we were in 2014. By the end of this Parliament, we are recruiting more legal. advisers than 16 additional legal advisers. We're recruiting more district judges. So we have to. expand the the the capacity of the magistrates court in order to cope with the additional demands that we are placing on it. But what I am pleased to report in the stats that we published just a few days ago is that in terms of our recruitment.
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The effect of being more efficient, you get through more trials is you is you increase demand and pressure on the prison system, which, as we know, is already under huge pressure. But what you also do is you get through the remand cases as well. And that can be of huge benefit, not just to the individuals who are on remand and whose lives are in limbo, either unable to engage with the routines that they would were they in the permanent estate or frankly, allowed to go free if if they're innocent. So those those impacts are complex, but they've been modelled to a .
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
Lord Foster of Bath
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath
If there are any further things that you sort of thought you should have told us or you wish you'd told us, or perhaps want to change the words you used or whatever, please get back to us. But could I ask you to do it really quickly? Because just we need to get on and produce our report. So it's helpful to you in the. deliberations that you are having. But on behalf of the entire committee, thank you very much indeed.
12:10