Criminal Court Reform

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently standing at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

‘deny or delay right or justice’.

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown Courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change.

First, I will create new ‘swift courts’ within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges will provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hard-wire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common-law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates’ courts so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown Court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising case load. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, at the heart of this Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The Government intend first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable-only offences or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less and, secondly, doing away with the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial altogether.

On the first, a radical restriction of jury trials, do the Government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make-up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise. Importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only, would not all but the most serious cases of dishonesty be triable by judge alone?

Do the Government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Is that not a fundamental mistake? Let us take the Horizon scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence—three and a quarter years—only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins. Most sentences were between six and 18 months, yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to a breakdown or suicide. Those defendants would have no right to a jury trial.

What about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career, income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting, and who wants the defence of honest mistake or absent-mindedness determined by a jury? What about the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure, who will never work with children again if convicted but who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity?

The proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of the sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants gaming the system. In the Statement, the word “gaming” is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor’s thinking? That is an absurd preconception. Do not many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers, with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer. They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary, one from another, in their prejudices and judgment. Does the Minister not agree? The public trust juries, and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals.

How are judges or magistrates to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started or any evidence been heard? Does the Minister believe that that would be either possible or fair? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? Should not these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that.

Jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years. Lord Devlin described it as

“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

The Statement mentions Magna Carta and it prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta does not do that. King John was not asked to take his pick between Article 39 on jury trials and Article 40 on justice delayed or denied—the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice, and we should do that now.

Will the Government not take further steps to reduce delays? Steps should and could be taken, including having many more court sitting days, repairing the courts, having more efficient listing, and using more and smarter technology. Do the Government really insist that the delays could not be cut over time with greater investment? Possibly in some long, technical fraud trials—where the points taken are genuinely not jury points, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when—the mode of trial might be changed. More generally, do the Government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because they admit defeat on cutting delays?

I have a final but entirely unrelated question on the Statement. The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent on victim support services over three years, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the Minister give us more detail, either now or in writing later?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they made on these reforms. I have a great deal of respect for the insight that both bring and their observations about the Statement.

I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Many people may think that it a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them due to the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many years. Victims are now reaping what the party opposite sowed. We on these Benches have to try to put this right.

Many matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all in my short response now. However, there are answers to almost all of them. For example, he asked how we estimate the likely sentence. That it is done using the sentencing guidelines. It is done all the time at the moment; magistrates do it day in, day out in the magistrates’ courts, when they decide where someone should be tried. It is a task that can be undertaken.

One of the things I want to say from the Dispatch Box is that I have changed my mind. I have been a criminal barrister for many decades. When I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trials was fundamentally wrong. However, I then became a judge in the Crown Court and saw what was actually happening. Every judge in the Crown Court up and down this country will have experienced sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, “I cannot believe that this case I am trying here and now is actually in the Crown Court. It shouldn’t be here”.

We are not sacrificing jury trials—of course we are not. It has never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury; 90% are currently tried in the magistrates’ courts. The question is, where do we draw the line? That is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review, and we will accept his conclusions. It would be frankly irresponsible not to do so; we cannot ignore what he is saying. We are not going far further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, implied; we are doing exactly what Sir Brian suggested: having a Crown Court Bench Division to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.

This is a package to deal with the problems we face with the criminal justice system; it is not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is about investment: record investment is being made in the criminal justice system in sitting days and legal aid payments to the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors, whose fees went down for ages. The second is about structural reform, which is what we are discussing now; that includes the removal of the right to elect, the reform of appeals in the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court Bench Division and some reforms to fraud trials. The third is about efficiency, and that is what Sir Brian is considering in the second part of his report.

Gaming the system is a real problem. I am afraid that there are rumours out there that some people are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police. Some of those people know that the delays are such in the Crown Court that, if they elect trial by jury and decide to sit around and wait, particularly if they are on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but at least two or maybe three. They will probably be tagged, and when they come back to the Crown Court when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then. That means that the time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served. I have seen that, and that is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard—possibly dropping out—meaning that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people’s real lives. If tradition is going to survive, it has to adapt.

Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. It makes sense—of course it does—because you do not have to swear in a jury; such things take time.

Governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day and to deliver for the public and the most vulnerable. This means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.

One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that trials have become more complicated. There is good news: the police are arresting more people, and more of them are coming through the courts. That is what we want to see. But things such as advances in science, such as DNA, advances in techniques, such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, and social media make proving a case, and, indeed, defending a case, much more complicated than it was. That is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place.

For the courts, there is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that would not require the system to deal with some change. The delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation. We are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. That is why we are not intending to impose a sunset clause here. These are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody is quite sure what is happening. These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, would she kindly answer the question: is it intended that these proposals will be retrospective? If not, how on earth are they going to impact upon the present backlog?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

At present, there are no plans to make them retrospective, but that is why it is going to take time. That is why it will take time to work its way through. But if we do not do this, not only would we not be tackling the current backlog, we would be letting it grow. That is why it cannot continue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.

Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to confront a really difficult issue. The status quo is quite unacceptable. I would rather hope that this House and Parliament in general could treat this on a non-party-political basis. There are a lot of reasons why there were delays; some of them were due to Covid, which is a non-party-political issue. But I have long thought that fraud trials, for example, are very often wholly unsuitable for juries. I am glad that the Government acknowledge that.

As to the question of judges and reasons, I have just two questions I would like to ask the Minister. I would have thought that judges, when they do determine these things, might well give reasons. That would be consistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There would be a considerable advantage to potential appellants, because they would know the reasons why they had been convicted; whereas at the moment, with jury verdicts, you have the board verdict of guilty or not guilty. You do not know whether they have taken into consideration relevant consideration or irrelevant considerations.

My other question is this. The Statement reads:

“Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases”.


Standing back, does it occur to the House and, indeed, to the Minister that it is slightly odd that the 90% or so of the trivial offences are tried by those with professional experience, and yet we give the most serious cases to 12 conscientious but random people taken off the street?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his observations. As far as reasons are concerned, yes, absolutely: judges sitting alone will give reasons. Not only is it useful for appellants to know why but it can be useful for witnesses as well.

One often hears victims who have been through the system say that if the case results in an acquittal, that is bad enough, but not knowing why the defendant was acquitted is really hard for them. Transparency is important in the criminal justice system, as it is in all systems. That is one of the reasons why we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record. All proceedings in the magistrates’ court will be tape-recorded, and we are going to use artificial intelligence to provide transcripts so that people can get transcripts of what has happened much more often and can follow and read at their leisure.

As far as the point about serious cases is concerned, I have been very careful not to talk about seriousness but to talk about length of sentence. Every case is serious to those involved in it, particularly to the victims, and it would be wrong to downplay that. It is also important to note that the magistrates’ court consists of not just lay justices—justice by your peers—but professional magistrates, known as district judges these days. It is a combination who deal with these matters.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, at the end of the day, are not random and conscientious people taken off the street the best safeguards of our civil liberties against an overmighty and oppressive state? If any one of us here were to be charged with a criminal offence, would we not rather put our trust and confidence in a jury rather than in a state appointee? Are not juries the best way of linking ordinary people to our criminal justice system?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My noble friend might have a point if it were not for the fact that 90% of cases are currently being dealt with in the magistrates’ court. They are not dealt with by juries.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

By lay people.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

They are not all dealt with by lay people at all; they are dealt with by district judges as well. They are state appointees. They used to be known as stipendiary magistrates—my noble friend knows this perfectly well; he has practised in those courts. Stipendiary magistrates have a part to play and so do lay people. The important thing is that they have to give reasoned rulings. We have to have a system that is proportionate and fair and deals with everybody’s interests, not just those of a few.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on very clearly from that of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. I declare an interest, since a number of my friends and colleagues have been acquitted by juries of charges against them relating to actions of political protest. My question focuses on democracy. Does the Minister agree that juries are not just part of our legal system but important defenders of our right to protest, something our democracy is built around? Given the repressive anti-protest legislation passed in recent years under the previous Government, which it appears this Government have no intention of repealing, are these plans not a serious threat to our democracy as well as our legal rights?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will repeat what I have already said. Over 90% of criminal trials are already heard in magistrates’ court, which does deal with some protest cases without a jury. It is likely that many protest-related offences are dealt with there. The important thing is that no one group of defendants is more important than any other. Everyone is equal before the law. We cannot have a carve-out for a particular group of offences or a particular group of people. We have confidence in a professional judiciary, highly trained in things such as diversity. They will do a good job.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the Justice Secretary repeatedly emphasised the lengthy waiting times in bringing cases to court. I am not a lawyer—I am one of the non-lawyers in the Chamber today—but I was disappointed that the Statement did not acknowledge the difficulties that had been brought about by the Covid lockdowns, across two or three years, which should be acknowledged. Notwithstanding that, the Minister pointed out that all the evidence, including from social media, that now has to be collected for any trial these days takes an inordinate amount of time to collate. Nevertheless, when it comes to unnecessarily lengthy waiting times, this is pure hypocrisy, given that the same Justice Secretary supports bringing to court former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland 50 years ago. In addition, the Government have certainly managed to find time recently to bring to court, pretty quickly, people who had maybe put not very nice posts on social media. Neither the public nor, I think, many in the judiciary support the steps that the Government wish to take—certainly from what I have heard. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider this ill-judged proposal and defer bringing it forward.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her observations, which echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said. I did my best to try to keep this non-partisan as far as possible until provoked into it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. It is true that Covid had an effect on the backlog, but that is not the only element; a lot of it is due to the cuts in the criminal justice system. For example, one of the questions that I am sure somebody will ask me at some point is why we simply do not open up all the unused courtrooms. The reason is that a court is much more than just a room. It is staffed by a lot of people, which includes the barristers and the solicitors, and we do not have enough criminal barristers any more because of the cuts to legal aid—about which the party opposite was warned at the time they made them. That is why we are going to increase funding for legal aid and the match funding for pupillages to try to grow back up that venerable body of practitioners. I will not comment on individual cases or categories of cases; this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I welcome almost everything in it. I wanted to raise one point which I am less happy about. Brian Leveson recommended for the Crown Court Bench Division that it should be a judge and two magistrates but the Statement said it would be a judge sitting alone. Brian Leveson in his review was very clear why he thought magistrates should be involved in the Crown Court Bench Division. First, it retains an element of community involvement and the judgment of one’s peers, by the lay magistrates sitting with the judge, and one could argue that three heads are better than one. Secondly, there is greater diversity within the magistrate cohort than there is within the judge cohort, so that would go some way to creating diversity within the three people sitting making those judgments. The third point which Brian Leveson made was on the safety of the judge sitting alone. It is safer if there are three people making that decision, because there is not a single identified decision-maker. Since we are all concerned about the safety of judges, that was a factor in keeping the decision-making for three individuals in the new Crown Court Bench Division. Will my noble friend keep an open mind about adopting the recommendations of Sir Leveson?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend very much for the question he raises. It is an important point and I am sure the rest of your Lordships’ House will want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I am now, as well as for his long service as a magistrate. He speaks from great experience.

There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first, as my noble friend will know, is that we do not have enough to staff that at the moment. We have enough justices to run the magistrates’ court and make sure that we do not then end up with a lot of backlogs there. We are running a recruitment programme and hope to recruit 2,000 more, but, at present, we do not have sufficient numbers. The second reason is about speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates’ court always sits with two lay justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. For those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation of Sir Brian—and they are principled reasons.

As for the perfectly proper point about diversity, the judiciary is becoming more diverse. It is not where we want it to be but it is getting there. What it does have is extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on particular sectors of the population. We do not really know what juries think about this because they do not have that kind of training, but we are satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what is proposed.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, as a former criminal barrister, albeit nothing like as successful as the noble Baroness was, I put on record my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and for the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. The Minister talked about the Government going ahead with “heavy investment” in courts and legal aid, and I certainly support both those initiatives. The Minister in the Commons said that to bring down court case backlogs:

“We need investment, structural reform and modernisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/25; col. 20.]


However, has the noble Baroness seen the OBR report which states that after last week’s Budget, the MoJ’s capital budget is going to be cut by 3% per annum in real terms? Was she aware of that, and, in spite of that cut, can she confirm that this investment will still go ahead?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare that my daughter is a recorder. Very many people have put to me a lot of points, and there is just one that makes me want to ask my noble friend a question. I should say that all absolutely recognise the primacy of dealing with the backlog and that there is a clear case for complex, time-consuming fraud cases to go to the judge alone, and for low-level offences to go to magistrates alone. Indeed, I remember from my time as a magistrate that it was in that area where a certain amount—not a huge amount, but some—of gaming of the system went on. My noble friend has outlined a lot of measures which will improve courts, which is one of the problems; I would have hoped that that would solve the problem of the backlog, but clearly the Government think not. Because of the representations I have had, could my noble friend say what consultation there has been on these proposals with judges and with the criminal Bar?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that the consultation has been extensive. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with us or that all of them agree with us, although I observe—I say this as a practising criminal barrister myself—that it is a profession known for its caution; it is not always, shall we say, ready to adopt new ideas in particular ways. I am confident that once this system has had an opportunity to bed in, everyone will see the advantages.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. If the Government are serious about wanting to reduce delays and backlogs in the Crown Courts, they should stop creating so many new criminal offences. In the Crime and Policing Bill alone, there are 65 new criminal offences. At the Free Speech Union, we have analysed Ministry of Justice data from 2017 to 2025, comparing the acquittal rates for those charged with speech crimes in jury trials with those for non-jury trials. The results are quite startling. For all offences, Crown Courts have acquitted 21.6% of defendants in the last eight years, compared with just 11.4% in magistrates’ courts. However, for speech-related offences, the acquittal rate in jury trials rises to 27.6%, compared with 15.9% in the magistrates’ courts. In the last three years, juries have been even more likely to find defendants not guilty of speech crimes—32.1%, compared with 14.1%. To protect free speech, will the Minister urge the Justice Secretary to retain the right to trial by jury for those accused of speech offences?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his work in relation to freedom of speech, which is important to all of us. However, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are not having carve-outs for particular kinds of offences or defendants. It would create a raft of unfairness and make the system so complicated that it would not be possible to run it.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, a question was asked about three months ago, and my suggestion was that, to meet the delays, the Government might encourage recently retired judges to help out. The Church of England could not do its ministry, particularly in rural areas, if retired clergy were not doing the work. It is quite possible to persuade some judges; whether or not they could come back immediately, it would ease the work. I tried a lot of cases alone and found it a very lonesome experience. I came to this country and thought that trial by jury was one of its greatest gifts to fairness and justice. Reduce it with great sensitivity so that it does not look as though it does not work.

Topol in “Fiddler on the Roof” has been shouting in my ears: “Tradition! Tradition!” Do not change tradition too quickly, because we may live to regret it.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is why we are adapting it and have done so after great thought, and it is why it is not a wholesale attack on the jury system. I can see entirely why the noble and right reverend Lord makes the point about asking judges to come out of retirement, but the point that Sir Brian has made is that investing in things such as the number of sitting days, which we already have done—we are sitting a record number of days—is not going to solve the problem alone. Structural reform is needed to make the system fit for the 21st century.