Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts
Wednesday 9th July 2025

(2 days, 10 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can tell that my hon. Friend has taken the liberty of actually reading the report, because he has identified the central premise and argument that Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, makes in it, which is this: we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis we have inherited. We need to carefully consider once-in-a-generation structural reform. We have got to combine that with investment, too, which this Government are already doing with the 4,000 additional sitting days that we have added, over and above what the previous Government agreed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about investment plus reform.

Carla Lockhart Portrait Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Does the Minister accept that changes to fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, in one part of the United Kingdom could create serious divergence across jurisdictions and raise questions about equal access to justice for citizens in Northern Ireland?

Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the hon. Member well knows, justice is a devolved matter, and it is right that decisions involving justice are taken at the correct level, but I assure her and the rest of the House that the state’s obligation to provide a fair trial is paramount. Whether, as is currently the case, someone’s case is heard in the magistrates court without a jury, or whether, as for the most serious cases—and as will continue to be the case—a case is heard with a jury, the point is that the state must deliver a fair trial. The question of equal access to justice therefore simply will not arise.