Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) professional bodies and (b) legal organisations his Department consulted prior to the publication of proposals to restrict jury trials; and what alternative measures his Department has considered to reduce the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with many external bodies and organisations with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of Part 1 of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of trends in the number of court sitting days on the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We have funded 112,250 Crown Court sitting days this financial year – 5,000 more than the previous Government and a record number. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that sitting days will continue to increase in both the Crown and magistrates’ courts.
As our latest published projections show, demand by 2030 is forecast to be 7% higher in the Crown Court than current levels. This means the courts would need to sit 139,000 days just to keep up with demand and even that would not enable us to reduce the backlog. The system is not able to deliver that number – there are insufficient prosecutors, defence barristers and judges to keep up with the demand. As a benchmark, the Lady Chief Justice has said that the maximum the judiciary could presently sit is around 113,000 sitting days.
Therefore, even with record-breaking investment in sitting days, the Crown Court backlog will continue to grow, leaving people waiting for longer and longer for justice. That is why we are pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – to turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver justice for victims.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to reform powers in relation to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government implemented the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) in June 2025, which provides protection against SLAPPs relating to economic crime. While this was a positive first step, we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and (b) the potential impact of those lawsuits on public-interest advocacy and journalism.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to improve access to legal aid in short notice cases.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We recognise that in certain circumstances individuals may need to access legal aid services urgently and the Government provides specific support to facilitate this.
In criminal legal aid, those who are to be interviewed under caution by the police are entitled to advice and assistance from a solicitor, which is arranged through the Defence Solicitor Call Centre on a 24/7 basis. Court duty solicitors are available to provide immediate advice to individuals on a first appearance in the magistrates’ court, except for certain minor offences such as summary motoring offences.
We have committed up to £92 million per year additional investment for criminal legal aid solicitors. As part of that, we are harmonising the fixed fee for all police station schemes at £320 excluding VAT. This is above the current highest fee paid, meaning all police station attendance fee schemes will see an uplift. In addition, we are uplifting magistrates’ court fees by 10%. This significant investment will support duty solicitors who work on short notice cases, and the sustainability of the profession.
In civil legal aid, providers can apply to the Legal Aid Agency for Emergency Legal Representation to cover emergency legal advice if individuals need urgent representation in court.
In public family proceedings, legal aid is available means-free for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family law special Children Act 1989 cases, including for interim care orders and emergency protection orders. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered.
An eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse applying for urgent protection. This means they can receive legal aid even if they would not otherwise pass the means test, though they may then have to pay a financial contribution towards their legal costs.
For people facing the loss of their home, in-court advice and representation is available on the day of the possession hearing via the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service.
Individuals held in Immigration Removal Centres and immigration detainees held in prisons are provided with a 30-minute triage appointment through the Detained Duy Advice Scheme. This initial appointment supports detained individuals to make contact with a legal provider that may provide further advice (subject to merits and eligibility).
We are uplifting legal aid fees for immigration and housing work, injecting an additional £20 million per year, which will support swift access to legal aid in these areas, including for short notice cases.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to (a) reduce the time taken for and costs associated with Court of Protection applications for care decisions and (b) ensure families have access to clear, publicly available guidance on those processes.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS is working to increase overall system capacity to decrease processing times across all types of applications. Measures taken include a targeted action plan to allocate additional administrative resources in response to higher demand, as well as training and upskilling new staff. Additional judicial sitting days have been added to support performance improvement. HMCTS is also working on improvements to the new case management system, to help reduce overall end-to-end processing times.
Guidance on the court process is publicly available on GOV.UK. In addition, online application forms which assist users with ‘in application’ guidance and prompts are also available for some types of applications.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the contribution of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives fellows to improving equality, diversity and social mobility in the legal profession; and what steps he taking to further these aims.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice recognises the contribution of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) and its Fellows in improving equality, diversity and social mobility in the legal profession. I reflected this when I delivered a welcome address at the CILEX annual conference this month in Birmingham, noting that CILEX is a valuable engine of social mobility in the profession. Data showing the diversity of CILEX members is published by CILEX Regulation (CRL) in its biennial Diversity Data Survey. The most recent published survey is available here: https://cilexregulation.org.uk/diversity-data/.
The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. Under the Legal Services Act (LSA) 2007, the responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). CRL is the independent regulatory body of CILEX. Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession is one of nine regulatory objectives under the LSA 2007, which the LSB, approved regulators, and the Office for Legal Complaints, have a duty to promote.
Recent action by CRL includes publishing its first Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy, issuing its next biennial Diversity Data Survey, expanding diversity reporting in enforcement, and revising qualifying employment and experience requirements to remove barriers. CRL is refreshing its EDI Strategy this year. Steps taken by CILEX include establishing the CILEX Foundation in 2021 to remove financial and social mobility barriers and launching the CILEX Judicial Academy in 2024 to help increase diversity within the judiciary by supporting lawyers – including CILEX professionals – aspiring to judicial careers.
While respecting independence, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal services representative bodies and regulators on a range of issues including improving equality, diversity, and social mobility in the profession.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with Immigration and Asylum Tribunal Judges on the introduction of independent adjudicators to hear asylum appeals.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
It is standard practice not to comment on the specifics of discussions between ministers and the judiciary.
As would be expected, the Lord Chancellor has regular meetings with the Lady Chief Justice and other senior judges.
In line with constitutional conventions, discussions with the judiciary do not cover the merits of policy proposals and are limited to technical matters relating to the operation of the courts and the wider administration of justice.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the service provided by the (a) probate service and (b) probate service contractors.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Official statistics published by the Ministry of Justice show that despite continued high levels of receipts, the effectiveness of the service being provided continues to improve. Average waiting times are reducing and was 6 weeks, from receipt of the documentation needed across all types of grants, for grants issued during October to December 2024, down from 13 weeks for the same period in 2023 and the open caseload has reduced to 39,142 as at the end of December 2024, down from 77,904 at the end of 2023.
HMCTS administers the probate service with civil servants. When a third party provides a service, such as document scanning, HMCTS regularly meets with them to review performance against Service Level Agreements and has no concerns.
Average waiting times and open caseload for probate grants are routinely published on gov.uk via the Family Court Statistics: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of Court of Protection in (a) issuing granted orders and (b) training for staff.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Court orders in the Court of Protection are prepared and approved by the Judiciary before being sealed and sent to the parties by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Regular management checks are conducted to review court processes, with additional training provided as necessary. Furthermore, the implementation of a new case management system in July 2024 provided extra training for all administrative teams concerning order production.