Court Reporting Data

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the data protection issues that have been identified with Courtsdesk, but can she explain why her Department ignored the 16 letters written by Courtsdesk asking for dialogue before deciding to do away with the system? As was pointed out by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), it is the only centralised tool for justice reporting. Reporters have described the MOJ’s own data as fragmented, incomplete and impractical to navigate, and according to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, its own records on court listings were accurate just 4% of the time. It is those gaps that Courtsdesk was designed to fill by providing clear and accurate information for reporters.

Doing away with this platform will naturally add to the feeling that the MOJ is avoiding difficult questions and dodging accountability by undermining journalism. Will the Minister suspend the deletion of the archive until the Information Commissioner’s Office has looked into these issues and drawn its own conclusions? If she insists on going ahead with the deletion in the coming days, will she please give an indication of a timeline within which we can expect a platform that will serve the same purpose?

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing.

Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.

We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.

Separation Centres Review

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

That attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security, so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists.

The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis. If we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the Government are taking action, and I ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. Will he commit to a follow-up report, to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness?

A recent report on separation centres by His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate. At one site, almost half of officers said that insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health, and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report? If not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?

[Mr Lammy]

We will continue to place individuals in separation centres, and Mr Hall’s review confirmed that they remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for that.

The hon. Lady asked whether I would update the House on progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations. I will seek to find ways to update the House as we do that, but I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and on legislative timeframes, so I suspect they will go beyond this Parliament.

The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved. To be attacked in that way involves tremendous trauma for those officers, who are putting their lives at risk on a day-to-day basis, as well as for their families and the other officers in the building who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks. The training is vital, and she is right that it cannot be inconsistent. That is why the Government’s response today is underpinned by the need to ensure that the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism are working hand in hand with our experts in prisons to get this right, and that we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Justice Secretary is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied, but the Institute for Government’s report into jury trials showed that his plans to erode jury trials will make very little difference to the courts backlog, so it is no surprise that there is wide-ranging opposition to the proposals from within the legal profession and across these Benches. If the Deputy Prime Minister does decide to press ahead with these unpopular reforms, he stated that it would not be retrospective, but the Courts Minister said it would be retrospective in the Justice Committee. Who is telling the truth?

[Mr Lammy]

The IfG estimated a 10% contribution. If this were a 10% contribution to bringing down waiting lists at a hospital in the hon. Lady’s constituency, she would have it. Sir Brian estimated a 20% contribution. I said we would bring forward the modelling. Of course, it is right that there is no substantive criminal liability change in our proposals, so in that sense, it is not retrospective, but in terms of caseload, of course, they will be subject to the new mode of trial once this Bill gets Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue, and I also pay tribute to the work of JENGbA. I have met the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has referred, I think, three cases to the Court of Appeal—to look closely at the issue. I am of course taking an interest in this issue, and I look forward to meeting campaigners in the coming months to discuss what more we may be able to do.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is clear, as more evidence comes to light, that Peter Mandelson abused his position while in government, and the Liberal Democrats are calling for a public inquiry. The Hillsborough law cannot come soon enough to ensure that public inquiries hear all the relevant evidence. When the Public Office (Accountability) Bill finally comes back to the House, will the Government seriously consider my amendment, which would ensure that the duty of candour applies to all those leaving public office, including those who retire, resign or are removed?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am quite confident that the Bill does that now, but I will look closely again at her amendment.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.

The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?

The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?

The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?

The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Member’s questions. As I set out in the statement, the issue of short-term sentences disproportionately affects female prisoners. As I recall, the average sentence that a female prisoner faces when they are sentenced to less than 12 months is around seven weeks, which is often completely absurd and can affect the prisoner and her family detrimentally and not lead to rehabilitation. Our policies on short-term sentences are a massive part of what we trying to do around that cohort. Lord Timpson is leading on the women’s justice board, which is looking at provisions for us to assist that particular cohort, who often have very particular needs.

On prison places, of course there is always market volatility. As the House knows, the Government are trying to build 1.5 million houses, and we have a commitment to invest in infrastructure. That is always complex. It can be too difficult at times, and we are trying to change that. Part of the reason for having this annual statement is to make sure that any Government are held to account for the prison places to which they have committed. We have committed to building and delivering 14,000 by 2030, and I am confident that we will do that.

On probation officers, the hon. Member is right to raise the issue of retention. We are having regular conversations with the relevant trade unions, and of course meeting probation officers on a regular basis is a very important part of my job and that of all Justice Ministers. That work is ongoing and we hope to be able to update the House on it shortly.

I understand the hon. Member’s point on education. We are undertaking a lot of work in this area, often working with the third sector. There is no point in pretending that there is no fiscal pressure in the justice system at the moment. Our twin focus is on ensuring that we solve the prison capacity crisis and deal with the court backlog, but we will make sure that we support educational provision in our prisons wherever possible.

Sentencing Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank Members of both Chambers for their contribution and their continued work, in particular the prisons Minister for engaging collaboratively with Liberal Democrats in the other place and for making concessions both in the legislation and at the Dispatch Box.

We are pleased to see Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7, which introduce the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims. It has been a long-standing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to see the provision of all court transcripts, and victims gaining access to an improved level of transparency and accountability is a great first step.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I just want to take this opportunity to say my personal thanks to the Minister and everybody involved in bringing the legislation to this stage. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Juliana Terlizzi, who came to see me when she was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial that saw her rapist sent to prison. The amendment in lieu is a huge step forward for victims of all kinds, and I am really pleased to see it in the legislation. I want to put on record my huge thanks to everyone for that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that the heart of this amendment are victims and their ability to understand what has come in the sentencing remarks. So much happens in a court trial, whether it means reliving past trauma or confronting a perpetrator, and listening to proceedings can feel like a foreign language for many. Others, who choose not to attend the sentencing hearing, have no knowledge of what was said. That is why having consistent free access to transcripts is vital. It provides an opportunity to process the events of court proceedings afterwards or to read them for the first time. For many, this can provide closure and an opportunity to move on, but it is also the route for appealing a sentence if they believe it to have been unduly lenient.

Providing victims with court transcripts free of charge would markedly improve experiences for victims and survivors, but I do have some questions regarding the Government’s amendment in lieu. Could the Minister provide some clarity as to whether the term “victim” is applied as per the definition used by the victims code and whether, in the case that a victim is unable to personally request sentencing remarks—such as victims without capacity or victims who are children—immediate family members of victims are included within the provision?

[Dr Mullan]

Since I cannot ask the Minister myself, I might ask the hon. Lady if she agrees that we also need clarity on whether deceased victims’ family members will have a right to transcripts?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The victims code lays out that if a victim is deceased, the immediate family—parents or siblings—would be included. That is why I asked that question of the Minister.

Subsection (3)(c) of the amendment in lieu allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions to the requirement to provide a transcript of sentencing remarks. What sort of exceptions do the Government anticipate, and as per subsection (3)(d), what sort of information may be omitted from a transcript? If the Secretary of State does not plan to use sweeping powers to except or omit, why are such provisions included in the amendment? The previous Government ran a very limited pilot of free court transcripts. Will this Government publish a detailed review of that pilot?

We believe that this provision could and should go much further, and as per the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and Baroness Brinton in the other place, we have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would mean that all transcripts are provided free of charge, including judicial summaries and bail decisions.

The Lady Chief Justice recently spoke to the Justice Committee about a pilot with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the use of AI for transcripts, especially in the asylum and immigration courts. She described it as a “great success”, so I would be keen to understand if the Government will work with the Liberal Democrats to progress this work. We do appreciate the growing cross-party support on this issue and the work of all in the other place to achieve this important first step today.

We also welcome the Government committing to a statutory annual report into the state of prison capacity and, importantly, the Probation Service. This is an important mechanism for oversight that will improve long-term assessments of the health of our justice system. We were very happy to see the Government accept our amendment to remove clause 35 from the Bill, which did nothing to address the crisis in our justice system and was totally at odds with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to strengthen protections in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s approval of sentencing guidelines.

We have been supportive of many of the provisions in the Bill aimed at addressing some of the key failings in our crumbling justice system. Our courts, prisons and the Probation Service are all at breaking point, and without urgent intervention they are at risk of failing completely. The Bill offered an opportunity to ease some of the pressures our system faces, where currently the needs of victims, offenders and the system more widely are too often ignored. We also need to ensure that our prison system is one of rehabilitation—one that ends the cycle of reoffending and reduces long-term pressures. All of the Liberal Democrats’ work on this Bill has been in that vein, in order to get the legislation into a better place to achieve those aims.

To conclude, we realise the mess that our justice system finds itself in. We have always aimed to work collaboratively and productively in a cross-party way to ensure that we can begin to turn the tide on this crisis, and we will continue to do so. We need a sustainable solution, which includes cutting reoffending, tackling the court backlog to reduce the number of people in prison on remand, and properly resourcing our Probation Service, which will no doubt feel the impact of this legislation most acutely. The Bill contains a number of proposals that Lib Dems have campaigned for as part of the wider package of reform, but it still could go much further to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect victims and safeguard our justice system for the future.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Minister has worked to move the Bill forwards, and has given a lot of care and attention to trying to get it into this place, but the situation is frustrating for those on both sides of the House. This landmark legislation will transform the relationship between public bodies and victims of horrendous tragedies. It was this Government and this Prime Minister who committed to its implementation in full in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves again in limbo.

The carve-out for security services is completely unacceptable and has ground this process to a halt. It is vital that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. Despite much of the rhetoric around this, there are clear ways to include the security services in this duty while still protecting sensitive national security information. We already do it, as the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) alluded to in speaking to his amendment 23, which I am pleased to have supported.

Provisions already exist to allow evidence that is too sensitive for public disclosure to be heard in closed proceedings before a judge in inquiries, so there is no issue there. Heads of service must be held to account if they refuse to provide relevant information to inquiries and investigations, but it is not for them to decide what is relevant to an inquiry or investigation; that is up to the independent chair of that inquiry. Campaigners raised this issue as early as last September, and Ministers were made fully aware that this was a red line for victims and their families.

I trust that the Minister has had the families at the forefront of her mind in everything that she has done, so I ask her: when the Government present their Bill to the House of Commons, will the duty of candour apply to all in the intelligence services? Will she commit to ensuring that Report and Third Reading of the Bill will take place as soon as possible, so that there is a chance that the legislation will pass prior to the end of this parliamentary Session and the next King’s Speech, as promised, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that it will be in this place that we put the full Hillsborough law forward, not the other place, so that elected representatives can fully scrutinise the finished legislation?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, for their tone, and for her candour; it is appreciated by the Government. I recognise and share her frustration, and that of the House, about how this process has been conducted. This is no ordinary Bill; it is something more than that, and it deserves proper scrutiny in this place, which we will ensure it receives. The Bill will come back to the House of Commons for adequate scrutiny before it goes to the Lords—we have made that commitment today.

There has never been a carve-out for the intelligence services. The duty of candour and assistance has always applied to them. The amendments that the Government tabled apply directly to individual employees of the intelligence services. The difference has always been on the procedures in place for how we handle secure information, but we are committed to finding a way forward for the benefit of everyone, and to doing so as soon as possible. I cannot give a definitive timeline, but we will do it at pace, with the families and the intelligence services. We have to get this right. The Bill will come to this House first, and I am committed to ensuring that it applies to all public servants.

Jury Trials

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am glad that the Minister has heard the opposition from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I have great news for her—she is going to hear it again.

An opinion that many of us across the House and the political divide share is that our criminal justice system is in complete disarray, with nothing epitomising this more than the backlog in our criminal courts. In our Crown courts, the backlog stands at almost 80,000 cases, with trial dates now stretching late into this decade. The delayed justice, harm to victims, and impacts on rehabilitation are a shameful legacy of over a decade of complacent Conservative Governments. The Conservatives’ inability to recognise the crisis and steer a new course to fix the system is completely unforgivable; instead, their Prime Minister ran away from full prisons and a court system in disarray and called a general election in 2024. As such, although we will be supporting the Conservatives’ motion today, I look forward to hearing many contributions from their Back Benchers apologising not only for causing this crisis, but for their abject failure to fix it when they had the power to do so.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does she agree that jury trials are not responsible for the backlog in Crown court cases piling up to nearly 80,000, and that the real causes are staff shortages, a broken estate, and 10 years of Conservative complacency that hollowed out the justice system and left victims waiting years for their day in court?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in the Liberal Democrats have sympathy for the scale of the task that this Labour Government have inherited, and we are glad that they recognise the real losers here—the victims. It is an utter failure of the justice system that victims and defendants are being given court dates for the end of the decade, facing years of delay and re-traumatisation, when so many just want justice and then to move on with their lives.

Here’s the rub, though: we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s approach to tackling this crisis. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the actual issues and targeting a key and celebrated success. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and is respected all over the world. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers—not an elite, unrepresentative group of individuals—is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. That point was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister himself in the Lammy review. It concluded that unlike other stages of the criminal justice system, jury trials do not show statistical bias against ethnic minorities. The Deputy Prime Minister set out in extreme detail that, compared with magistrates courts, Crown courts provide an effective check on prejudice and avoid discriminatory verdicts. Twelve heads are better than one—a point proven by the increased public trust in jury trials.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would like to say, in support of what the hon. Lady has been saying, that surely a distinction of which we need to be aware is that, whereas the judge is a specialist in deciding what the law says and how it should be applied, he or she is not a specialist in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or not; and in that sense, we are far more likely to get the right answer from a group of people considering it together, as a collectivity, than from an individual, no matter how eminent in the intricacies of the law.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid and worthwhile point, and I thank him for raising it. It is highly irresponsible and dangerous for this Government to pursue efforts to remove the right to trial by jury in most Crown court cases as a means of fixing the backlog—although we have just heard from the Minister that that is not actually the intention at all; the intention is that she would do it anyway—especially given that the evidence behind the provisions’ effectiveness is flimsy.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I have been contacted by so many KCs and criminal barristers in Winchester, one of whom is Rosemary Burns. The collective confusion is about why we are removing such a fundamental, entrenched constitutional principle, rather than focusing on crumbling courtrooms and courtrooms sitting empty due to the cap on the number of days the court can sit and the failure of prisoner transport to bring defendants to court in time. Why are these logistical and infrastructure issues not being given a laser focus before this measure is even considered?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come later in my contribution to the inefficiencies within the system.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I will make some progress, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The Government claim that this decision has stemmed from the review undertaken by Sir Brian Leveson, the first part of which was published last year. The objective behind the review commissioned by this Government was rightly to find solutions to the overwhelming backlog, and Leveson’s original suggestion was the creation of a Crown court bench division, including a judge and two magistrates, which was modelled to reduce trial length by 20%. The Government, however, have gone further than Leveson recommended, meaning that those accused of crimes with likely sentences of less than three years will, for the most part, not be heard by a jury. New so-called swift courts will be created where just one judge hears cases. The efficiency savings quoted by the Government are the same figures suggested by Leveson under his Crown court bench division model, but the modelling has, like this entire proposal, been widely criticised for lacking transparent data behind the calculations.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a slight confusion? The Minister consistently referenced the importance of this review and how independent and important it was, but then has thrown out the central tenet of it, which was to introduce a court that has a judge and two magistrates. That would provide three heads rather than one, some local influence and some laypeople. Does my hon. Friend have any views as to why the Minister is so insistent on throwing out that central tenet, given how important she says the review is?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Justice Committee, for her important point that Leveson did not make this proposal at all. He was talking about a separate division, which the Deputy Prime Minister has announced as a swift court. He has ignored the impact of having two laypeople as magistrates as part of that. It does not make any sense to me, and it does not make sense to many people in this Chamber.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Lady share my dismay that not only did the Minister admit in her closing remarks that her plans are ideological, not practical or expedient, but also that she spent 30 minutes without talking about the central issue, which is that the majority of cases listed in our courts crack on day one, meaning that the courts are there, but nobody is working within them? That is what needs to be sorted out, rather than this maladroit plan to reduce liberties that we have enjoyed for 800 years.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I will go on to say in my speech. We are yet to see an impact assessment. That was spoken about by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It is also mentioned in the amendment tabled by the Government. We need to see the modelling and the impact assessment, and understand where these savings are coming from. Even if the figures are accurate, they avoid the glaringly obvious fact that they are measured against a completely inefficient system. The system is fundamentally not undermined by jury trials, but instead plagued by years of under-investment, creating an ever-growing list of unaddressed issues across the system. The Government seem willing to ignore that fact, despite it being present in every piece of discourse surrounding their proposals. They have bought a car that will not run, and they have decided to spend all their time and money on a new paint job before opening the bonnet.

This proposal is utterly shameful, fundamentally because there are alternatives, despite the narrative that the Government are advancing. They do not have to attack jury trials, especially when their own Ministers and their own Prime Minister have been fierce advocates of jury trials in the past. Instead, they should be looking at the real issues within the system that have led us to this point. Chief among them is the productivity decline that our criminal courts have experienced since 2016. Wasted time in and around courts is caused by a wide range of issues, all of which are being ignored by the Ministry of Justice. It means that the Government’s increased investment is being used inefficiently. It also means that many of these issues will persist, even if their attack on jury trials leads to reductions in trial length.

The solutions are out there, and the majority of legal professionals opposing the Government’s reforms are overflowing with practical suggestions, but the Government are not listening, so today I will lay some of them out. First, there must be investment in the courts estate, not only to reopen the hundreds of courts closed under the Conservatives—including my court in Chichester—but to properly maintain those that remain open. Evidence of leaking roofs, foul smells and flooded rooms across the estate is hardly indicative of a properly functioning justice system, and that must be addressed. Trials being abandoned because the heating is not working or there is no running water is unacceptable for those victims.

Even at the roughest of estimates, the restriction of jury trials will at best save 9,000 sitting days in court a year. That is based on not being able to see an impact assessment. The Government could increase the number of sitting days up to the possible 130,000, which would far exceed the apparent savings they would gain from the removal of trials. The concept of a restriction on sitting days is artificial. If there is a case, a courtroom, a defendant on remand and court staff ready to go, the case should be heard.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that it is not just about a courtroom being available, but the resources that have to go into that. It is about not just whether we have the space, but whether we have the barristers and the solicitors, and whether we have enough CPS lawyers, court clerks and ushers. There is a bigger picture, and that is why the whole package that the Government are putting forward is incredibly important. Just tinkering around the edges has been done for years, and we are in this crisis now.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady when she points out that it has to be a full package of support, but that is not what we are debating today. I am laying out all the things that she rightly points out, such as the total inefficiencies within our court system, but until we see those situations addressed and those things fixed, how do we know that that would not save the court sitting days that we would apparently see by eroding the right to jury trial?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Isleworth Crown court, which is one of the closest courts to my constituency, closed down five of its 14 courtrooms last year because of maintenance issues and because of the cap on sitting days put in place by the previous Conservative Government and only partially lifted by this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as addressing all the maintenance issues and the system inefficiency, we could, if we increased the number of court sitting days and addressed the workforce issues, preserve this fundamental right to a jury trial for all?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

That is an excellent point.

The Government have rightly returned the number of days to 2016 levels, but with a rising backlog they need to go further and increase capacity. As pointed out by the Secret Barrister, we also have huge delays in the NHS, but we do not hear the Government proposing a cap on A&E sitting days to save the cost of having the lights on. In addition, the hours lost to unenforceable contracts have left many trials without a defendant while everyone waits for them to be delivered from prison. Given that one of the Government’s key arguments for reducing jury trials is the increasing length of trials, explicitly linked to complexity, I urge them to address the impact of those failing contracts. There are also key efficiencies to be gained from investment in the IT systems, given the widespread complaints about the functioning of wi-fi and about disrupted systems. The common platform system advertised to solve these issues is over budget and delayed.

There are serious solutions to issues such as this, but rather than being addressed they are seemingly being ignored. Of course there are associated costs, but there are clearly major costs associated with not addressing the problems in the system. For example, it costs £55,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and the number of prisoners on remand has doubled in the last seven years. The savings are there as well; they just need to be realised. It is also clear from courts such as Liverpool Crown court—which I think was mentioned earlier—that efficiencies can be achieved, without spending, through a proactive and realistic approach. Jaime Hamilton KC has set out steps such as prioritising cases in which late guilty pleas are likely, which would lead to improved outcomes in case clearance. It is unfathomable to me that the Government have tasked Brian Leveson with producing two reports, the second of which is to focus on efficiency improvements and better use of technology in the court system, when surely it would be logical to produce that report first, in order to introduce those efficiencies and bring the backlog down.

The Government have identified the problem that they inherited, but have arrived at entirely the wrong solutions. They are searching for an easy way out, a quick fix, but reducing access to jury trials is not that fix. It is unscrutinised, it is unfair, and it continues the trend of declining public trust in our justice system. The Government are right to say that victims are among those being let down, waiting years for justice and unable to move on with their lives, but we need solutions that work—solutions that address the causes of the crisis, reverse the systematic underfunding that has plagued the system, and genuinely improve efficiency.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The news that offenders absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day is yet another example of the glaring incompetence of the MOJ when it comes to maintaining control of the prison population. This situation has yet again placed the public at risk and lets down victims. It also raises serious questions about why some of these prisoners were placed in a category D prison. Matthew Armstrong, a convicted murderer, has a history of violent incidents in custody, including leading a riot and attacking prison guards. Given that record, why did the MOJ feel able to approve his transfer to an open prison? What steps are the Government taking to review the criteria for violent offenders being assessed for transfer to category D prisons when they could pose a risk to the public again? What additional resources are being provided to the victims of these individuals, including the prison officer assaulted by Armstrong who is no longer serving? I hope that lessons are being learned from the case of Lenny Scott.

Does the Minister believe that poor transfer decisions are being made based on a lack of capacity in our closed prisons, or is she satisfied that the processes of the Parole Board and the Department are strong enough? Can she reassure the House now that we will not be coming back to have this same conversation again in 2027?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. To reassure the House, offenders who are serving a life sentence or an IPP sentence for public protection will be approved for a transfer to open conditions only in response to a recommendation by the Parole Board. Before making that recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough risk assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding, taking into account all those assessments provided by qualified HM Prison and Probation Service staff and other agencies. The Secretary of State does have the ability to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but to do so they would need evidence to dispute the board’s assessment of risk. Officials, on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that there were no grounds under the published policy to reject the board’s recommendations for any of these three individuals.

On absconding more generally, it is important that I state categorically to the House that there were 57 absconds in the year ending March 2025, which is a 2% decrease from 58 the previous year. The number of absconds is falling year on year, and has fallen from 143 in the 12 months to March 2020. It is coming down substantially due to a sustained focus on this area. Open prisons work; they are a key part of the programme of rehabilitation and of reintegrating offenders into society. However, sometimes prisoners abscond and it is important that all steps are taken to bring them back into custody when that occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My question follows on from that of the Chair of the Select Committee. In 2024, 39% of family court proceedings involved neither party being legally represented; in cases of domestic abuse, this forces victims to relive their experiences and confront their trauma repeatedly. The provision of legal aid in such cases is wholly inadequate, which presents an unacceptable barrier to many victims accessing fair and effective legal representation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner that legal aid should be provided in all domestic abuse cases to end self-representation and protect victims from retraumatisation?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is right that legal aid is important, but, in some cases, so is mediation. I would refer her to the pathfinder pilot, which is hugely important in relation to private family law. We are looking closely at provision, but we are also looking closely at the workforce, because as with criminal legal aid, we have seen lawyers—particularly younger lawyers—leaving that area of practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?

[Sarah Sackman]

I met Andrew Turner, who is a tireless campaigner; we were embarking on the work that is necessary to support families like his, and those that he represents. I have personally undertaken to ensure that this work continues, irrespective of which person is sitting in the chair. I will follow up not just with Andrew, but with his very dedicated MP, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne).

Restriction of Jury Trials

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.

It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will answer the hon. Member’s last question first. All the bodies that she referred to—victim support, victims’ organisations, the legal community, the Bar Council and the Law Society—have engaged over many months, first with the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, and indeed now with the Ministry of Justice. That engagement is happening all the time.

On those who represent victims, the incoming Victims’ Commissioner has said that the system is broken and there is need for bold reform. The bold reform recommended by Sir Brian Leveson’s review is precisely the proportionate reform—radical, yes; and necessary, yes—that we are going to pursue.

On the hon. Member’s comment about victims and the significant figure of 60% of rape victims pulling out of cases, there are many reasons that victims pull out. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on in a victim’s head at any one time, but we all know how lengthy the delays are in our courts, and everyone is aware how retraumatising the court process can be. We know from Rape Crisis, for example, that one in three sexual offence trials is the subject of adjournment, so there is not just delay but victims thinking they have a trial date only for that to be put off. No one can say that that is defensible. For many, the fact that their case might not come to court for years is key to their withdrawing from the process, at whatever stage, so it is material to the context. That is why action needs to be taken.

As the Crown Prosecution Service data discussed at the Justice Committee has brought forward, one striking statistic shows the need for action: there were more than 4,000 cases that could have been heard in the magistrates court, but our current system privileges the defendant’s right to insist on a jury trial with the greater length of time that that takes. As a result, the person who has stolen a bottle of whisky or a bunch of flowers—a low-value item—has every right to insist on a jury trial, and is then stuck in the same queue as serious crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping. That is exactly how this works. And that is exactly why, on Sir Brian’s expert recommendation, we are seeking to remove such cases from the queue and reassign them to where they can be better and more swiftly dealt with in the system, so that we can come to the most serious cases more swiftly.