Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jess Brown-Fuller

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Me again. The new clauses would require provision for the training of the judiciary and, under new clause 30, for court staff. Each of these clauses focuses on a different area. New clause 8 focuses on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and the impact on judicial decision making. New clause 9 requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls. New clause 10 requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse. New clause 30 requires the Lord Chancellor to ensure that all members of court staff working in the criminal justice system receive mandatory and consistent training on trauma-informed practices, to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ experience, behaviour and engagement with court proceedings.

The reasons for the new clauses—they are tabled for basically every part of justice legislation—are that there is real frustration among organisations and charities working in the criminal justice space that Parliament does not have the ability to legislate for the judiciary to have mandatory training. How do we square the circle of all those campaign organisations sounding the alarm and saying that, in order for us to make these very serious changes in moving to judge-alone trials, we must ensure that judges approach them with trauma-informed practices in mind?

That was raised in the evidence session by Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid. When we asked her, “What would you need to see in order for this Bill to give you the confidence that victims will have a better experience and women will be better supported through the criminal justice system?” she said:

“One is training for the entirety of the court staff, because the stories that we hear and the experiences that we support women and children through are frankly appalling. The staff are not trauma-informed and there is no understanding of what a victim is going through. The courts are weaponised and survivors are brought back to the courts repeatedly. It is an appalling process. No policy area that you work on at Women’s Aid is a picnic, but this is the worst.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 27, Q53.]

In the same evidence session, Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner, said:

“I have made that point for years, regardless of these reforms. We have to improve and get reassurance around judicial training, including training on cultural competency, on understanding bias and prejudice and on the dynamics of abuse. We still see issues around coercive control, post-separation abuse and stalking. I need to be reassured that judges are being trained to the level that will give assurances to victims and to myself that they understand what is coming in front of them.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 14, Q25.]

I know that there has been significant progress, and that the organisation Fair Hearing has worked closely with the judiciary to do training about violence against women and girls and to make sure that judges are trauma-informed in their practice, but it is not mandatory. One comment that stuck with me from the evidence session was from Charlotte, one of the victims who presented evidence. She noted, of her judge:

“She said that, because I waited eight months to report, I was unreliable, and that I had clearly spoken to other victims of domestic abuse, so I knew what to say. Those comments really stuck by me.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 26, Q51.]

The very concept that a judge looks at somebody who is trying to share their experiences and says, “Well, they’ve just trained for this,” is pretty appalling. It causes me to doubt that all judges are engaging in the judiciary training as effectively as they could be.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I seek clarity on whether the new clause would apply to all judges or just to those in the criminal courts. In the family court the idea is to bring in expertise around the sort of issues that she talks about from agencies—such as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and even social services—in which there are lots of trained people, but that system does not always ensure that the judge is best placed to make a good decision, as we have seen in evidence. Will the hon. Lady clarify that point?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The feeling of the organisations and charities that I have spoken to is that everybody in the judiciary should have the opportunity to go through trauma-informed training and training around violence against women and girls, around coercive control and around recognising and identifying racial bias so we can make sure that every victim is confident—whether they are going through the criminal or the family justice system—that everybody they will come in contact with understands them and the additional support that they may require.

I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government cannot mandate training because the judiciary are independent. New clause 30 aims to make sure that members of court staff, who are employed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, receive mandatory and consistent training on trauma-informed practice because they are the people who will support victims and witnesses through the criminal justice system. We clearly need to change our approach. In the evidence session, witnesses described an environment that is hostile to witnesses; we need one that stands up for their interests. Our new clause 30 should be the bare minimum across the courts estate, and represents a position supported by a number of organisations.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jess Brown-Fuller

Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”

This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.

Sir Brian Leveson and the Minister, on the many occasions on which we have discussed this issue, have been very clear that the proposals set out in the independent review of the criminal courts were not to be treated as a pick and mix. Sir Brian was clear that it was meant to be a package of reforms, alongside stating that juries are not the cause of the backlog; I want to make sure that that is on the record.

But the Government have indeed chosen to pick and mix from Sir Brian’s recommendations, because he never proposed a judge sitting alone in the Crown court bench division. He proposed including a lay element, with two magistrates sitting with the judge; the magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on matters of fact, evidence and sentencing, while the judge would retain responsibility on rulings of law. The purpose of having two was to enable them to outvote the judge on matters of fact and, importantly, to maintain public participation and legitimacy in the absence of a jury.

Sir Brian referred to that in part 1 of his review. He said:

“In a similar vein, the inclusion of two magistrates in the composition of the bench would also ensure that the CCBD would satisfy the expectation of”

being judged by “one’s peers.” He continued:

“I...will not revisit those arguments here. I do, however want to acknowledge the diversity of the current magistracy, which I believe goes some way to satisfying this expectation and would help ensure a fair and balanced representation in the CCBD.”

The magistracy has done an excellent job of improving its diversity, although one could argue that there is still more work to do. A former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has said:

“It seems to me that if one is going to reduce the involvement of the general public, as members of a jury, in the relatively low-level cases that go to the Crown court, maintaining public involvement through the magistracy is a good course to follow. It also has the great advantage of simply replicating a constitution and jurisdiction that exists in the Crown court at the moment. When there is an appeal from the magistrates court against conviction or sentence, including an appeal against conviction in an either-way case, it is heard in the Crown court by a judge and two magistrates.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 75, Q159.]

The Government cannot shirk their commitment to fair justice free from bias. If these changes are to be implemented, they should include the safeguard of two magistrates in the Crown court bench division. I would appreciate the Minister’s outlining why the Government have departed from Leveson on the point. Is it because there is a concern about finding enough magistrates to fill the roles? Is it because the magistracy will already be overwhelmed by the additional cases given to it as a result of the new sentencing powers outlined in this Bill? Or is it because the Government believe that having the lay element provides no additional safeguard in the interests of fair justice? Through the amendment, we seek to implement the recommendation of Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member for Chichester has set out the reasoning behind her amendment very well. If the amendment were agreed to, it would not go anywhere near restoring jury trials, but it would plainly be an improvement. The leading argument in its favour is that it is what Sir Brian Leveson recommended. The Government have repeatedly cited Brian Leveson’s review, and rightly so—that is what the Bill flows out of—but as the hon. Member for Chichester says, it cannot be a pick and mix. The Government cannot cite Leveson on the one hand and ignore him on the other.

Quite aside from the fact that the opinion expressed in the independent review has been ignored here, there are objectively good reasons why a trial heard by a judge and two magistrates is preferable to a trial heard by a judge alone. For a start, there would be three decision makers rather than one; with a jury there are 12, but clearly three is better than one. But it is not just a matter of numbers. Magistrates could be viewed, and certainly have been viewed, as a hybrid of jurors and judges. They are not judges, and they are not legally qualified people. They bring the quality that jurors bring—varied life experience—to the decision-making process. Of course, in a magistrates court, they are guided in the law by a legally qualified clerk.

It is fairly obvious that magistrates as a group are less diverse than the population of the United Kingdom, from which jurors are drawn, but at least they represent a greater diversity and variety of experience than judges. Judges all share one thing: they went to law school, they are legally qualified and they have had a career that is privileged—that is not a criticism, but I do not think it is an unfair word to describe a judge’s career. Magistrates have a greater variety of life experience. To bring magistrates into the decision making alongside a judge, as Sir Brian Leveson envisaged, would be to bring at least some element of a jury trial: the quality of being unjaded by a career in law and being unencumbered by the experience of being a well-paid legal professional.

I struggle to support the amendment, because it does not go anywhere near maintaining the system that we have today, but it would at least be a small improvement. It is an obvious point, but judges sit alongside magistrates today; it is a tried, tested and understood approach, not an obscure or novel one. Indeed, appeals are often heard in that way, as I understand it, because there is added rigour in having a magistrate sitting alongside a judge.

Of course, having a judge sitting alongside magistrates is an improvement on having magistrates alone, because judges bring professionalism from their legal training and experience of the law as part of the judiciary. There is a benefit there, although of course the benefit is already delivered by the Government’s own amendment, notwithstanding that it is worse than what we have today.

I commend, or at least understand, what the hon. Member for Chichester is trying to achieve. It comes from a good place, but unfortunately—this is not her fault, but the Government’s—it does not go anywhere near maintaining the status quo, which in my view is plainly greatly preferable both to her amendment and to the Government’s approach.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jess Brown-Fuller

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

I am very happy to say that I agree with all the things the Minister said. I also agree with learning from other systems. Plainly, the English legal system, like the English language, has been successful in its ability to adapt and evolve. Without going back to the beginning of my speech, started just a few minutes ago, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that this is an evolution—or arguably a revolution. [Interruption.] Was that another intervention? I think these measures are a stage too far.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I would like to briefly refer the Committee to some remarks that Sir Brian Leveson made during the evidence session we had before the recess. He said:

“We need people to confront what they have done. I do not want anybody to plead guilty who is not guilty and has seen the evidence. I am not asking to change the guilty plea rate, but in the early days, you pleaded guilty on the first or the second occasion you appeared at the Crown court—now there are many examples of that happening on the fifth or the sixth occasion you are in the Crown court. Each one of those takes a considerable amount of time. That is what is sucking up part of the time.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 8, Q9.]

Sir Brian tried to explain that a lot of people look at the evidence and say, “Yes, I will plead guilty, but I will do so after Christmas”—that was his example. He said that now, because of the Crown court backlogs, people know that their case will not be heard until 2028.

The point that Sir Brian was trying to make is that we need to incentivise those who look at the evidence of their case, and recognise that a guilty verdict is probably going to be arrived at, to put in a guilty plea. Does clause 2 not risk having the reverse effect? People will see that if they put in a guilty plea, the one opportunity they have to argue whether the case should be heard in a magistrates court or a Crown court—although I imagine the majority of them would argue that it should be heard in the magistrates court in this specific example—is taken away from them. Are we not then disincentivising people to put in a guilty plea at an early stage, when we want to see the Crown court backlog come down?

Local Media

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jess Brown-Fuller

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on bringing forward this very important debate and on giving a characteristically heartfelt and amusing speech.

It is a particular pleasure for me to be speaking in this debate, coming from the Isle of Wight, which is probably a rare example of a very vibrant local area for independent local press, including the Isle of Wight Observer, Isle of Wight County Press, Island Echo, OnTheWight, Isle of Wight Radio and Vectis Radio. We are very far from being a local news desert, as sadly too many places in this country are. Quality journalism is a cornerstone of any democratic system. In order to exercise the right to vote, the public needs to understand what decisions have been taken in their name and what those seeking power propose to do with that power. It is the media that helps people hold decision makers to account. It was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who once said, “All politics is local.” It must therefore follow that local media plays a central role in the functioning of our democracy. Indeed, the Opposition say that it does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill put it, “It is the place you go for the things that matter.”

The UK news media sector serves audiences on more platforms than ever, with 96% of UK adults saying they consume news in some form. However, hundreds of local newspaper titles have closed in the past two decades, a trend accelerated by the covid pandemic, and those that have survived now often operate with reduced resources and fewer journalists. Local journalism is under unprecedented pressure from corporate consolidation—as we have heard—big-tech dominance and declining revenue models. Audiences have migrated from print and broadcast to online platforms, advertising revenues have fallen, and global tech intermediaries such as Google and Meta now capture the vast majority of digital advertising income.

At the same time, competition for audience attention has intensified, driven by clickbait metrics, and a growing proportion of people are disengaging from news. However, the migration to online should not be seen entirely as incompatible with vibrant local media. Indeed, the Island Echo on the Isle of Wight was established in 2012 and is entirely online. It is a successful and highly relied upon source of local news for residents on the Isle of Wight, making full use of digital opportunities, including updates via phone and tying in with some of those big social media giants such as Facebook.

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

The shadow Minister makes a very valid point about businesses diversifying and utilising the new online space. I have V2 Radio in my patch, which is a relatively new radio station, but in order to attract people to its radio station, it also puts its news on social media and has a really active website. It also plays a huge role with the voluntary sector in large campaigns that spread across the constituency. It does a Christmas appeal every year and a “Beds for Kids” campaign earlier this year, getting beds for young people who do not have them. Does the shadow Minister agree that the companies that are diversifying and making sure that their news gets to everybody who wants it are more likely to succeed in this complicated framework that we now live in?

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Some of those local independent media are some of the best innovators. OnTheWight is an independent news outlet run by Simon and Sally Perry in my constituency. It started as a town-based Ventnor blog, and by using online opportunities, is now a trusted source for Isle of Wight news.

The growing consolidation of local media ownership and the dominance of major companies such as Newsquest, Reach and even the BBC—whose role I will touch on later—is reshaping the local media landscape and presenting challenges. It leads to reduced local editorial staff, more standardised content produced from remote hubs and, in some cases, the disappearance of physical distribution. However, the intervention of large companies is not always problematic for local news. The Isle of Wight County Press is owned by one of those big corporates, but it is still dominated by local news that is produced by local journalists, with a local editor. Indeed, it is the biggest selling weekly local newspaper in the UK.

In my constituency, there is also a newsprint-based outlet called the Isle of Wight Observer, which was launched in 2018. Its success is largely based on the weekly hardcopy paper that people pick up from the local newsagent on a Friday, showing that such outlets are thriving in many parts of the UK. It has done well by reporting on local issues and holding those in authority to account. There is nothing quite so concerning as when I get a call from the editor of the Isle of Wight Observer; I can assure Members that it causes much more anxiety, when I know that my local newspaper editors have spotted something and need clarification, than a phone call from an editor of a national media outlet, such as The Sun or The Mirror. I am sure we are all better Members for the role of local media such as the Isle of Wight Observer.

Without the journalists, photographers, editors and designers who dedicate their careers to serving the communities that they know and love, who will be the first to raise concerns when something goes wrong? It is worth remarking on the fact that some of the national household names—the journalists we know today who report on current affairs, politics or sport—started their careers in local media, in local titles. Local media is a breeding ground for many of those big, successful journalists, and it is one that national outlets rely on.

Local authority advertising has already been referred to by Members, including public notices and planning applications. Historically, it has provided an essential revenue stream that supports true local journalism. As councils move more notices online—indeed, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill aims to remove the requirement to publish public notices in local newspapers—it presents a challenge in not only lost revenue but the transparency of councils’ decision making, which are of course held to account by local people understanding what is going on. Statutory notices play an important role not only online but in print, because many people, especially older people, still consume much of their local news in a hardcopy print format.

The role of the BBC has also been discussed. It plays a vital role in our public service media environment, and it is also a competitor at local level. The charter review presents an opportunity for the Government to look at that relationship again. The local democracy reporting service has been successful in using the licence fee to support local news output, although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly commented on some of the challenges with, and caused by, that service. It has reached the major milestone of locally producing over 500,000 pieces of independent journalism, covering some of the information that would not ordinarily be reported on, and which may not, in basic terms, have commercial value, but again casts a light on local decision making, particularly that of local councils. The service was launched almost eight years ago.

In conclusion, politics is the better for local media. It is where decision makers are held to account, and it is the medium through which people can better understand the world around them. Like anything, local media needs to adapt, but it also needs the support to do so in a rapidly changing world.