Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of the Under Secretary of State to the Rt Hon Member for New Forest East on 20 January 2021, Official Report, col 980, on reinstating recently retired magistrates, if he will make it his policy to permit people aged 70 or over to resume their duties if this would enable them to serve for a significant further period prior to reaching any newly-raised maximum age for magistrates to continue in post.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
On 8 March 2021 the government announced its intention to legislate to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders, including magistrates, to 75. The legislation will include a transitional provision to enable retired magistrates to apply to return to the bench, subject to business need. The process by which such applications are to be made and considered will be set out in due course.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answers of 2 July 2020 to Questions 65895 on Magistrates' Retirement Ages and Question 65896 on Court Backlogs, what his latest estimate is of the increase in the average time taken to bring cases to trial in magistrates courts; for what reason emergency legislation has not been brought forward to allow experienced magistrates to sit beyond the age of 70 until the backlog of cases has been reduced to an acceptable level; and if he will make it his policy to ensure by introducing primary legislation if necessary that such magistrates are not lost to the justice system on reaching the age of 70.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
Due to COVID-19, it has not been possible to produce criminal court timeliness estimates for Q1 and Q2 of 2020. However, timeliness estimates for magistrates’ courts are expected to be published later this month as part of the Q3 2020 Criminal Court Statistics.
As a result of the recovery work undertaken, we are listing more summary trials every week than we were prior to the pandemic. Our capacity is not currently limited by the number of magistrates. Every week we are sitting more sessions in the magistrates’ courts than in the same period in 2019.
Since August, we have been sitting additional magistrates’ courts on a Saturday and have dealt with thousands of cases in the additional court sessions. During this time, magistrates’ courts have been consistently completing more cases than they have received and reduced the number of outstanding cases.
The public consultation on proposals to raise the mandatory retirement age for most judicial office holders, including magistrates closed on 16 October and analysis of the 1000 responses from the magistracy, the judiciary, and stakeholders is well underway. The government intends to publish the government response as soon as practicable with a view to legislate for any change required at the earliest opportunity.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his oral contribution of 9 June 2020, Official Record, column 150, to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on retirement ages for magistrates, what form will the proposed consultation take; when that consultation will (a) open and (b) close; what degree of urgency will be applied in the light of the backlog of cases resulting from the effects on the court system of the covid-19 pandemic; and if he will make it his policy temporarily to suspend the existing retirement age for (i) magistrates and (ii) the wider judiciary, in order to process that backlog in a timely manner.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
We will be issuing a public consultation on proposals to raise the mandatory retirement age for most judicial office holders, including magistrates in the near future.
Many judges can already be authorised to sit past the mandatory retirement age but this provision does not exist for magistrates. Primary legislation would be required to amend the mandatory retirement age or to enable magistrates to temporarily sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the rate of escalation of cases awaiting trial in magistrates courts; what the size of the backlog has been in each of the last three months; what recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of witnesses' testimonies being held to be reliable, if up to five years elapse between alleged offence and the accused facing trial; what the effect of such delay is likely to have on public confidence in the Justice system; and if he will take steps, on a temporary basis if necessary, to reduce that backlog.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
The work to reduce the backlog is moving at pace so we can continue to increase the number of trials. More than 150 courts remained fully open to the public throughout the pandemic and by the middle of July all court centres will have reopened. We have prioritised the most urgent cases, such as domestic abuse and COVID-19 related cases, to keep the public safe, and the interests of victims and witnesses are continually considered as a part of the reopening of courts.
Data showing the number of outstanding cases in the Magistrates Court is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-weekly-management-information-during-coronavirus-march-to-may-2020
A courts recovery plan has been published which will sets out the urgent next steps that we are taking to increase capacity in the courts: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-recovery-update-in-response-to-coronavirus
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to instruct the Coroner's Service to ascertain and record, in all cases of suicide, whether the deceased was a (a) present or (b) former member of the (i) Regular Armed Forces or (ii) Reserves.
Answered by Alex Chalk
Every suicide is a tragedy and we take the welfare of our service men and women, whether veterans or current members of the Armed Forces or Reserves, very seriously.
The Government recognises that personal information about victims of suicide can be used to improve understanding of “at risk” groups and, from that, to support better targeted interventions. But for data on suicides amongst veterans and serving members of the Armed Forces or Reserves to be of value, the information collected must be reliable, consistent and comprehensive. For a number of practical and administrative reasons, including the parameters of the coroner’s role, this isn’t possible in the context of coroner suicide conclusions and there are no plans, therefore, to require coroners to record whether the deceased had served in the Armed Forces or Reserves.
The Chief Coroner has given coroners clearer guidance so that deaths, including suicide, are recorded more consistently.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether it is a criminal offence to (a) threaten and (b) actually (i) spit, (ii) cough and (iii) sneeze upon another person; whether any such offence is aggravated by a claim by the assailant to be infected with the covid-19 virus; whether it is in the public interest to prosecute such cases during the covid-19 outbreak; and if he will review any recent decision to take no action against such an assailant on grounds that the subsequent death of the victim could not be directly attributed to the assault.
Answered by Alex Chalk
Whether such behaviour amounts to a criminal offence will depend on the circumstances. Threatening to infect someone with covid-19, for example, can be charged as an assault and if a direct causal link can be established between one person’s unlawful act and another person contracting the virus then other more serious offences could be charged. Each case is considered on its own specific facts.
Provided there is sufficient evidence, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute such cases is a matter for the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made clear that the CPS will not hesitate to prosecute those using covid-19 to threaten people in this way and CPS data shows that more than 300 such prosecutions were brought in the first month of lockdown alone.
The Sentencing Council has published interim guidance clarifying that, when sentencing common assault offences involving threats or activity relating to the transmission of covid-19, courts should treat this as an aggravating feature of the offence and take this into account when sentencing.
The Government has no remit for reviewing operational decisions of the police or the CPS in individual cases.