Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q69 Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. We will now hear oral evidence from the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Kirsty Brimelow: My name is Kirsty Brimelow, a King’s counsel. My practice, until my election as chair of the Bar Council, where I started on 1 January this year, was in criminal law, public law and international law. In particular, I have worked on reforming sexual offences legislation across Europe and also conducted and led training to improve practices in court for victims, particularly in sexual offences globally. I am now chair of the Bar Council, which means I lead around 18,000 barristers across England and Wales.

Riel Karmy-Jones: My name is Riel Karmy-Jones. I am a criminal barrister with over 30 years’ experience, and I am also chair of the Criminal Bar Association. I became King’s counsel in 2015, and a significant part of my practice has revolved around prosecuting cases involving serious sexual offences and vulnerable victims. I was senior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and led the investigation into the Roman Catholic Church—specifically, the English Benedictine congregation. I have spent a considerable part of the last 30 years working on cases with victims, so they are very much at the forefront of my mind when I give this evidence.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q Good afternoon to you both, and thank you very much for coming. Ms Karmy-Jones, I want to pick up your remark about having victims at the heart of your thinking. You will have heard evidence, either through the earlier hearings or in the public debates surrounding this issue, that some victims’ advocates are insisting that these reforms are necessary to support victims. Has that give you any pause for thought about the positions that you have taken? If not, why not?

Riel Karmy-Jones: We start from a presumption of innocence in a criminal case, so if I say “victim” and “complainant”, no disrespect is meant. Hearing any victim speak about what they have been through is shocking and has a huge impact on all of us at the criminal Bar, but we are the ones who, day in and day out, deal with them and have to explain to them why things have gone wrong.

One of the things that I heard this morning gave me pause for thought, in the sense that some of our processes are poor. Clearly, the processes in place are not being properly followed. That does not change my approach to the Bill, because fundamentally there is a disconnect between clauses 1 to 7, on the right to jury trial, and clauses 8 to 16.

As I will be arguing, we have issues with clauses 1 to 7 and think they should be struck out. We largely support clauses 8 to 16—the victims measures. They are good measures, and in fact there are some things that we would propose to strengthen them further. I would encourage you to look that way. This Bill is about making cases move more swiftly, and jury trials do not impact on that question, as even Sir Brian Leveson acknowledged this morning.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Do you think it is unfair to characterise people like you, who oppose those elements, as being in any way not concerned with victims—as being anti victims’ rights or experiences?

Riel Karmy-Jones: Absolutely. I have sat and held the hands of many, many victims of really serious sexual offences. I have talked to them before, during and after the cases. Trust me when I say that those who prosecute these cases feel very intensely about the victims, so that would be a complete mischaracterisation—and frankly, it has hit the criminal Bar very hard and made us quite angry.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Do you want to add anything to that, Ms Brimelow?

Kirsty Brimelow: It is really sad that some of the political messaging has been positioning barristers against victims. It is barristers who prosecute in the courts every day and give voice to victims and complainants in court, enabling their evidence to be heard. It is the barristers in court who apply the law and safeguards around those witnesses so that they are not subject to inappropriate questioning—I know we will come on to that.

The key to your question is that nobody wants to see complainants—victims—waiting, and having the trauma of waiting. That is what we are focusing on. In doing that, we take into account the non-governmental organisations that represent the violence against women and girls sector. Rights of Women was the lead NGO on a letter a couple of weeks ago—it decided to write it independently, without having been approached. It set out its concern about reducing jury trials. Its concern is not only that there are victims of violence who become defendants but, as it sets out clearly in the letter, there is, unfortunately, discrimination and a lack of trust in the criminal justice system.

Overall, the jury system is seen as the only part that still works, so why are we focusing on that? We want to focus on all those aspects that will reduce delays now, rather than hacking at a constitutional cornerstone, which also reflects community participation.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Right. You mentioned the letter. It also refers to these reforms as a potential distraction from some of the hard work that you talk about. You may have heard that this morning the Victims’ Commissioner characterised that letter as being purely about the perspective of women and girls in relation to their being defendants. Do you think that is a fair and accurate characterisation of that letter?

Kirsty Brimelow: No, it is not, because that is not actually what it says. The letter sets out that they are against curbing jury trials because of the lack of trust in the criminal justice system, and that impacts those from minoritised communities in particular. We know from the statistics that black defendants and women by majority elect to go to the Crown court. Those are the ones who have trust in the jury system. That is the objection within the letter. I am sorry to see that she is mischaracterised in that way, because that is not what the letter is about.

The letter does say that it is a crude approach to characterise victims as simply those who are complainants: victims can also end up as defendants, and we have had many examples of that. I had a case at the end of last year representing a woman who was subject, clearly, to coercive control and, in part, physical abuse. She ended up a defendant, and the jury heard from her about how she ended up getting in the position she did alongside the man who was controlling her. They acquitted her; they convicted him.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Q I am going to direct my questions to Ms Brimelow. I think we agree that the delays in our criminal justice system are a scandal and that something needs to be done about them, don’t we?

Kirsty Brimelow: Yes, of course. That has always been the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from Claire Davies KC, Samantha Hillas KC and Caroline Goodwin KC. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Claire Davies: I am Claire Davies, King’s counsel. I am leader of the south-eastern circuit, which covers London and the whole of the south-east of England. My main practice is in criminal law.

Samantha Hillas: My name is Sam Hillas KC. I am leader of the northern circuit, which is in the north-west of England, from Chester to Carlisle. I am a family barrister.

Caroline Goodwin: My name is Caroline Goodwin KC. I practise in criminal law. I am the leader of the north-eastern Circuit. We cover a very large geographical area, from Newcastle through to Sheffield, encompassing Leeds and York and so on.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Given your experience of seeing how proceedings flow in the courtroom on a day-to-day basis, I want to talk to you about modelling and the estimates of how much time will be saved. In relation to the proposed new Crown Court bench division, Sir Brian Leveson’s report says:

“Modelling assumes cases sent to the CCBD are 20% quicker to try than Crown Court cases with a jury and that the same proportion of cases ultimately plead guilty. However this… 20% assumption is highly uncertain”.

Do you agree that the central assumption is highly uncertain? What are your views about how will this operate in practice?

Claire Davies: We agree it is uncertain. When you go into a court trial process involving a jury, the types of cases that will go before these courts are generally the three to four or maybe five-day trials. When you look at those, the jury involvement is such that the only time that you would really save, so far as we can see, is in the swearing in of a jury, which takes 15 to 20 minutes, and maybe a factual summing up from the judge, which tends not to be very long in these cases. We therefore see the saving as minimal, because to maintain open justice, the evidence must be heard in court. That is very important for the public to understand what happens in our courtrooms.

Sir Brian Leveson suggested this morning that judges would be more interventionist, saving more time and getting to the point. While one can see on the one hand that that is an attractive argument, it simply cannot happen because the defendant and the witnesses are there and the public needs to know what the evidence is. It is all very well saying that a judge can read the papers effectively, and that they do not need to elaborate on it in court and can get to the issues, but that would defeat the very important principle of open justice, so we do not agree that the time savings will be as significant for those reasons.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The other thing that Sir Brian says—this is in relation to the Crown court bench division, but it is replicated across all his major recommendations—is:

“Should the MoJ consider pursuing this course of action, it may wish to consider undertaking further detailed analysis in order to understand the potential time-saving fully.”

Besides the stakeholder engagement exercise, are you aware of any of the “further detailed analysis” that Sir Brian said was necessary before coming to any conclusions about the time savings of the policies?

Samantha Hillas: No.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q It is good to see you all again. We have had a number of engagements over the past year, so it is good to be able to engage once again. You have heard a number of different witnesses from a number of different angles on the scandalous delays in our criminal courts. As circuit leaders, I expect you agree with me that something needs to be done to address it. I am looking at Claire, because I know the problems are especially acute in the south-east. I am right about that, aren’t I?

Claire Davies: Yes, and I agree that something has to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming today. My question is for Claire Davies. The open caseload is 80,000 and is projected by some potentially to rise to 200,000. In your evidence so far, you have not been able to identify a timeframe for the measures that you would prefer to be the focus at the moment. Do you think that victims would view that with concern, given that we have all agreed that justice delayed is justice denied?

Claire Davies: Of course they are going to view it with concern—it is common sense that anyone would be concerned—but we need to have the opportunity, which we have not been given, to demonstrate that in fact it will not reach that high with the measures that we support.

Efficiency in our system has long been lacking, despite repeated efforts, and this Government have shown that they will invest, and substantial investment is what is needed. We are not afraid of change—we make that absolutely clear. A lot more use could be made of technology in our courts; remote courtrooms could take the shorter hearings away from the trial courts so that they can concentrate on what they should be doing and have the full use of a court day to maximise that.

It is a combination of features in the trial, but the matters that we have proposed—you heard this morning, as well, that we encourage the use of specialised courts—would have a dramatic impact. You have to remember that new sentencing provisions came into force on 22 March, and we believe that they will also have a dramatic impact on the current caseload. The ability to give suspended sentences for a longer period of up to three years will have an impact, as will efficiency measures and, most importantly, the investment that the Government have made in relation to uncapped sitting days. All of that, combined, will have a dramatic impact, to the point that losing, or curtailing, the right to jury trial—because we are not losing it completely. We make that clear and accept it. We say that it is not necessary to lose the legitimacy that juries bring to our court system.

The judiciary have made great strides in their diversity, but they are still not representative of the communities they serve. The equalities statement makes clear the way that people elect those of different ethnic backgrounds. Given all of that combined, we would urge that clauses 1 to 7, which deal with repealing or restricting the right to a jury trial under certain circumstances, are not brought into force. There are many more ways in which action can be taken.

[Dr Mullan]

Q What is your comment on the fact that the Government are asking us to support and understand the estimates of Sir Brian Leveson based on his experience, and to accept modelling that is uncertain, but when you and thousands of others sign a letter criticising them, using that same experience to justify your views, we are told, “That’s not credible. Surely, you need to listen to Sir Brian.”

[The Chair]

You have 30 seconds to respond.

Claire Davies: Frankly, the answer is that we are the ones who are in court day in, day out doing the job. With the greatest of respect to Sir Brian, he is not doing the job in the current day and age—we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Following the Divisions in the Chamber, the timings for this afternoon will be adjusted. I will announce at the start of each panel when the questioning will start and end. We already heard your introduction before the votes, Claire. If you do not mind, we will jump straight into the questions.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thanks ever so much for coming, and for your patience with the parliamentary procedure. I know that these things are really challenging sometimes, so I want to thank you in advance for talking about difficult things. Also, rather than being dependent on what we may ask you, I want to give you the opportunity to lay out two or three points that you really want to get across to us today.

Claire Throssell: Thank you for the question, and I have four points that I really want to get across this afternoon. First, I want to make it clear that presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety. Presumption has no place when it comes to children’s lives. Presumption has no place when it comes to our lives.

What happened to Jack and Paul was based on a series of presumptions under practice direction 12J, and you have to ask the question: why did a professional working for CAFCASS, after being barricaded in her office, presume that Jack and Paul were safe to go on a visit? Why did she presume that I was exaggerating, despite me telling her and a court—let us be clear that I did—that he was capable of killing? Why was it presumed that it was okay to ignore my voice? Why did they presume that two children would be safe when they had clear evidence in front of them that they would not be?

We are talking about presumption, and people say, “Yes, the practice direction is there in the Children Act 1989.” Let us be clear: there are 68 children who have died under that Act. There are 68 children who have died under practice direction 12J. I say again: presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety.

I am going to show some evidence now, and I show these pictures not to shock or upset people, but to show the reality of presumption of contact. I would like to show you two photographs, the first of which shows Jack and Paul. They were never child A and child B in a serious case review. They are child 18 and child 19 in a Women’s Aid report that looked into how many children have died at the hands of known perpetrators of domestic abuse.

This 12-year-old boy, Jack, died believing that he had saved the life of his younger brother, because I never told him differently—I held both my sons in my arms as they died. Jack’s voice was never heard; the day he was supposed to have his interview with CAFCASS was the day that he died in my arms. The only time this boy’s voice was heard was on a landing, when he spoke to a fireman and a doctor. Although he was dying, he used as much of his strength as he could to tell as many people in that property, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.” This was taken by the police as a dying testimony. Why did they not take his words in life? Why did they take his words in death?

This second photograph of Jack is again evidence of what happens with presumption of contact. The first photograph of Jack was taken in the July, and this second photograph shows Jack in the October. CAFCASS and a court presumed that this boy would be safe. Social services presumed that this boy would be safe. This boy died believing that he had saved the life of his brother, and more importantly, he thought of everybody else but himself. When people should have protected him, he went back for his brother. He gave his brother his hand. He gave his brother his strength. He was there for his brother, but who was there for him at 12 years old? Not the court that ordered contact because of the culture in the family courts that contact is in the best interests of the child—that they should see both parents.

Jack had nobody, and he thought about me—he made sure that everybody in the property knew that I was not to blame. As a parent, I am ashamed of that, because it was my role to protect them. Let us be clear that I have to live with the fact that they died only because a domestic abuser wanted to punish me. A family court allowed him to do that, but these two beautiful boys only lost their lives because of me.

When we talk about repealing presumption of contact, let us look at it: over 30 years, children have died. In 2014, Jack and Paul were child 18 and child 19. Let us face the fact that, in 2026, we are at 68 children. That is not good enough, because every child deserves to live. Every child deserves to have a childhood, and their childhood should not be allowed to be torn apart piece by piece by seeing a perpetrator of domestic abuse—by seeing a person who just wants to hurt them, humiliate them and punish an ex-partner.

Children have one childhood. Children at risk of harm only have today; they do not have tomorrow. You have a chance—a lifesaving opportunity—right here, right now to make a difference to children’s lives, not just today, not just tomorrow, but for generations of children to come. It is no surprise that there are many people in their 20s with mental health issues. Mental health has never been as bad as it is right now in young people. And why is that? It is because they are made to see a parent who is hurting them. They are made to see a parent who is harming them. It might not be physical, and it might not be the ultimate act, like it was for Jack and Paul, but if a child comes back from a visit and they are different from how they were when they went on the visit, let us be clear: that is child abuse.

Children are supposed to have a voice. Children are supposed to have opinions. But all too often there are too many other voices in this complex system that are louder than the child. We hear about parental rights all the time, but around children’s rights there is a deafening silence. We have an Act that protects them: the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. They are supposed to be seen as victims in their own right, and yet, up and down our country, their rights are still being walked over—not only their rights under the Domestic Abuse Act, but their human rights too. They have the same rights as we do. They are people; they are humans; they are themselves. Their basic rights—to live, to thrive, to live in privacy, to live in peace—are being broken in courts up and down the country. That is not good enough. They are the future of this country, and if we get this wrong, what does the future of our country look like? What have we got for the future? They are not being allowed to live as they want to live. They are not being allowed to be free. They are certainly not allowed to thrive. If you go to school, college or university and you have suffered that morning, how are you going to learn? How is that conducive to achieving in life and being who you could be?

I used to tell the boys, “Be the best that you can be today.” They only had today. Right now, with this Bill repealing presumption of contact, we can give every child in this country the tomorrow that not just Jack and Paul, but 66 other children will never see. This issue is bigger than Jack and Paul, but they were my reality. They were my children. They were the better parts of me.

But 66 children are anonymous. Successive Governments have made them a child A or a child B in a serious case review, to gather dust in a file in Whitehall or around here, just brushed under the carpet. Serious case reviews—lessons must be learnt. I can ask everybody in here, “What lessons have we learnt?”, because every year we are losing more children, and we are losing more children because of practice direction 12J, because of presumption of contact. There should never be presumption—not in law, not when it comes to safety, not when it comes to lives. You would not go in a court and presume that somebody is guilty.

[The Chair]

Thank you so much for that; thank you for sharing.

[Dr Mullan]

I know that these words will not necessarily shift your view, but I do not think anybody in this room would think that any of that was your fault, or that you should share any of the blame for what happened to your children. Your testimony is really powerful.

[Sarah Sackman]

Thank you, Claire, for sharing such a powerful testimony. I think I first met you during a Westminster Hall debate, which was called by your tireless and fearless MP Marie Tidball, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. Your testimony is compelling and it is why we are bringing forward the provision in clause 17 of the Bill to repeal the presumption of parental contact. We know that will not protect every single child, but it does send quite an important message about what we in Parliament say, which is that the courts should always have at the forefront of their minds the best interests of the child, and that alone. I just want to say thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello, Mr Downey. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin by asking you about what read-over we might get in relation to challenges you have had with court backlogs. Do you have experience of waiting times and backlogs that increased from an ordinary level and were brought back down again? What did you do to secure that?

Doug Downey: Absolutely. As we went into covid, we were developing backlogs, and then of course through covid we had more. I can share some specific numbers with you if you wish. For a sense of scale, we have about 250,000 cases a year that come into the system, and the backlog made that grow quite significantly. We are chunking our way through it, if I can put it that way, and employing technology processes and increasing capacity across the system.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Has there been any change over that period in the use of jury trials? Have you used them more or less?

Doug Downey: We have not made changes to the jury trials, but we have made changes to compensation for jurors and how we get responses from jurors electronically versus in paper, and we changed our jury rolls. But in terms of what juries apply to, we have not made changes during that period.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Would it be fair to say that you had an increase in the backlog and then a decrease, without making any changes to the extent of the use of jury trials?

Doug Downey: We have not used that as one of the levers. To give a sense of scale, about 96% of our trials are judge-alone, so in terms of making a change, it would be to add more juries, which I would suggest, based on the data and experience we have, would move us in the wrong direction on the backlog.

[Dr Mullan]

Q We have covered jury trials and changes around that, but if you were going to pick one or two other things that you did that you think had the biggest impact on reducing your backlog, what would they be?

Doug Downey: Increasing capacity across the system. We have different levels of court: the Ontario court and the superior court. The Ontario court has a complement of approximately 300 judges. We have added 52 to that complement. In addition, when we add a judge, we add seven full-time staff, whether it be Crown prosecutors, victim service workers or whatnot. In total, we added about 700 full-time staff over that period. Building that capacity has helped. The challenge we have is the increasing rate of intake. There are theories on why that is, but it is a fact that we are dealing with.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q It was very good to have the chance to meet not just you, Mr Downey, but many of the judges at the superior court of Ontario on my recent visit to Canada. I am glad that you are able to join us. I want to ask you about two things: the efficiency and the pace with which judge-alone trials are conducted, as compared with jury trials, within your system, and your perceptions of the fairness and integrity of those judge-alone trials. As you just explained in response to the shadow Minister, judge-alone trials in the criminal court have been a feature of the Canadian system for decades, I understand.

Doug Downey: Absolutely. They have been in place for quite some time. They produce a number of benefits for the system. It is not just the length of trials; it is the expertise that can be brought to bear by an experienced judge. To become a judge, you have to have a minimum of 10 years’ experience at the Bar. It can also create scheduling advantages, because you do not have to schedule contiguously; you can have a break in a trial and come back a few days later, and not have to manage the jury in that sense. There are cost consequences, but there are also scheduling and efficiency consequences that we harness. More than 95% of our cases are judge-alone, but there is a mechanism by which the individuals can choose judge or jury. We put that in the hands of the accused. By and large, they choose judge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. We have only 15 minutes for this session, so I would like to go into our questions now, but hopefully we will cover the other points you want to make.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello. I am the shadow Minister. With witnesses such as you, I think it is important to be really clear about the areas about which you can and cannot comment. Does that make sense?

Chief Constable Hatchett: Yes.

[Dr Mullan]

Would I be correct in saying that it should not be inferred from anything you say today about the issues that need to be addressed, the challenges that victims are experiencing and the challenges in policing that you support, for example, a reduction in jury trials? The National Police Chiefs’ Council does not have any views on that.

Chief Constable Hatchett: No, we do not.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you. Are there particular parts of the process that you have observed and want to raise? Police officers often attend court and are often witnesses. In your experience, what are the processes that fall down? What makes you sit there shaking your head and wishing it had not happened? What prevents you from getting a conviction secured or a court hearing brought forward?

Chief Constable Hatchett: Obviously, there are the adjournments and the upset to victims and witnesses, including police witnesses. I just want to make the point that for the whole time the adjournments are taking place—you are sometimes looking to 2030—the risk in the community is being managed by policing. Whether the person has a tag or is on court bail, with or without conditions, they are being managed in the community by policing.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Let me move away from the court to policing, which obviously is the area that you are most familiar with. What one or two things could policing do better, or be allowed to do differently, to enable you to shorten the timeframe on your side of a victim’s journey?

Chief Constable Hatchett: I am really conscious that the Bill takes it from the point of charge and into the court system. We are working with the Crown Prosecution Service and in policing to see how we can decrease the time from the point of the recording of the crime to when we actually get a charge. There are initiatives going on with the Crown Prosecution Service, so maybe more will come into policing for charging. Some work is being done on redaction and on rebuttable presumption disclosure. There are a number of pilots going on to see how we can streamline the system to make that part as short as possible, recognising that no matter what we do there—and there is complexity in policing in terms of the investigations, the digital forensics and the third-party evidence that all adds to the delay—once there is a charge, there is a challenge in how you get through the process as quickly as possible, so that we do not have victims and witnesses who are not prepared to give evidence because of delays.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q It would be helpful for the Committee to understand the impact that the delays, which I think we all agree are intolerable, are having on policing generally. If you could speak to some of your first-hand experience of that, it would be helpful.

Chief Constable Hatchett: I talked briefly about the witness care units, which have had an increasing demand placed upon them since 2019-20. There are two other areas. There is greater demand on investigators. We are managing a growing number of caseloads for an extended period of time. If you think about the requirement of the prosecution team, we are obliged to continually review evidence, so the longer it takes to go through the court process, the more reviews are required. That requires rework. That also could mean changes to the officer on the case or the prosecutor, which then asks for additional work. From an investigation perspective, there is an impact on policing.

The management of risk in the community also falls to police, as I mentioned. You will have individuals who are remanded by police. They are remanded into the court process; a proportion of them will be then taken to prison, so they will be managed within the prison estate. However, the vast majority of the individuals will not go into the prison system. They will either be on conditional or unconditional bail. A proportion of them—about 9,500—are on a court tag. That means that they would have gone into the prison system if not for the fact that they had tags with conditions associated with them. Then, if there are breaches in relation to the tags or the conditional bail, that adds on to policing, which is then expected to manage those individuals, arrest them and take them back into the court process.

It is not just the investigations, and it is not just the victim care side of things; it is the management of risk in the community. We sometimes do that with risk assessments, and we do it with multi-agency public protection arrangements and multi-agency working, but there is still that risk, and we are managing that risk for longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. We will have until 5.24 pm. Will you please briefly introduce yourself to the Committee?

Daniel Flury: I am Daniel Flury. I am the operations director in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and I am also the senior responsible officer in HMCTS for the implementation of the outcomes of the Leveson reports.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Similarly to the question that I asked of the chief constable, it is important that we understand the constraints on your evidence. This is stated Government policy; would I be correct in saying that it is not within your remit to criticise or say that the stated Government policy was wrong?

Daniel Flury: It is not within my remit, no.

[Dr Mullan]

Q So we cannot take anything you say as being objective on the overall question of whether or not we should do this policy—you have to support the policy. In terms of the modelling, you will have seen in Brian Leveson’s report that he frequently refers to his assumptions being estimates, and to the Department’s need to do further detailed modelling. Could you point us to the further detailed modelling that the Department undertook in response to those requests from Sir Brian? Where is that further detailed modelling that the Department undertook?

Daniel Flury: That modelling is not undertaken by HMCTS. It is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, and there are analytical teams. We produce projections and assessments on a routine basis—things like projections around the Crown court caseload, prison populations and so on. The findings and outcomes of the Leveson reports, and whatever happens with the Bill, will be factored into those projections, which are updated on a six-monthly basis, in terms of caseload projections, and are routinely shared with Ministers, and occasionally published.

[Dr Mullan]

Q We are talking about the forward-looking modelling. For example, as you said, you have the data for what we do now and how we do it. But we are proposing reforms. If we wanted to say that a judge would do the consideration and summing up of evidence and the writing up of his thoughts on why he came to a decision, there is no evidence within our system for how long that might take?

Daniel Flury: No—we have obviously never operated in this way, or this potential way, before. As all projects and programmes do, we are currently relying on assumptions. I know that teams have tested these assumptions with a whole variety of people who work in the criminal justice system—judges and so on—but they still are assumptions.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Do you think that the Institute for Government’s classification of some of those assumptions as highly uncertain would be a fair classification?

Daniel Flury: I would not like to comment on that. The analysis is primarily undertaken by the Ministry of Justice; I am here representing the courts service and the operational side.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay. This question is more directly about your role. If you were to draw up a list for the Minister of the top five things that you thought would make a big impact on the delays that you are experiencing at HMCTS, what would be the top two, and where would structural reform of the courts, a new court bench, and removal of the right to elect sit on that list?

Daniel Flury: The top two things are uncapped sitting days, and long-term certainty over sitting days. That is what we have been provided with in HMCTS. But as I am sure the Committee has heard, on the current projections, even sitting at uncapped levels and having certainty over three years is not enough to reverse the Crown and magistrates’ caseload. We need something else if we are to arrest the growth in caseload.

[Dr Mullan]

Q As you picked two things that have been agreed, what things that have not been agreed would be on your list of further things that would help?

Daniel Flury: On the principal sources of delay, you have mentioned the police and the effectiveness of trials, and we see lots of ineffective trials because of an absence of an advocate—an advocate is engaged in a case elsewhere. The situation with the Prison Escort and Custody Services—the delivery vans—is well known, and well documented in the Leveson report. Finding a way to improve that is pretty near the top of the list.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You have given two, which is great. Would you agree that neither of those has anything to do with jury trials?

Daniel Flury: Yes.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q Thank you for being here, Mr Flury. You have clearly mentioned that certainty on uncapped sitting days is hugely valuable to the system. You have mentioned a number of the areas where efficiencies, as I understand, are being made and developed with HMCTS, including prisoner transfer and better case co-ordination. We know that there are also plans to introduce blitz courts from 1 April. Would you care to expand on any of that to explain how HMCTS is gearing up and getting ready to deliver greater efficiencies in the system, so that it can bring down the backlog?

Daniel Flury: I can, but may I begin by saying a bit about why certainty is so important for the courts, in particular? We go through this annual round—what we call the concordat process—where we discuss with the MOJ and the judiciary the amount of funding that HMCTS gets. That has been an annual process, so we operate on an annual cycle.

Now that we have certainty over three years, it means quite a considerable amount to us. It means that we can confidently list over the next three years, so we can say to recorders whom we are trying to book now, “Look, this case is going to get on, and this date is going to be sat. We have the money to do this.” Having that certainty to book Crown court recorders and to recruit both staff and judges is a really important step for us.

I will come back to the question about the other things that we are doing to improve efficiency. We are about to roll out case co-ordinators, which is another recommendation in the Leveson report. These are people in the Crown court who will actively manage the case, and who will be able to make decisions on behalf of the judge using delegated powers. They will really corral the system together to drive efficiency and drive readiness in a case.

There is a whole variety of what we call blitz courts, which I would almost describe as a bet on the system. We try to brigade a number of cases that we know will either plead guilty or be discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the direction of the judges, we list those cases, knowing that they will be disposed of there and then. This essentially brings those cases forward on the hope and expectation—we use data to establish what could plead out—that it will give us an opportunity to clear them from the caseload. The product of that is not only reducing the caseload but indicating to the system, particularly the defendants, that their case is not going to languish for three or four years in places like London. It means that it will come on, and they have a far greater incentive to plead guilty knowing that the trial is a bit more proximate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne]

Q To pick up on Paul’s point about over-listing and capacity, looking at the Bill from an operational perspective, what one aspect of it would you say would make a material difference in reducing the capacity problem you have identified—over-listing and overcapacity making it difficult with staffing numbers?

Daniel Flury: The consequences of the Bill for the Crown court, other than the jury trial element, will be relatively small. It will not really affect its day-to-day workings; there will just be a portion of cases that will be heard without a jury. In terms of the processes in the Crown court—how it operates and how judges list—we are not expecting profound changes at all. As I said, the real change arising from the Bill is the expansion of the magistrates court, and the real challenge for us in HMCTS is the need to recruit legal advisers and magistrates to expand the court and make its operations more efficient.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Looking at these plans coming forward, do you have what you might call a risk register within the Department? Do you have a system for rating the different elements and how risky you think they will be to deliver?

Daniel Flury: As I said, to deliver the components of this Bill and its changes to jury trials, a number of relatively minor IT changes are needed. We need to change—

[Dr Mullan]

Q Sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to get to the specifics of the question. I guess what I want to ask you is what you think is really important about the magistrates element, and how you are currently risk-rating your ability to deliver it. Is there a low probability that you will be able to deliver it without issues, or a high probability? How are you risk-rating that programme?

Daniel Flury: Our biggest risks around this programme are retaining legal advisers and recruiting magistrates. We need 7,000 magistrates over the next three years and 100 more legal advisers each year. We have mitigations in place, especially on magistrates.

[Dr Mullan]

Q But how are you currently rating them? Thank you for telling me what the risks are, but do you think you have a low risk of failure to deliver, or a high risk?

Daniel Flury: It is a medium risk.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Linsey, did you have a very quick question? You have seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Sir Richard Henriques, His Honour Clement Goldstone KC and Lord Burnett of Maldon. We have until 5.59 pm for this panel. Thank you all very much. Could you briefly introduce yourself for the record?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: I am Ian Burnett, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I was Lord Chief Justice until October 2023.

Sir Richard Henriques: I am Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge. I was called to the Bar in 1968.

Clement Goldstone: I am Clement Goldstone. I was a resident judge and the recorder of Liverpool until 2019.

[Dr Mullan]

Q My opening question for all three of you is this: what are the best and most positive features of jury trials, and how and why do we use them in our system?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: Public involvement.

Sir Richard Henriques: I do not disagree with that, but it is also the fact that the world at large is able to observe justice and what is going on. In the present context, they will be extremely unhappy.

Clement Goldstone: I agree and have nothing to add.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Very good. I want to pick up on your experience in Liverpool. I am sure you are familiar with this, and it has been discussed in Parliament, but the Liverpool Crown court does not have a backlog—it sees cases within the time limits. Based on your experience there, how were you able to achieve that, what else might the wider system learn from it, and what things can we not learn as they are not replicable?

Clement Goldstone: First, every Crown court has a backlog—they need one to function. Why was Liverpool a success? It was a success, first of all, because it is an excellent single court centre; secondly, because it has a very positive interactive relationship between the bench and the Bar and the Bar and the bench; and thirdly, because the staff are always willing to go the extra mile, which is probably because of the way they interact with the judiciary.

The fourth reason, which I know is something inherited by my successor, is that, as recorder, I believed that if you want to bring out the best in people you give them responsibility. Everybody wants to be part of a success story, as Liverpool in that way was. What has happened over the last seven years since I retired is that the same standards have been maintained—albeit, it must be said, in much more difficult and trying circumstances than when I was in the position.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The first example you have given is structural and not replicable across the whole country, but the other points you have made are all things we could support and implement more widely than just Liverpool.

Clement Goldstone: There needs to be a cultural change.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Lord Burnett, when, as Lord Chief Justice, you were considering how to improve the efficiency of the service and the experience of victims, did you ever consider reductions to the jury element of trials? If you did, what were your conclusions?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: I have spoken publicly on many occasions about my personal belief that there is a need to rebalance the work between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I was aware of the detailed work done 25 years ago by Sir Robin Auld. He made certain proposals which, even then, although I was not a criminal barrister at the Bar, I took an interest and many of them struck me as being quite sensible.

During covid, I had detailed discussions with the then Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, about adjusting the way we did trials, because it seemed to me that it was not a sensible approach to assume that covid would be over within weeks or a few months, which is what most people were doing, I’m afraid. Robert Buckland floated the idea of trying either-way cases in the Crown court with a judge and two magistrates—something I personally have favoured for a long time—but it did not fly politically; I think that is the best way of putting it.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You talk about a judge and two magistrates as something you favoured, and that is what Sir Brian recommended, but it is not what the Government are proposing. They are proposing a judge sitting on their own. Can you see any disadvantages to that proposal versus the one that you supported?

Lord Burnett of Maldon: Again, the Government well know my view on this—I see the Minister nodding. 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. They take very little time. Both Sir Richard and Judge Goldstone are much more experienced, over many more years, in what happens in the Crown court than I can pretend to be, but those cases take very little time and the judge, on behalf of the court, gives an immediate judgment, just as in the Crown court generally the judge gives an immediate summing up. That struck me as being a much better course.

[Dr Mullan]

I will come back to you if I get time.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q I would like to ask questions of the panel in relation to the practicality of what is being proposed, but also the principle. This is a question for all of you. Do you accept that in our system pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are heard with a jury and which are determined by judges or magistrates?

Sir Richard Henriques: Not much pragmatism as gravity, I think. The more serious cases will remain, pursuant to Sir Brian’s review, with juries. I heard the question “Are you trying to do away with juries?” earlier this afternoon. It is critical that the public do not think that we are doing away with juries. What is happening is a matter of pragmatism, as you say. Something has to change. The backlog has gone from 17,400 cases exactly six years ago to 80,000 now, and cases are being listed for four or five years’ time. Something has to be done. For my part, I agree with Lord Burnett: I would have preferred a judge and two magistrates. But something has to be done, and if judge alone is the only option, I am 100% in favour of it. I have no doubt that it will work and that it will save far more time than the Bar contends it will save. It will save a lot of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from JUSTICE, APPEAL and the Institute for Government. We have until 6.29 pm for this evidence session. Thank you for attending today, and for waiting. Can the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Fiona Rutherford: I am Fiona Rutherford. I am the chief executive of JUSTICE, the UK’s law reform and human rights charity.

Emma Torr: I am Emma Torr. I am a barrister and the co-director of the charity APPEAL, the Centre for Criminal Appeals, which represents people who have been convicted of a criminal offence in England and Wales.

Cassia Rowland: I am Cassia Rowland. I am a senior researcher and criminal justice specialist at the Institute for Government.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thanks very much for coming. I want to start with some questions for Fiona and Emma. Am I right in thinking that you were both signatories to the letter from what we might call the violence against women and girls grouping to the Deputy Prime Minister, which said that we should not move forward with these proposals? Is that correct?

Emma Torr: Correct.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I do not know whether you heard the evidence this morning in which the Victims’ Commissioner characterised that letter as predominantly being on behalf of women and girls who end up as defendants. When I read a specific part of the letter that said, “Well, actually, it’s also about victims,” the Victims’ Commissioner said that I was unfairly representing the letter. I wanted to give you both an opportunity to talk about whether, when you put your name to that letter, you included women and girls as victims as part of your considerations.

Fiona Rutherford: I certainly did. I cannot speak on behalf of the other organisations, but certainly from my behalf, that is exactly my understanding.

Emma Torr: I would agree with that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask you something else; I do not mean to put you on the spot, but this is in the public domain. You might know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has said publicly online that he understands that some of the organisations that put their name to the letter, or wanted to put their name to the letter, were put under pressure by either officials, Ministers or advisers at the Department not to do so, or to withdraw their names. Are you familiar with any of that? Have you heard anything about that in any way, shape or form?

Fiona Rutherford: We have not participated in any of the conversations that may well have happened with or without Ministers or officials.

Emma Torr: Not within my knowledge at all, no.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Moving on to the substance of what you say in the letter, can you tell us a couple of the points that you think are most important in relation to why—although I am sure you really care, as we all do, about the issue of backlogs and the experience it is creating for victims—you feel that the reforms on restricting the right to elect, creating a new bench division and reducing the use of jury trials are not the right way forward?

Fiona Rutherford: We have already heard from Daniel Flury in relation to the way that the magistrates courts are simply not structurally set up in many different ways. We know that magistrates typically undertake 13 sitting days on average. They also receive only three weeks’ training. If we are talking about moving into a situation where the sentencing powers are going to get far higher, that is of significant concern.

We all hope that there will be recruitment of magistrates, bearing in mind they have been cut by over 50% in the last 15,16 or 20 years. We know if the recruitment that is being talked about is successful, those people will be highly inexperienced, whether they are the legal advisers or the magistrates who are making decisions themselves.

To counter what I think was by said by the previous panel, of the appeals that come from the magistrates court to the Crown court when there is a concern about conviction or sentence, 40%—nearly half—are overturned when it is to do with an appeal against conviction, and 47% are overturned when it is an appeal against a sentence. There is a question mark about the accuracy of the way in which magistrates are making decisions.

We have heard about diversity among magistrates, and it is true that magistrates are more diverse than the judiciary, both in terms of gender and age. However, socioeconomically, there is a big gap for both the judiciary and magistracy. When looking at, for example, the number of applications to become a magistrate, only 3% of those people who applied are from manual labour jobs, which of course, again, will not be commensurate or replicative of the people who are going through the system.

You have already covered unrepresented defendants. That will only increase in relation to the existing legal aid issues. It will fundamentally mean that the defendants in those positions—particularly with very difficult cases—could be cross-examining their victims. If there is no lawyer to put that barrier in the way, then I can only imagine that the impact on those victims will be tremendous, particularly in very difficult cases.

We have talked about minorities and disproportionality. There was a fantastic question from the Committee earlier. We know that there is greater confidence among the public, particularly minority communities, in jury fairness over and above anything else. The Deputy Prime Minister has already written this down and has found that out from his own research. Racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system is and will continue to be a problem if we do not continue to try to work through that and keep juries as the clearest and fairest way of doing that.

Emma Torr: The proposal to reduce the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court has been presented as part of a package of measures to reduce the backlog in the criminal courts; however, removing the automatic right of appeal will introduce a multi-step process, which will only increase the workload of both the magistrates and Crown courts. To give a very brief outline of how it works at the moment, the defendant or the solicitor can fill out a very simple form, which results in a quick rehearing at the Crown court. As we heard from the previous panel, that works very well. It takes a couple of hours at most and even less for sentence appeals.

What the Government are proposing in the Bill is a multi-layered process. That involves consideration of grounds of appeal, articulation of those grounds in an application, consideration of that application by a Crown court judge—with or without a hearing—followed by a potential remittal to the magistrates court if there is to be a rehearing if leave is granted. That will add to the workload of not only the courts but criminal solicitors who work under legal aid and are chronically underfunded and overstretched in capacity.

One important thing to consider when talking specifically about the right of appeal from the magistrates courts is that the Law Commission very carefully considered this in its 700-page consultation paper last year and took views from a number of different stakeholders. Its independent analysis was that the removal of the automatic right to appeal will increase the workload of the magistrates court and the Crown court.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I have a question for Cassia from the Institute for Government. Thank you very much for the work you have been doing on this. You have been quoted left, right and centre in Parliament. You produced an initial report and then a second one. Your second report was characterised in Parliament, for example by the hon. Member for Gloucester, as moving away from your previous criticism and that you now accept the Government’s model and think that what the Government have said is accurate. Do you accept the Government’s modelling and think what they have said about what will be achieved is now accurate, fair and reasonable?

Cassia Rowland: The approach that the MOJ has taken in thinking about the modelling totally makes sense and is very similar to what we did. I want to make it really clear that our numbers are the same in our first and second reports. We are looking at the numbers in a slightly different way from the MOJ. The 19% overall saving in the Crown court is specifically for the Crown court. Our figure that is a 10% to 13% saving takes into account the increase in demand in magistrates courts as well. That is a big part of the difference. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Is it accurate to say that you reject the Government’s central assertion about the time saving?

Cassia Rowland: There are a lot of uncertainties behind the modelling. Some of that is inevitable because we do not have the information available. In particular, the bulk of the savings come from moving cases into the magistrates courts, rather than from the bench division, the judge-only-trial element, and there are quite substantial questions as to how feasible it is to move that many cases into magistrates courts if the Bill passes and as to the amount of time that those cases might take once they are in magistrates courts.

[Dr Mullan]

Great. Thank you very much; I appreciate that.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q I, too, have questions for the IfG and I agree—thank you very much for both your reports, which are incredibly helpful. As you have just acknowledged and as you acknowledge on page 2 of your supplementary report, there is actually a good deal of consensus both on the merits and soundness of the approach, which we in Government had externally quality assured based on the available data. I think you would accept, as we do, that some of the behavioural changes likely to flow from a reformed system are, as Sir Brian himself said earlier in evidence, quite difficult to model because they are not currently in place.

Cassia Rowland: That is absolutely true. We do not know what is likely to happen on plea rates or dropped cases. A lot of cases are dropped at the moment, partly because of the length of delays. The modelling makes certain assumptions about how that might change, but there is a lot of uncertainty there. There is definitely uncertainty in both directions, but what we do not and cannot really capture in modelling in the short to medium term is the effect of the reforms themselves and the disruption that that potentially creates in the system, in the form of short-term productivity and performance problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Plan B. We have until 6.44 pm for this panel. Could you please briefly introduce yourself for the record?

Tim Crosland: Good afternoon, I am Tim Crosland. I was previously a Government lawyer, working mainly on criminal justice issues. I am now at the climate justice charity Plan B, and I also helped establish the civil liberties movement Defend Our Juries in 2023. That was before this Bill was born, but in anticipation that it would not be long before legislation like this came along that threatened to remove trial by jury from protest cases.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you, Tim. I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. To pick up on your final remark, what was it that made you think this issue could be coming down the track?

Tim Crosland: There had been a pattern of jury acquittals in protest cases. In April 2021, the Shell six, who had spray painted “Shell Lies” on Shell headquarters, were acquitted by a jury. In January 2022, the Colston four, who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury. In November 2022, members of Palestine Action, who had defaced Elbit Systems—suppliers of drones to the Israel Defence Forces—were acquitted by a jury. In January 2023, members of Insulate Britain were acquitted by a jury for blocking roads. It goes on, and we were seeing the reaction to that. It was nothing to do with the efficiency of the courts; it was the reactions from companies like Shell and Elbit, the meetings with Ministers, and the call, “How do we stop this happening because this is deeply embarrassing?”

[Dr Mullan]

Q To be frank with you, I was unhappy with the acquittals in all the cases that you have given examples of, so I am not necessarily sympathetic to the aim that you are putting forward. How important do you think it is that the system allows someone like me to be frustrated and not agree with what the jury end up doing or with what the judges and the establishment might think is right, versus what ordinary members of the public do, as a check and balance against people like me?

Tim Crosland: It is a vital component of democracy. The classic example that comes up a lot is Clive Ponting. This is going back few decades—I remember it. In the 1980s, he was a civil servant who heard an account of what happened to the General Belgrano being presented to the public and Parliament that he knew was not true. He knew that the Belgrano was driving away from the British forces when it was sunk, so he leaked that information and was prosecuted for breach of the Official Secrets Act. The judge said, “You have no defence in law.” If it was down to the judge, Clive Ponting would have been convicted as a criminal and jailed.

The jury saw somebody who had acted to get good information to the public, so they disregarded the judge’s ruling—a principle known as jury equity—and Clive Ponting was acquitted. That sent a powerful message to politicians about the standards that the public expect: standards of honesty and integrity. If we do away with the principle of jury equity, we do away with a vital democratic safeguard.

[Dr Mullan]

Q To pick up on what you said—“do away with”—I think you will agree that we are talking about not the removal of jury trials, but a significant and historically unprecedented reduction in their use.

Tim Crosland: What I said was do away with jury equity. Jury equity—the principle that a jury can acquit a defendant irrespective of the directions of the judge—only applies to cases where people are unlikely to receive a sentence of more than three years. It applies to cases of conscience where people have acted in the public interest, at least in their own self-understanding, and that is what they want to present to the jury. Those people are very unlikely to get long sentences of beyond three years imprisonment. In reality, this measure will do away with the principle of jury equity altogether.

[The Chair]

We have a quick declaration before the Minister comes in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from the Ministry of Justice. We have until 7.04 pm for this panel. Could the Minister introduce herself for the record?

Sarah Sackman: I am Sarah Sackman MP, and I am the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to start with a question that I raised with some of the earlier witnesses. It has been suggested that the Ministry in some way, through civil servants, Ministers or advisers—I do not know who—placed pressure on groups that were either signatories of the letter against the Government’s proposals or were persuaded not to be. Can you confirm that in no way at all did anybody connected with Ministry of Justice seek to exert any influence on those signatories, either to withdraw from the letter or not to sign it in the first place?

Sarah Sackman: We are having, including today, an incredibly open and robust debate on an issue of real national importance. We have had robust debate in the Chamber and we have heard from witnesses with very different perspectives, some of whom are clearly against these proposals—I welcome their contribution to the debate— and some who favour them. There is clearly a spectrum of opinion, and I welcome that debate; I have never shied away from it. Over the last year, on behalf of the MOJ, I have personally engaged with stakeholders, including—this is probably the most engagement I have had—with people and groups that oppose the measures we are bringing forward. They include the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, for example, with which I have good relationships, although we disagree quite significantly on these proposals.

In respect of the letter, which was signed by 70 groups, all of those groups can speak for themselves. In advance of the letter being published, engagement took place with those groups to hear them out. Many of them maintained their objections, particularly Rights of Women, which led the objection. But it was important to have that engagement and dialogue on where there were areas of consensus and where we could work together. I would never—you heard the exchange I had with JUSTICE—put pressure on anybody to withdraw their objection. If people have objections, those objections need to be heard. There needs to be constructive engagement, and we have sought to have that in this debate. I think that people would agree that that is what has taken place.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay, thank you for confirming what you did personally. But obviously other people would have been meeting these groups, so can you clearly answer this question: did anybody from the Ministry of Justice do or say anything that these groups might have reasonably said was putting pressure on them not to sign the letter?

Sarah Sackman: Look, I genuinely cannot state every conversation that was had, because I do not know. What I can say is that a number of the groups who led the letter, Rights of Women—I hope it will not mind me saying—being one of them, attended a meeting with myself and Minister Jones. We had a good, full and frank conversation, and that letter then went to publication. You can see what the arguments are, and you have deployed them in your arguments, as well you might—if I were in your shoes, I would do the same.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Sure, but do you think that people might be concerned that you cannot say that no one had any pressure applied to them?

Sarah Sackman: What I know is that as a Minister, I seek, along with other Ministers, to set the culture of my Department. We keep the channels of communication open with all the stakeholders that you have heard from today, including many who are robustly not just opposing but campaigning against this. I was counting, and I think I must have engaged with the Bar at least 10 times since I became a Minister. I expect my officials to follow that lead, and that is the steer that they get from me: that we want to engage and have those conversations.

In advance of the particular engagement I am talking about, I held and led a number of stakeholder engagement sessions where I explained the rationale for the measures and what we were doing for victims. A number of those groups’ signatures ended up on that letter, so I did not persuade them, but the engagement was there—and it was open, convivial and constructive.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I have asked you twice, and you have given the answer, and people can make up their own minds about what can be implied from that.

Moving on to some extent, I can say to you, “This modelling says this,” and you can point to other modelling that says otherwise; I can say that court judge X disagrees with you, and you can point to a judge who agrees with you, and we can go back and forth. I am not seeking to do that, because I do not think it would be particularly productive.

I will instead try to pique your intellectual curiosity about the challenges for any Minister. Let us say we all agreed with your proposals in principle and that, if you were able to secure the changes you are seeking, they would be positive. The question is how you secure reform in Government—particularly major systems reform—successfully, and the challenges and unintended consequences that can arise. Have you spoken to any current or former Ministers who have embarked on a major reform programme similar to this? What lessons or points did they raise about how it can go wrong?

Sarah Sackman: There is no doubt that reform is challenging, but defending a status quo that—I think of the words used earlier—is producing shameful outcomes should shame us as a society. The first job of the state is to provide a justice system that is there for the citizen, whether accused of a crime or a victim. We are not doing that at the moment, in my view.

As you know, I was appointed a Minister on becoming an MP in July 2024, and I have always tried to approach that with a degree of humility, taking soundings from those with greater experience—including, by the way, Ministers from the previous Government, with whom I do not share politics but whose experience I respect. Over time I have met the likes of Alex Chalk, Jeremy Wright and Dominic Grieve and spoken to them about the state of our justice system and the challenges they faced in Government. Of course, I have also spoken to Ministers in the previous Labour Government, who did a huge amount as a reforming Government.

I am always somebody who asks questions. I hope I am intellectually curious and that I have asked questions of those who have administered the justice system, and so know how resistant it has been to reform. I will be really blunt and candid with you: I know when we have undertaken some reforms in the justice system—for example, before my time, the attempted digitisation of the civil justice system—billions of pounds of taxpayer money were spent and, frankly, it was a flop. It is still not digitised. You still go to county courts and they are covered in paper. A number of—I do not want to say bodies, because that is a bit crude—attempts at reform have been made in the past, and they have failed. I am realistic about the challenge we are facing, but I am also clear that the status quo is broken and that if we do not act, it would be a dereliction of duty.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Do you also agree that people who have the interests of victims at the heart of their thinking and positions on this can reasonably oppose your proposals, and that that does not in any way reflect a lack of concern for victims or the experiences they are going through?

Sarah Sackman: Of course I do. I have always said—and the Deputy Prime Minister has made the same point—that in reforming and rebuilding this system, we have sought to put victims at the heart of what we are doing. You will know that we are doing a lot on the victims code, through investment in victim services and how the reforms reflect that centring of the victims. Of course, victims are not a monolith. I met and spoke to Charlotte Nichols, who opposes aspects of these reforms and has her own experience as a victim. There is no universal victims’ voice, but there are very powerful victims’ voices we have heard today saying that we must improve and work together to get a better system to deal with those shameful delays.

[Amanda Hack]

Q Following on from the shadow Minister’s question about what good reform looks like, we have had a period of reform in the justice system. What would be your measure of success? We know the system is creaking under pressure, so what would success look like?

Sarah Sackman: There are two tests that I set myself, and neither is going to be easy to achieve within this Parliament. The first essay question is: can you deal with the intolerable delays? Can you ensure swift justice? That does not mean summary justice. That does not mean rushing through the cases, but it does mean getting through the caseload quicker so that people are not waiting for years. At the end of this Parliament, I do not want people waiting years for justice. That is the first test. It is the timeliness, which is the essential ingredient of fairness.

The second thing is: we are in a crisis, but we have an opportunity—with justice being the focus of our Parliament and our national debate for the first time in a very long time, and with real investment from the Treasury—to create something better. Our justice system has remained largely unreformed since the 1970s. There are lots of things that people might like about the 1970s, not least the music, but there were lots about our social values and our societal norms that were very different then. It was a different place for women, for black and minority ethnic communities, for gay people and lots of other communities. I do not think the system that was designed then is the one that we would design now.

We heard earlier from Katrin Hohl, who is leading work for the Government to embed some of the Soteria measures, which have been so good and progressive in the police and the CPS, into our courts. I know it can sound like a cheesy cliché, but my objective is the idea of building back something better, and designing a system that is not just sustainable and capable of dealing with the delays question but, in terms of its design, centres victims and is fair, particularly to women and black and minority ethnic communities. That is my objective: can we get a more progressive justice system?