Jury Trials

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:

“We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”

The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

You’re going soft!

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

New year, new David!

[David Davis]

I am losing the House, piece by piece, but that is okay. The Minister should pay some attention to the detail of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester, because she made some extremely important points.

As for the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), he and I have fought together on some spectacular cases of miscarriage of justice—successfully, I think, in the biggest ones—but I do not agree with him that the Government’s policy does not address matters that are morally fundamental to the justice system, because the jury system is absolutely fundamental, for a few reasons that I will touch on in a minute.

The Minister has a difficult job. Bluntly, her Department—not just the Ministers, but the Department itself—has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades. The system failures have been serially spectacular, and I recommend that she look back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; it is the longest NAO report that I can remember and the most complex, because these matters are systemically complex and do not lend themselves to off-the-cuff answers. She talks about modernisation, which is often important, but it should not be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system—one that the rest of the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, has been copying for centuries.

Of course, the majority of the judiciary does not agree with restricting jury trials. When I raised this matter with the Justice Secretary—I think I did so in oral questions on one occasion—I asked him whether he had read the report by Mr Rivlin KC, which does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. One of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgments—quite properly, as a very distinguished judge of very long standing—but he is not making them on the basis of empirical data. There was very little empirical data behind what Lord Justice Leveson argued, and it is really important that we look at that. I recommend to the Minister that she read Mr Rivlin’s note. He was the head of Southwark Crown court, which has one of the highest throughputs in the country, and he put this point to all his judges. Not one of those working, active judges agreed with Leveson.

Implicit in Leveson’s comments, and certainly in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it in certain cases. It is suggested that they cannot quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, I have handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error. More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another—I will come back to an example or two in a minute. It was pretty much always down to the judge, and sometimes to the lawyers in court, but not to the jury.

The risks involved in restricting jury trials are significant. When the Minister is modelling the numbers—she talks about the speed of the magistrate system—she should look at the appeal rates for magistrates’ decisions and the number of appeals in which the magistrates’ decisions are overturned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

From prepping for this debate, I know that the policy is one that tries to solve an administrative problem by simply changing a principle. The three areas I will try to cover—we will see how I get on—are the principle, the policy process and the practical side.

To deal with the principle first, we have heard a number of times that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay does harm trust and it can prolong suffering, but justice done wrongly corrupts the system itself. The Justice Secretary knows that, as in his own Lammy report he said that juries act as “a filter for prejudice” during trials.

Moving on to the policy process, on the one hand the Government are saying that the policy is much needed to help with the admin side, but on the other hand they are saying that these are very small changes. We only have to look at the letter written by the Secretary of State to the Justice Committee to pull some of that apart. It states:

“Of the c.3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform.”

However, later it says:

“An alternative way of expressing impacts is to account for cases that will be retained in the magistrates’ courts after the reforms. Based on projected case volumes and case mix, of those cases that still proceed to the Crown Court post-reforms, around three-quarters of them are still expected to be allocated a jury trial.”

So we already have a discrepancy, in the same paragraph of the letter, in what the numbers are.

The question, “Has any modelling been done?”, has been asked multiple times. We again know from the letter addressed to the Committee that modelling has been done, because it says:

“The assumptions underpinning the modelling of the reforms I announced last week are subject to the Concordat process that agrees sitting days with the judiciary and it would be improper to pre-empt the conclusion of this process.”

In short, modelling has been done, so if Ministers want to strengthen their argument, why would they not produce that modelling? When we have asked the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box—she was asked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for the seventh time—whether an impact assessment has been done and not released, or is being done and will be brought forward, we have not got an answer. One would have thought that if you had done the work—

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful for the motion and for the opportunity to object, cross-party, to the restrictions on our important rights to a trial by jury. I was, however, hoping that the Conservatives would, in this debate, admit some real responsibility for the awful state of our criminal justice system. Will he correct that gap in any further way in his contribution?

[Dr Evans]

I refer the hon. Lady directly to the opening speech. If she sits and reads Hansard, it was very much different regarding that point.

I will move on to the other practical points we need to talk about—some even in the letter—about process. For example, the letter states:

“judges will assess the likely sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. They will consider the facts of the case to make a determination of likely culpability, harm”—

and so on. It then goes on to say:

“eligibility is based on likely sentence length, any triable either-way offence could be in scope of the CCBD, if it were likely to receive a sentence of 3 years or less”.

What happens if the judge decides that they would not go to a jury trial? Later on, the same letter states:

“judges will retain the full sentencing powers available in the Crown Court, meaning there is no restriction on the sentence that can be handed down in the case.”

That points out the fact that a judge could make a decision at pre-hearing that the case need not go to trial because the sentence will be less than three years, and after that find out that the sentence will actually be five, six or seven years. There is a real discrepancy.

The letter also states:

“As you know, we do not have minimum sentences in law.”

That is demonstrably not true—think about drug trafficking, firearms or repeat knife offences. We only have to look at section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which talks about how using a knife for a second time will result in a minimum of six months. That was codified and updated in section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The letter is filled with holes.

I thank Joanna Hardy-Susskind, who has pointed out a lot of these issues. She has done a lot of working explaining that the MOJ does not even understand the letters it is putting out in defence of this policy. If the Ministry was to release the modelling and the impact assessment, it could demonstrate to us all why we should make the change.

I am running short of time to talk about the practicality, so I will close where I started.

[David Davis]

I am not just standing to give my hon. Friend a minute. Does he agree with me that even if we accept what it says, being sent down for a couple of years can destroy a life?

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. That is fundamental. There must be trust in the system and in the decision taken, and I worry that that is being eroded by this proposal.

I am going to change my speech. I started on the presumption that the Government are trying to solve an admin problem with a principled change, but I think, after listening to the Government Front Bench, that I am wrong. The Minister was asked, “Sarah, would you still go with this regardless of the backlog?” and the answer was yes. There we have it. It is clearer than ever before. Efficiency is the excuse and ideology is the aim. Regardless of the vote today, the answer is here for all to see that the Government do not believe in maintaining jury trial. For that reason, Members must stay and vote with the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It will be quite tough to follow that, but here we go.

This has been a very useful debate. Every single contribution, including those from Conservative colleagues, has commented on the crisis in our courts that we inherited from the Conservatives after 14 years. We have heard some suggestions; the gist of the suggestions from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition is, “Let us get more court sitting days.” Would it not have helped if the Conservatives had not closed half of the magistrates courts in England and Wales? Across the entire estate, they sold off more than 40% of all court buildings for far less than they were worth to the communities they served.

As a result of the Conservatives’ vandalism of our court system, there are nearly 80,000 cases waiting to be heard and that number will continue to rise beyond 100,000 without investment, efficiency savings and structural modernisation. Let us be clear: this Government will bring forward a modernisation package that will drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century, ensuring that justice is done fairly and swiftly, that our system meets the challenges that modern criminal cases bring, and that we never again reach a point at which the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is so severely undermined.

The House has heard today a clear and compelling case from my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister, who set out the bold but sensible reform we need, bringing down the backlog by the end of the Parliament. It is rooted in evidence, grounded in reality and driven by a simple objective: to fix a criminal court system under unprecedented strain and put it on a sustainable footing for the future.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?

[Jake Richards]

We absolutely have to drag the criminal justice system into the 21st century by modernising its structures, but the context in which we operate clearly has an effect on that programme. The fact that we have inherited an unprecedented backlog in our criminal court system affects the urgency and radicalism of that reform.

Let me take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Sir Brian Leveson, who is no shield. His independent review has driven the reforms that we are taking forward; it is rigorous, thoughtful and absolutely clear about the scale of the challenge before us. Let us be very straight: the reforms being proposed, which will be set out in due course before this House, are not plucked out of thin air but the result of intensive, careful work undertaken by the most senior lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. The modernisation programme will be built on evidence. These are difficult decisions and no doubt uncomfortable for some in the legal profession, but they are absolutely vital for a properly functioning and robust system that we can be proud of to take into the future.

Let me bust some of the myths that we have heard in the debate. Some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that these changes tear up a historical right to a jury trial. Let me be abundantly clear that they do not. Article 40 of Magna Carta reminds us that we must not

“deny, or delay right or justice”,

giving us the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Sadly, in this country today, justice delayed has become justice denied for far too many victims. The Government will not cling to mythological tradition at the expense of fairness, effectiveness and public confidence. We will rise to meet the challenge of the day, rather than living in the past.

I have heard on countless occasions the assertion that this Government are scrapping jury trials. That is not true. Everyone has and will always have the right to a fair trial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) made clear in her compelling speech. There has never been an inalienable or unqualified right to a trial by jury.

Let us set out the maths in some detail, because this is very important. Currently, 10% of all criminal cases are subject to jury trial. Some 7% of those are pleas, where there is no trial, so just 3% are subject to a jury trial. The reforms before the House would reduce that number to just 1.5%. These are modest reforms affecting a small proportion of the criminal cases in our country.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, when I came to visit the justice centre in Telford with him we spoke a lot about the role that magistrates play, and I want to pay huge tribute to them. The proposals we brought forward last week are, as his question suggests, a huge vote of confidence in our magistrates and in our magistrates courts system to hear cases swiftly and robustly, and we should back them.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.

Right to Trial by Jury

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow. I would push back on the suggestion that the Mayor of London has not led on tackling violence against women and girls in our city, because there are greater policing numbers and there has been a real drive on that.

On supporting the sustainability of lawyers to both prosecute and defend these cases, the Government have announced an injection of £92 million for criminal legal aid solicitors who defend such cases. We are making that investment and looking to see whether we can go further, particularly in relation to advocates. We are making that investment, and it is a shame the hon. Gentleman’s Government did not do it a little earlier, as we might have been in a rather different position today.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not going to comment on leaks or the circumstances of leaks. I can say, however, that no one was more irritated by the timing of this leak than I was. The issue of our Crown court backlog and the impact it is having on victims has rightly been well ventilated in debate in this House. It is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his expert review to engage with and consult a wide range of stakeholders. We have been very open about the issues and the need to have that debate, but I am simply not going to comment on leaks.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the anxiety that this issue will have caused. In a way, it has been a revelation to the public that people are released in error from our system. I emphasise that the vast majority of people are released in the correct manner—57,000 are released every year—but under successive Governments, for all of my lifetime, there have been releases in error. We want to bring that number down to historic levels, because it has been going up since 2021. I cannot stand here and say that, in a paper-based system often implemented by junior staff, we will eradicate releases in error, but we will reduce them over the course of this Parliament.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said:

“Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.]

I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake?

[Mr Lammy]

This is why I chair the new performance board. This is why I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue intensively. This is why I have found £10 million for a digital rapid response unit. This is why, because there is sometimes a gap between our courts and our prisons, I have put in place a new urgent query process. This is why we are taking the Sentencing Bill through this House, which will simplify release. All those measures will begin to bear down on this issue. I am sure that Dame Lynne Owens will come forward with more measures, and we will take them.

Prisoner Release Checks

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience, but is there not an argument for every case to have a pre-sentence report in order to truly understand what an individual has faced and whether there are any mitigating factors? I appreciate that that could create a backlog for these services, but is it not one possible solution to the problem that the Sentencing Council was worried about—namely, that different cohorts might have different sentencing outcomes?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do.

Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As a former solicitor, I am familiar with that provision, and I agree that any defendant who has not yet received a custodial sentence should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. However, imagine two criminals who both have a criminal record, but one is a member of a religious or ethnic minority and one is not. The guidelines propose treating them differently, and that is not justice.

[Dr Evans]

Is the fact not that the sentencing guidance said that a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary, and then went on to talk about race and religion? Making those distinctions immediately apparent in sentencing guidance, which could mean that a white Christian male would be treated differently if they committed the same offence as someone of a different ethnicity, is the fundamental problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I associate myself with every single thing that the Mother of the House has just said, because I could not possibly live up to it. I genuinely believe that this Bill will undermine efforts to ensure that equality before the law is a reality for everyone. It flies in the face of expertise and of the painstaking, authoritative work of the Sentencing Council —a rightly independent body run by, and for, the judiciary. This is a strange and populist Bill that is undermining and delaying good, well-evidenced independent guidelines for effective sentencing that would have made our justice system more fair, rather than less.

I will start my objections to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill—I am essentially opposing the Bill as a whole—by commenting on the process. We have before us a single-page Bill that in its specificity and intent cannot but bring to my mind how the current President of the United States is using executive orders to interfere intrusively and intricately in the rightly independent decision making of other bodies. This is a micro Bill that micromanages. I worry what else we might see from this Government if such an example is set today. On Second Reading, the shadow Justice Secretary was not shy of telling us about his next targets, which include the long-standing “Equal Treatment Bench Book”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has outlined other guidelines that might be immediately affected if we pass this Bill today.

My second objection is about the substance of the Bill, which is primarily contained in clause 1. I cannot believe that Ministers and shadow Ministers are unaware that achieving fair and equal outcomes does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. That principle is so fundamental that I think I learned it through the round window. I cannot believe they are unaware that systemic racism and unconscious bias are real things that still affect people at every stage of the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom in 2025. They must be aware that the good practice that we put together must mitigate those things, or else it will compound them.

I do not believe that the Government as a whole think that the findings of the independent Lammy review of 2017 are untrue, or that they and a wealth of other evidence did not demonstrate the need for guidelines of this sort to provide information to help mitigate the impact of systemic racism and prejudice. Yet here we are, being asked to vote for legislation that essentially bans this evidence and these principles from being part of independent judicial guidelines.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My concern and that of Opposition Members is that the guidance gave examples where pre-sentence reports would “normally be considered necessary” and picked out an identity of a religion or a minority, thereby entrenching racism back into the system. That is the very aim that the hon. Member purports to not want to see. That is the fundamental argument that the Government and the Opposition are putting forward. We do not want to see this situation made worse.

[Siân Berry]

This is—

--- Later in debate ---

Let me offer an analogy, or a parallel, with health disparities. According to Public Health England and the Stroke Association, black African and Caribbean men over the age of 55 are almost twice as likely to suffer a stroke as white men of the same age. That is not speculation; it is a clinical fact. If the NHS were to implement a targeted programme to deliver early stroke prevention for that group, not a single person in this Chamber would call it a two-tier health system. We would call it evidence-based care. We would call it a fair and proportionate response to a known disparity. So why, when it comes to justice, are we so afraid to apply the same logic?

[Dr Luke Evans]

From a medical perspective, there would be a genetic predisposition. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people would, on a genetic basis, find themselves affected by the law purely because they were black? The comparison he has just made is exactly that, from a medical standpoint. I do not think he would really make such a suggestion, and I would certainly be against that position.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but as a criminal practitioner who has frequented courts over the last 20 years, I have seen disparities. I have seen sentencing which, in my view, was not fair. Lived experiences among certain communities are just as important as those of other minorities, whatever their backgrounds. Ultimately, who has decided that this is an important element that needs to be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines? This went through all the consultation under the last Government. People had seen it, and agreed to it. It did not raise a concern back then, so why should it now?

Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is, in fact, the only way in which to ensure real equality—to ensure that justice is not just blind in theory, but fair in practice. I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right: that longer-term work is essential. However, while it is going on we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and support the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research and consultation.

This Bill is not just misguided; it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelines expert insight, ignores data and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and right now the communities that face this disparity will no doubt be concerned about the Government’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Sentencing Council’s summary of the responses to the draft guidance that was in consultation under the Conservative Government, but it paraphrased magistrates and judges as saying that driving the universality of pre-sentence reports would be challenging in the light of the limited resource for the Probation Service and of the court backlogs. I would suggest that he consult that document to see the phrases used by those legal professionals.

[Dr Luke Evans]

How much would universality cost? Have the Lib Dems calculated how much it would cost?

[Josh Babarinde]

If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was making the point that these reports should exist come what may, the cash should be ringfenced and earmarked for the use of judges and magistrates to request them, but he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) cannot have it both ways. We know that if we best tailor a sentence to whether it will result in somebody not reoffending—if we best match the sentence to an offender—we can spend to save. If we can reduce reoffending by ensuring that people get the appropriate sentence, we will keep people out of our crumbling prisons who do not need to be there because they will not reoffend in the first place. We can spend to save.

I regret that this issue has become a political football and one that is sowing the seeds of division. Plainly and simply, this is about the shadow Justice Secretary attempting to hijack our criminal justice system for his own political ends. So desperate is he to score political points that he uses his platform in this House to undermine judges by name, in the full knowledge that they cannot respond and that there is a formal process by which judicial complaints can be investigated and addressed. So desperate are the Conservatives to score political points that they paint judges as activist villains and are working to undermine public confidence in them just because the shadow Justice Secretary does not agree with their rulings.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are doing everything we can to support women and their children. We have declared this a national emergency, and we have that ambition of targeting and halving violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. My personal ambition is that the names read out at this Dispatch Box next year are far fewer than the ones read out this year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of illegal drug use in prisons.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

This Government inherited prisons in crisis: overcrowded, violent and rife with drugs. If we are to have regimes that reduce reoffending and cut crime, we have to crack down on drugs in prison. To do so, we must address the supply of drugs, and prisons use a range of tactics, including X-ray body scanners and baggage scanners. We must also tackle demand. Over 80 of our prisons now have drug-free wings.

[Dr Evans]

Before 2021, less than 1% of seized substances contained anabolic steroids. In 2023, it was 10%, with anabolic steroids being the third most prevalent drug class detected in Scottish prisons. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and Dr Jayasena and Dr Grant, who are national leads on the topic from Imperial College, to look at conducting research into the impact of steroids on offending and the prison population?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his long record of campaigning on this particular issue. It is an important point, and I will ensure that he can meet the Prisons Minister and look at what further research might be needed in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know that accommodation is key to reducing reoffending. That is why we are expanding our transitional accommodation service and working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness and ensuring this issue is tackled correctly.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legislation on funerals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The Government recognise that there are serious concerns about the funeral director sector and that the legislation that governs what happens after we die is outdated. We are considering how to ensure that appropriate standards are introduced, including through the potential for some form of regulation. We have asked the Law Commission to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die.

[Dr Luke Evans]

As the Minister knows, we have been in correspondence about that sector. She kindly wrote back to me to say that the Fuller inquiry’s phase 2 interim report has been released. My constituent Joseph Barsby runs G. Seller, one the biggest independent funeral directors. He is passionate about how we can bring forward a compassionate way of looking at people who have died, while ensuring that standards are kept high. Will the Minister consider meeting me and him to further discuss ways that we can bring the sector into the 21st century?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the vast majority of funeral directors treat people in their care with the utmost respect, as that business in his constituency will do. Nevertheless, there are some serious issues of concern in the sector. As I mentioned, the Government are currently considering the full range of possible next steps, including meeting with sector directors. I would be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman when that meeting is taking place, so that he and his constituent can take part.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

How do you want to die? How do you picture your own death? It is a question we rarely ask ourselves, but one that every one of us will face. For me, I hope it is with peace, surrounded by loved ones, free of pain and content with a life well lived. That is the gold standard. Good palliative care strives to make that ideal a reality.

Let me state unequivocally: we need to support palliative care. However, today’s debate is not about whether we support palliative care, but about what happens when we cannot provide a solution. What happens when palliative care does not or cannot work? The truth is that palliative care has limits. Let us consider the cases that keep doctors and surgeons awake up at night—the likes of the inoperable neck cancer, eroding away into the carotid artery. It is a literal bloody time bomb, and no one knows when it will go off. What is modern medicine’s answer to that? Keep dark towels nearby for the blood, and counsel a partner or family member on what it is like to find someone bleeding out. There is no cure, and no respite. What would you do?

Currently, for such patients we can offer no agency over their end; no alternative to that terrifying death. Can we truly say that that is compassionate? Should we not even offer those facing such suffering at least the chance of dignity in their death? That is what the Bill stands for. To reject it on Second Reading is not just to vote against assisted dying but to silence the debate for another decade and to say that the status quo is acceptable, and it is fine for those who can afford it to fly to another country to end their suffering while others are left here without recourse. I cannot accept that. What is this House for if not to empower people, and to give them the tools to shape their lives and, yes, their deaths? Today, we have the chance to put compassion into action—to offer choice to those who are facing the ultimate suffering.

I hugely respect Members who take a different view. I simply and gently say to them that there are consequences, too. Those intractable cases will still be there with no solution, no choice in this country and no resolution to their suffering. To those who understandably are a little unsure, I say that if they have doubts about safeguards or the implementation—I agree that some are valid—they should let the debate continue. For some Members it will a bridge too far; if necessary they should reject the Bill on Third Reading, but to stop it now is to stop the conversation entirely, take the choice off the table and remove a dying person’s agency. When all is considered, I ask again: how do you want to die?

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

There is nothing I could say from this Dispatch Box that would put right the horror that the poor families of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Austin suffered in those appalling attacks from Valdo Calocane. The law of homicide has been considered greatly—in fact, as a Back Bencher, I led a debate on the issue of first-degree and second-degree murder. It is of course something that we keep under careful consideration; there is complexity to it, but it is certainly a matter that we will consider.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of legislation on cremation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The law on cremation has been updated when needed. For example, the 2008 cremation regulations are currently being amended as part of the ongoing death certification reform. However, the primary legislation on cremation dates back to 1902, and in the light of developments since then, I believe that a more comprehensive review is needed. That is why the Law Commission has agreed to consider the law governing cremation as part of its project on burial, cremation and new funerary methods. That project has commenced, and we await its findings with interest.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Obviously, given what is going on in Hull, there are great concerns. I know that the Minister cannot speak directly about that issue because of the investigation, but there is no formal regulation of funeral directors on these issues. Joseph Barsby, the managing director at G. Seller—a much-loved local funeral director that is at the forefront of funeral facilities in Hinckley—is very concerned, because G. Seller wants to lead, not be tarnished by being sucked into problems in the industry. Will the Minister meet with Joseph to discuss ways in which we can improve the system? Failing that, will there be a way for funeral directors to feed in information and ideas on how to improve the system?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Department has already started work on a call for evidence on where we go with the regulation of the funeral director sector; that will be issued shortly. I am more than happy to ensure that the views of any funeral director are fed in, and, of course, to meet with the firm in his constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

T9. I thank the Lord Chancellor for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) to discuss the egregious case of Colin Pitchfork, the double child rapist, who has had problems bouncing in and out through the Parole Board system. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot change the law on this retrospectively, but what can he do in upcoming legislation to ensure that we have the protections for our communities to make sure they are safe and that reoffenders are not released?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important case and for taking it up so powerfully on behalf of his constituents. In the Sentencing Bill, we have a proposal such that people who commit crimes of murder involving sexual and sadistic conduct will not be released, because they will be expected to serve a whole-life order. That is just, on behalf of the British people, and it also helps to keep communities such as that of my hon. Friend safe.