Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

Paulette Hamilton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will limit ourselves to one question each at this stage so that everyone can get in. If there is more time, I will call people again.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, all. I want to ask a quick question to the former Victims’ Commissioner. Vera, based on your many years of experience as Victims’ Commissioner and working alongside the justice system, do you think structural reform is needed at this stage?

Dame Vera Baird: It is absolutely imperative. There is no way of stopping the problems that my colleague Claire has so well expressed without stopping smaller cases going into the jury list. The state has not said that they need to be tried by jury. As you know, the state says all summary offences go to the magistrates court, as do all indictable offences where it is imperative to have a jury trial—they are very important; the public needs transparency. That is what has been fixed.

It is the cases in the middle, which are at a relatively lower level of crime, where there is a right that the guy charged with rape or murder does not have to pick where he is tried. There is a right to do that for relatively small cases, which is exercised sometimes —you have heard from Sir Brian—in a very self-interested way, which doesn’t surprise you, does it, really? If you can put the case off for three years, the witnesses might never come.

All of that is a problem, and it should be dealt with by bringing in a perfectly fair method of trial: a skilled judge, with or without two magistrates. Make no mistake about judges, there is a need to keep them well trained, of course there is. However, judges now do a lot of fact-finding, not only in criminal cases. Look at the case of Charlotte Nichols, who waited 1,088 days to get to court. She told the most convincing story—what a woman; she is brilliant—to the House of Commons about what happened to her. After 1,088 days, the man was acquitted of raping her. She then had the resource to sue, and she sued in the civil court. A judge believed her and awarded compensation, which she felt was redeeming. There are many cases now where jury trials fail complainants and, if they have the resource, they go to the civil courts, and the judges there are more amenable.

We must not muddle jury trial and fair trial. In many cases—in Australia, all over New Zealand and in most of Canada—there is a right for a jury trial-allocated defendant to opt out. More opt out of jury trials than remain in. Do you know why that is? It is because the acquittal rate is higher in judge-alone trials universally. A judge reasoning a case cannot just say, “Well, I don’t really believe that Baird woman—I didn’t like the look of her. I’m not going to follow what she says,” as juries can. You have to sit down and reason out why it is so. Are you being rational or not? That will be a great asset to fair trial in the middle tier where Sir Brian is going to allocate the most serious of cases, which, frankly, the state has never said need to go to jury. It is about having a punt on a jury trial.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Thank you. You have explained that perfectly.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Victims say that they want to see greater diversity in the criminal justice system, and I agree with them. Which group of people is more diverse: juries, the British public or judges?

Dame Vera Baird: Is it your only point? The answer would be that judges are not as diverse as juries.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Very good.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Q Thank you for allowing me back in, Chair. My question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. Let me start by saying that justice delayed is absolutely justice denied. As has been talked about, there is a lot of distrust in the system. With your vast experience in criminology and criminal justice, could you give us two clear reasons why these reforms are so needed?

[The Chair]

We need two clear reasons in less than a minute, so fire away.

Professor Hohl: One is that the world is changed and the justice system has not updated when the size, nature and volume of cases has changed. Getting the system to cope with today’s demands would be one reason. The other reason is not addressed by the Bill and keeps being surfaced by the discussion: oversight, accountability, transparency and assurance to the public. We are in a space where the public do not trust authority that much any more, so we need more transparency. Things such as recording and reasoned verdicts would help with that. Those would be the reasons for reform—if you allow me to speak only on reasons for, not those against.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Q Thank you so much for being here today. I am really interested in the victim’s perspective on fairness, the treatment of victims within the current criminal justice system and the changes being made.

As a former Crown prosecutor, one aspect of the criminal justice system that concerned me was the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. As you all know, if somebody is convicted in the magistrates court, they have an automatic right to a retrial at the Crown court without having to give any reasons, regardless of whether there was a fair trial in the magistrates court or otherwise. If the victims and witnesses want to continue the process, they have to give evidence all over again through that appeal, otherwise the appeal is successful.

The Bill seeks to get rid of that automatic right and put the process more in line with the Crown court appeals process. There will have to be grounds to suggest that the original trial was unfair. As victims and survivors who have had access to the criminal justice system, what is your view on the current system of retrials and appeals from the magistrates court in terms of fairness to victims and the likelihood of victims attending to give evidence and being re-traumatised? I am also interested in whether the automatic right to appeal and have a retrial is used as coercive control in the current justice system. There is a lot to unpack there, I grant you.

Charlotte Meijer: There are a lot of questions there. From my experience, we will never know whether my perpetrator picked a magistrates court because he knew that, if he was found guilty, he could have then dragged me on to a Crown court case—we do not know.

It is absolutely terrifying because, as we all know, going through a trial for the first time is horrific—it is something that I never want to do in my life again. I had the ability to go to court again for rape, and I declined it; if there had been an appeal and I had to go again to a Crown court, I probably would have dropped out. It is not something that I would want to experience twice.

There is also a really interesting thing there. What does that say about our magistrates courts? Are we basically saying that they cannot do what they should be doing? I think that changing the system strengthens the trials and credibility of magistrates courts—they should be credible, given that 90% of cases go there. It also shows that it is the final choice; the decision will be made there, unless more evidence comes forward.

On what you said about fairness to the victim, there is obviously no right to appeal for a victim if there is a not guilty verdict. I know there is a tiny bit of legislation to say that, if there is a huge amount of new evidence, they could reopen a case. However, that barely happens. You are basically told no, so how come a perpetrator can just appeal without any reason? From victims’ perspectives, and from my perspective, it is an absolute no-brainer.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Q Thank you all, and can I add to everybody’s remarks about the powerful testimonies that are coming across today? Following on from Joe’s question, my question is for you, Farah. The Bill’s impact assessment states that repeal alone is unlikely to materially change the outcomes. As the chief exec of Women’s Aid, what further steps does Women’s Aid feel need to be taken to protect children from a parent?

Farah Nazeer: I think the repeal of the presumption is the cornerstone, because that gives the foundation on which the other measures rest. I think the first thing is mandatory training so that there is real understanding of coercive control and domestic abuse. I still speak to survivors daily who tell us that judges are saying, “Well, why didn’t you leave earlier? If it was that bad, why are you still there?” There is a real lack of understanding of coercive control, economic abuse and how coercive control can manifest in multiple different ways—the isolation, the withdrawal of technology and all the many things that make it impossible to leave. I think that mandatory training is really important.

The training also has to include a real understanding of the barriers that survivors face, particularly those with minoritised backgrounds, such as black women, women from minority backgrounds, deaf and disabled women and LGBTQ+ constituents. They face additional barriers and challenges in accessing justice, as well as in accessing empathy and understanding of their particular situations, which might have cultural implications, or mean different things in the domestic abuse context. We need really comprehensive training and understanding.

We also need unevidenced concepts like parental alienation to be banned from family courts, and we need actual regulated professionals—if they need to be brought in—to advise courts and judges in a way that the system and survivors can have confidence in. Right now, this is inconsistent and, in some cases, outright dangerous, as we can see from the many reports we have produced at Women’s Aid. I would say that those are the three most important things to ensure that we have a safe system.

The other piece that perhaps sits outside the provisions of the Bill is the specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services that need to be there to support survivors through either the family court processes or the criminal court processes. Unless you have someone supporting survivors through those processes, they can be brutal. It is very hard to sustain the energy and commitment to return to those settings, time after time.

You build yourself up, as my fellow panellists have said, and then you are let down again. The experiences themselves are also deeply distressing. Without those specialist services there to support survivors, justice will not happen either way. It is really important that there is a recognition that specialist services are pivotal to ensuring that justice happens.

[The Chair]

I know that Kieran and Jess wanted to come back in. Kieran Mullan first—briefly, please.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Paulette Hamilton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on a Bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intention to tackle a Crown court backlog that has more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. Let us be clear what the backlog means: as the Victims’ Commissioner has warned, some trials are now listed for 2030. The bench division serves a purpose by enabling judge-alone trials for lower level cases, which means we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take about 20% less time.

I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working-class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from the perspective of my constituents that I must scrutinise this Bill.

Clause 3 removes a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial for either-way offences, replacing it with a judge-alone trial in a new bench division for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot—it contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and perception.

[Pam Cox]

I very much respect what my hon. Friend is saying, but the right to elect is not an ancient right; it was introduced in 1855 and escaped reforms in the 1970s. It is therefore a relatively recent addition to the judicial armoury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.

[Sarah Russell]

The Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying.

I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end?

Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? We need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and putting victims at the heart of what she is saying. I share some of her concerns about the legislation as it stands, but does she agree that we should vote for it today, so that we have the opportunity to influence it and improve it in the interests of public trust as it passes through the House?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I agree absolutely. Unless we work together to sort this out, we will not get a decent Bill that everybody can be happy with. To just throw it out at this stage would serve no purpose for anyone.

The crisis in our courts demands action, and the Government are right to act. I urge the Minister to commit today to strengthening the scrutiny of these measures and putting a clear review on the face of the Bill. Let us prove to my constituents that their faith in justice is still well placed. I look forward to working with the Justice team on the Committee to strengthen this clause.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Paulette Hamilton Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she did before coming to the House. I respect her experience, and it is not clear that experience of that kind and range is shared by all Members, including those who are so quick to criticise the attempts to reform what is a failing system. As she has said, the best thing that we can achieve for victims of sexual offences—not just rape, but other sexual offences as well—is reducing the backlogs. We know from charities such as Rape Crisis that some 17% of cases in the backlog relate to sexual offences. If we can get hold of this problem—if we can get a real grip on it across the piece, from the magistrates all the way to the Crown—that, more than anything else, will deliver swifter justice for the victims whom the hon. Lady once supported.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Jury trials allow ordinary citizens to participate in the justice system—which many groups simply do not trust—ensuring community representation and transparency. Can the Minister explain how citizen involvement can be continued, so that we do not see additional miscarriages of justice as a result of influence from personal bias or external pressures that can potentially lead to unfair outcomes?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has asked a very important question. Equality before the law is, of course, a fundamental principle, but so is the need for all our communities to have confidence in our justice system. One of the worst symptoms of the broken system that we have today is the fact that so few people now have that confidence.

Let me say first to my hon. Friend that we are preserving jury trial for the most serious cases, and secondly that our proposals represent a vote of confidence in our magistracy, which is increasingly diverse and needs to be more diverse still. In London, more than 30% of magistrates are drawn from the communities that they are serving and come from black and minority ethnic communities. In the midlands, where I know my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, the numbers are getting higher and higher, at 15% or 16%, and we want more still. This is how we continue to include that very important democratic and community component in our justice system, so that communities such as hers can continue to have confidence in it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paulette Hamilton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on the way she has conducted this debate. I worked in the NHS as a district nurse for 25 years, working with many terminally ill people. I saw the whole range of human emotion in that time, from joy to grief—everything imaginable. I am also a mum, a daughter, a sister, a wife and a grandmother. I know how crushing it can be when someone we love is terribly ill and how helpless that can make families feel.

It is completely understandable that some would want to feel that they are regaining some control over their circumstances by pursuing an assisted death, but this Bill is not the answer. I simply do not trust that it can be implemented ethically or safely. There are too many blind spots, and it is being rushed through too quickly and with too little scrutiny. It would place enormous pressure on disabled, elderly and poor people to opt to end their lives so as not to be a burden on their loved ones.

The Bill would also do nothing concrete to uplift the hospice and palliative care sectors. All that we have had are promises. According to the Bill, the Secretary of State must ensure that assisted suicide is available. There is no accompanying duty to provide palliative or hospice care to everyone who needs it, leaving those essential services heavily dependent on donations and charity. That is simply unacceptable.

The exercise of coercion or pressure, which are prohibited by the Bill, is difficult—perhaps even impossible—to detect. Families and personal circumstances are complicated. It would take an enormous amount of resources to make this system robust enough to entrust the lives of our loved ones to it. The Bill allows doctors to propose assisted dying to patients. Some of the worst Canadian abuses originated that way. For example, a 51-year-old Canadian cancer patient was notoriously offered death instead of surgery. Even though our proposed system has its differences, this is still a risk that I am not willing to take.

The current law presents us with a clear boundary that can never be crossed. It avoids all slippery slopes, with no room for error. Assisted suicide legislation would replace that with an arbitrary boundary that is rife for misunderstanding, error and, at worse, abuse. Remember: this is all happening in the context of an NHS run into the ground by 14 years of Tory austerity, and the Government have simply not had the time to rectify it. It is not a fair choice as a result.

I will therefore be voting against the Bill and will continue to push for improvements in palliative and hospice care. That is the only way to ensure that no one from any community is left behind.