Criminal Proceedings (Juror Absence)

Sally Jameson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any criminal proceedings set down for trial may not be adjourned by reason of absence of or discharge of a juror where the number of members of the jury is not reduced below nine; and for connected purposes.

I am introducing a Bill today that seeks to address a gap in our justice system—one that has caused profound and lasting harm to victims. The Bill proposes that any criminal proceedings set down for trial should not be adjourned solely due to the absence or discharge of a juror, provided that the number of jurors does not fall below nine. It is a practical and measured reform, but one rooted in a deeply human story. The reason for the Bill comes from the truly harrowing experience of one of my constituents. I will not name her today, but she has consented to me sharing her story so that others might be spared the same injustice.

At a young age, she was the victim of an appalling crime—one that no person, let alone a child, should ever have to endure. In time, she came to realise that she was not alone. There were many other victims: children who had suffered at the hands of a man in a position of power and trust—a man who abused that trust in the most abhorrent way.

Years later, my constituent and others showed immense courage. They made the brave decision to speak out and to relive their trauma in pursuit of justice. Eventually, a trial date was set. That date represented more than a legal proceeding. It was their chance to be heard, their chance for accountability and their chance for justice. When the day of the trial finally arrived, all the victims attended. It was, as Members can imagine, an emotional and deeply traumatic step. They had waited years for that moment. The defendant by then was elderly and in poor health, but he was also present.

On the first day of the trial, one juror fell ill. However, there were still enough jurors for the trial to proceed because the legal minimum was met. My constituent recounts that the judge consulted the defendant, who unsurprisingly stated that he did not wish for the trial to go ahead. What is more troubling, though, is the fact that the views of the victims were not sought or considered; they were not asked whether they wanted it to proceed, despite everything they had endured to reach that point. Instead, the judge ruled that the trial would be postponed. A new date was set, but that was over a year later. Five weeks before that date arrived, the defendant died.

In this case, justice delayed was justice denied. My constituent will now never have her day in court. She will never stand to testify to the horrors she endured and will never see the man who caused her such unimaginable pain face justice. She is not alone; many other victims in this case were also let down.

The Bill seeks to ensure that such an injustice does not happen again. The Government are rightly working to reduce court delays and progress is being made, and I congratulate the Minister for Courts and Legal Services for all the work she is doing to see change in this area. However, as things stand, there remain victims and, indeed, defendants on remand whose cases risk being delayed unnecessarily for reasons like this, and that must change.

Of course, there will always be exceptional circumstances in which a judge may need to exercise discretion and delay proceedings. The Bill would not remove that judicial judgment, but it would establish a clear presumption that where the minimum number of jurors remains, the trial should proceed. At the heart of this issue are not procedures, but people—people who have already waited too long, suffered too much and deserve better from our justice system. This is a modest reform, but it carries significant consequences. It is about efficiency, fairness and, above all, justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sally Jameson, Joe Morris, Emma Foody, Anneliese Midgley, Laurence Turner, Shaun Davies, Katrina Murray, Alex McIntyre, Adam Thompson, Jonathan Hinder, Andrew Cooper and Sarah Russell present the Bill.

Sally Jameson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 430).