Legal Services Board Review

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the review of the Legal Services Board. It is best practice for Departments to regularly review their public bodies to provide assurance to both Government and the public that these bodies are operating effectively, and that their functions remain useful and necessary. In the case of legal services, this assurance is especially significant because the sector’s regulatory framework must remain demonstrably independent of Government, a key pillar of the rule of law, and of public confidence in our justice system.

The Government are committed to reducing regulatory burdens that may stifle innovation and growth across various sectors, including the legal sector. However, the legal services regulatory framework is complex, encompassing a broad range of professions and regulatory bodies, each with their own scope, governance and approach.

Within this landscape, the LSB provides oversight of the approved regulators responsible for the direct regulation of legal services providers. We must ensure that the current regulatory oversight arrangements are effective and do not duplicate frontline regulators’ work and initiatives. Robust and proportionate oversight is also crucial in ensuring that the sector continues to uphold the highest professional standards and safeguard public trust.

It has been several years since the last review of the LSB in 2017 and, since then, there have been significant developments in the legal services sector. These include the introduction of a new regulatory objective, concerns around professional ethics within the sector, as well as market developments—most notably, the rapid increase in the use of lawtech. Given these changes, it is timely and appropriate to review how the work of the LSB is delivered.

This review provides an opportunity to consider the LSB’s statutory remit, its strategic clarity, governance and accountability arrangements, and the LSB’s current capabilities. The review will assess how the LSB and the Ministry of Justice should work together to deliver value for money and ensure sufficient focus is maintained on the evolving priorities of legal services consumers and the wider sector.

This review will also ensure that current arrangements actively support the essential work undertaken by the approved regulators and legal services providers. It will support the effective delivery of the Department’s priorities for delivering accessible and timely justice, for upholding the rule of law, and in promoting our world-leading legal services.

I have appointed Richard Lloyd to lead on the review. Richard is the chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. He is an experienced senior executive and non-executive director, with a strong track record of chairing high-profile regulatory bodies and committees and a reputation for integrity and commitment to public service. Richard has substantial experience of transforming the effectiveness of a wide range of organisations, improving operational delivery in public and private sector services. He is independent from the Ministry of Justice and will provide objective analysis of the LSB and the Department.

As part of this review, a call for evidence will be issued to gather feedback and views. This will take place alongside targeted engagement with stakeholders to inform the review’s findings. A link to the call for evidence can be found below.

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/legal-services-board-public-bodies-review/

I will make a further announcement on completion of the review in summer 2026. Following this, I will set out the Government’s response.

[HCWS1319]

Court Reporting Data

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.

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

I am committed, as are this Government, to greater transparency in our justice system. I am also committed to putting the dignity of victims first. As Courts Minister, I have a concern that people should know what goes on in our courts. It is a way of enhancing transparency and of informing and educating the public, and that is why His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has made and continues to make information available to accredited journalists so that they can keep the public informed about what is taking place in our courts.

In 2020, a company called Courtsdesk entered into an arrangement with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to conduct a pilot providing a new service. That agreement, made under the previous Government, was essentially to take some of the data that we routinely provide—and continue to provide—to journalists, and to re-provide it in a more accessible and easier to search form.

HMCTS was working to expand and improve the service by creating a new data licence agreement with Courtsdesk and others to expand access to justice. It was in the course of making that arrangement with Courtsdesk that data protection issues came to light. What has arisen is that this private company has been sharing private, personal and legally sensitive information with a third-party AI company, including potentially the addresses and dates of birth of defendants and victims. That is a direct breach of our agreement with Courtsdesk, which the Conservatives negotiated.

I believe that everybody in this House would agree that that agreement should be upheld. The Government take our data protection responsibilities seriously. It is for that reason that we decided to stop sharing data with Courtsdesk, a company that was prepared to put victims’ personal data at risk. We instructed it to remove that data from its digital platform. This is about preserving dignity for those who are in our justice system, be they those accused of crime or victims going through the court process. I know that the whole House would agree that that is incredibly important.

Let me be clear: the cessation of our agreement with Courtsdesk does not change the information available to the public about what carries on in our courts, nor does it change the information available to journalists. I recognise that the sort of service that Courtsdesk provided was useful for journalists, because it collated the information and presented it neatly. It is for that reason that officials in my Department are continuing to work, as we had always planned to do, on an alternative platform that allows us to make the information available, but to maintain the guardrails on data protection. I hope to update the House on that in coming weeks. As I conclude, this decision—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies?

The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is.

This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [Interruption.] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided.

Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [Interruption.] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company.

We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS.

Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [Interruption.] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible.

Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means.

Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. It is vital for people to know what goes on in our courts, and local reporting of what happens there matters to wider society and, indeed, to our democracy. We recognise that Courtsdesk provided a useful service for journalists in collating information and presenting it in an accessible way, and that is what we want to be able to maintain, while at the same time safeguarding people’s data and putting it on a proper licensing footing.

On the timeline, we aim to initiate that licensing arrangement and make it available to companies more widely so that, next month, there is even more accessibility. We are very close to that, but what I will not abide is a flagrant breach of the agreement that we had with Courtsdesk and the sharing of sensitive data in a way that is irresponsible. I want the data to be available to responsible journalists to use responsibly, and that is exactly what we are getting on with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the data protection issues that have been identified with Courtsdesk, but can she explain why her Department ignored the 16 letters written by Courtsdesk asking for dialogue before deciding to do away with the system? As was pointed out by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), it is the only centralised tool for justice reporting. Reporters have described the MOJ’s own data as fragmented, incomplete and impractical to navigate, and according to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, its own records on court listings were accurate just 4% of the time. It is those gaps that Courtsdesk was designed to fill by providing clear and accurate information for reporters.

Doing away with this platform will naturally add to the feeling that the MOJ is avoiding difficult questions and dodging accountability by undermining journalism. Will the Minister suspend the deletion of the archive until the Information Commissioner’s Office has looked into these issues and drawn its own conclusions? If she insists on going ahead with the deletion in the coming days, will she please give an indication of a timeline within which we can expect a platform that will serve the same purpose?

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing.

Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.

We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

There is an obligation on anyone who is aware of a data breach to report it to the Information Commissioner’s Office no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it. Can the Minister say when the MOJ was first aware of the issues relating to Courtsdesk, and when the MOJ reported those issues to the ICO?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised the matter with our data officer, and the conclusion—the advice that I was given—was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I have asked for that to be looked at again, but what is clear, and Courtsdesk accepted this fact, is that it breached the agreement by passing this material to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to do with people’s private addresses and other sensitive data relating to individuals through which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions which, of course, journalists abide by. Let me be absolutely clear with the House: the sort of service that Courtsdesk provides is one that we want to replicate, but we want it to be on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails, and that is what we are putting in place. If Courtsdesk had engaged with the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today.

The fact is that, all along, journalists have retained the ability to obtain information. That is the critical point. This is about court lists, not court records. In respect of court lists, for all courts, journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way as they were able to do pre-2020, pre-Courtsdesk. They can get that information, and they can continue to report what is happening in our courts.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

My observation is that surely it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to decide whether the data breach is serious or not, and if the ICO does not have the information it cannot make that judgment. My question is this: when the contract was procured, was there a clause in the specification that prevented the release of personal and sensitive data? If so, is the company in breach of its contract, in which case the aggression should perhaps come from the Government as opposed to their waiting for the company to threaten them with legal action?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I accept what the Minister is saying, but I do not understand why the dispute resolution has not worked and why there is still no opportunity for it to work. I should appreciate it if she could clarify that for the House. May I also ask what will be new and different about the next procurement? What needs to be set up? If there was a breach, will it not be simply a procurement to avoid that happening in future?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am all for being pragmatic and having dispute resolution, but, as I have said, in the course of our trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, litigation has been threatened, so it is very difficult to do that. What I want to do is move forward, and potentially with Courtsdesk if it can show that it is a responsible actor, which at present it is not doing.

Two things need to happen. First, we have all the power and all the data in a single company, and I do not think that is healthy. I think that everyone in the House who believes in an open market would favour a tendering process that opens up the potential for different parties to gain licences, and in that way we can make the information accessible to different companies.

Secondly, the licence agreements need to be strengthened so that we do not see a repeat of what we have seen here—a sharing of data where it should not go—and we need to have guardrails in place. The nature of the agreement that was agreed under the previous Government was too informal, too baggy and too loose for my liking. In fact, it is partly what has allowed this situation to happen, which is why I want to put things on a better footing. We will not take ages; I have said that we will do this by March, and we are getting on with it. In the meantime, it is a wild west. We simply cannot have companies acting in breach of the agreement, sticking personal, sensitive information belonging to victims and defendants alike into an AI bot, and passing it on to an AI company that will do who knows what with it.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that we have privately crowdfunded a rape gang inquiry, which is ongoing. During the course of the inquiry, we have uncovered vast evil that is happening across the country, as well as systemic state failures. When we release the report, we are intending to pursue private prosecutions against those who failed, so will—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe]

Will the Minister give me a copper-bottomed guarantee that the transcripts of previous court cases will not be destroyed?

[Sarah Sackman]

Let me start by saying that this Government are committed to tackling grooming gangs, punishing offenders and protecting children. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the most heinous crimes of our time, but allow me to repeat this: it is fundamentally incorrect to say that court records are being deleted. Court records remain completely intact, and will only be deleted in line with the general data protection regulation and record retention policies. The data that we are talking about here is data that a private company, Courtsdesk, has been asked to delete because it has failed to demonstrate that it is using that data responsibly. The data includes only magistrates court lists and outcomes, not the transcripts of which the hon. Gentleman speaks—data that Courtsdesk is not entitled to hold. The sort of data that he is concerned about remains, and those who need to access it for investigative purposes or otherwise can do so through the usual channels. Let us not conflate that with the data in question here.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

For decades, victims, survivors, campaigners, whistleblowers and journalists have fought to force the British state to reveal the whole truth about the rape and grooming scandal. The data held by Courtsdesk could be invaluable in uncovering the truth. The Minister tells us that we can rely on the Government’s own data instead, but just 4.2% of magistrates court cases are listed accurately by the courts themselves, so for every 25 cases listed, 24 are wrong. How can the Minister ask victims, survivors and any of us who care about the truth to rely on that, especially in the context of the most disgusting cover-up in our nation’s history?

[Sarah Sackman]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern regarding the victims, whom we so often fail to centre in our discussions in this House. Let me be absolutely clear: as a Government, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to open justice, whether that is through increasing the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to all victims on request, introducing audio recording in magistrates courts, or ensuring that the judiciary allow more judgments and decisions to be published. To be absolutely clear, the data shared with Courtsdesk was listing data and, in some cases, the outcomes of those cases.

[Katie Lam]

That is important data!

[Sarah Sackman]

Of course listing data is important, and of course it is important that it is accurate. By the way, it is also important that such data is not shared unlawfully with third parties that are not entitled to it. We continue to make that information available to journalists in the same way as before 2020. A journalist working in the field can access that information from HMCTS if they make a request, and it will be passed to them in the usual way. We are seeking to open that up further and to put it on a stable footing, which will remove the wild west that appears to have emerged.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister complains that it is currently the wild west out there, and hopes that we can somehow regulate it. Well, we do actually have a regulator for incidents such as these. Pursuant to the answer that she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), she acknowledged that data breaches have to be reported to the ICO within 72 hours. We hear that she was advised that this breach did not hit the threshold, which I find absolutely staggering. Advisers advise, and Ministers decide. Why was the Minister’s judgment not to go away and immediately question the advice that she received from her Department?

[Sarah Sackman]

I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. As I said, I have asked them to conduct a further review in the light of further information that has come to light, just as we have asked Courtsdesk for further information. The information came to light because Courtsdesk admitted that it had been inputting and sharing this data with an AI company, in breach of the agreement. We have to get to the bottom of that, but it is so important that we tighten up the licensing agreements and make court lists available to more companies, so that journalists can continue to access the information in a way that is safe for defendants, safe for victims, and safe for anyone who participates in the court process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her full answers. The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. Anything other than that is not democracy but, by its very nature, despotic. The Minister has provided a justification. However, it is clear that although the system could undoubtedly be tightened up, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.

[Dr Mullan]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to tackle the backlogs in the courts.

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

This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, with record and rising backlogs now touching 80,000, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of criminal courts and why we are making investment in sitting days and our workforce. That is also why we are grasping the nettle of modernisation and why we must have fundamental reform of our criminal courts.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister was previously asked but did not clarify whether the Ministry of Justice conducted modelling on how much reducing jury trials would actually reduce the backlog. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence that limiting jury trials will meaningfully reduce court delays. Can the Minister publish the evidence on which these reforms are based and explain why no pilot schemes were undertaken?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I have told the House repeatedly, we will publish the modelling and evidence base in the usual way, alongside the Bill’s introduction. However, it is simply incorrect to say there is no evidence that adjusting the threshold will reduce court delays; we have the evidence base of the independent review, as well as international comparators to show that decisive action will reduce the court delays.

[Danny Beales]

I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was the victim of an abusive and violent relationship for many years. There were continual delays in the case coming to court, and then again at the sentencing stage, including a five-month delay in sentencing due to mental health assessments being delayed, as well as barrister annual leave and other issues with staff availability. That led to the repeated cancellation of sentencing dates, which meant that the victim constantly had to relive deeply traumatic events over and over again. What steps is the Minister taking to address those preventable issues, which are causing delays and misery for victims such as my constituent?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case; it is a graphic illustration of the crisis that we are grappling with and the impact it is having. Those delays cause trauma, making it impossible for victims to move on with their lives.

What are we doing about it? The fact that over 1,000 trials were cancelled last year because of a lack of barrister availability illustrates one of the problems highlighted by the Institute for Government. That is why we are investing in our workforce, with an increase in legal aid for solicitors and barristers and match funding for pupillages. Let us think about this: it will take time to rebuild the workforce, which is why we must be pulling every lever, investment and structural reform—only that will do.

[Matt Bishop]

My constituent, a victim of domestic abuse, has seen her case listed and relisted multiple times since 2023, with delays repeatedly granted due to medical claims by the defendant. Does the Minister accept that repeated adjournments risk denying justice to victims? Will she meet me to discuss how cases like that can be progressed without further re-traumatisation?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I would of course be happy to meet him. Again, it is a graphic illustration of the ways in which the delays in the process are re-traumatising victims, which is why we must do everything in our power to bring down the delays—whether that is investment, modernisation or structural reform. Those who are against these plans are happy for my hon. Friend’s constituent and others to wait longer. Well, I am not prepared to do that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One of the areas causing the delays is the lack of defence barristers. It will clearly take time to train new barristers, but what incentives can the Minister offer to those qualifying in law to become defence barristers, rather than seeking other avenues in the law?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The workforce has been depleted by repeated cuts to legal aid and people choosing more lucrative and attractive areas of work. What are we doing? We have said that we will invest an additional £34 million in legal aid for criminal advocates, and we are also providing match funding for criminal law pupillages to incentivise training and create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to enter criminal law. As he said, that will take time, and in the meantime victims cannot wait. That is why the reforms are necessary alongside the investment.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

One major reason for the court backlogs is the repeated outsourcing of private contracts for prisoner transportation to companies such as Serco, which has caused a loss of a whole court day every single week. Given that there is a lack of penalty clauses for late prisoner transportation, and that Serco continues to be awarded procurement contracts, can the Minister commit to reviewing that matter and the associated costs, instead of removing our juries and our civil liberties?

[Sarah Sackman]

Of course, that is one of the contributory factors to the issues in our courts, although not the only one—again, we must look at all these things. We await part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, but in the meantime I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Prisons Minister and I are looking at these contracts so that we can manage their performance and pull every lever. As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago, we are asking local authorities to open up bus lanes so that we can increase the efficiency of prisoner transportation. Let us be absolutely clear: addressing that issue alone will not begin to touch the sides of the problem, which is why we need both investment and reform.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

8. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Parole Board hearings on victims and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

T2. As a survivor of rape, I know that the time it takes to get to court, if people even get that far, was one of the things that put me off reporting what happened to me. When people talk about changes to jury trials being justice denied, I understand their concerns, but I do not think it is always appreciated that, for victims of horrendous crimes, backlogs mean justice is already being slowly and painfully denied. Could the Minister assure me that, while hard decisions are made on the speed and rigour of justice, the Ministry will keep in mind those brave survivors who have come forward and are being let down by the system as it is?

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

I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T4. One of my constituents is the director of a small property company that commenced the eviction process nearly a year ago against a tenant who had not been paying their rent, but due to court errors, enforcement has not yet taken place. The delays have cost my constituent over £6,000. During a housing crisis, we should be freeing up housing for reliable tenants. Does the Minister recognise that lengthy court delays are stifling the rental market?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am sorry to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises. County court rules require that possession claims be listed for hearing within eight weeks of receipt and, in the main, we are hitting that target. Readiness for the coming into force of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will be important, as will the modernising introduction of the end-to-end digital possession claims service, which will improve the situation for constituents like hers.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

For too long, victims in Altrincham and Sale West and across the country have been treated as secondary thoughts in the criminal justice system—left in limbo, not knowing their rights and feeling voiceless when decisions are made on bail and sentencing. What reassurances can the Minister give that victims will be at the heart of the justice system following the Government’s reforms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that justice is a devolved matter. I am content for him to write to me, and I will look into this specific case. However, justice is, of course, a devolved matter.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The new judicial finding of domestic abuse in the Sentencing Act 2026 will help us better identify domestic abusers in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain when that element of the Act will commence? What additional training will be given to judges and magistrates to make sure that they can implement it effectively?

[Sarah Sackman]

We will update the House when that is ready for implementation. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of training when it comes to domestic abuse cases. Judicial training is an independent function run by the Judicial College. Domestic abuse training, and particularly a trauma-informed approach to evidence, is a mandatory part of that training, as it must be.

Jury Trials

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

“believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”

“Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.

Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.

What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”

[Dr Murrison]

I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?

[Sarah Sackman]

The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.

Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.

No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?

[Sarah Sackman]

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.

We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The Opposition are keen to rely on Magna Carta to defend jury trials, but Magna Carta also states that justice should not be delayed. Sir Brian Leveson reported that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in 2000 because criminal cases are now much more complex and can involve thousands of pages of electronic evidence. We are putting more pressure—financial and otherwise—on jurors, and it is now much more difficult to support and guide them. There is clearly a case for reform. I understand that one recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson was to have jury trials replaced by a judge and two magistrates, so could that be a possible compromise to reduce the delays?

[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 ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right that listing is a judicial function, but the fact remains—this is CPS data—that some 4,000 cases last year could have been heard four times faster. We know that cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates court than in the Crown court, and although magistrates had the sentencing powers to deal with such matters, the defendants elected for a jury trial, which they have the right to do under the current system. Why did they elect for a jury trial? They did so because it would drag the process out longer. If a case can be dealt with four times faster in the magistrates court, then removing the right to elect, which is what we propose to do, is a far more efficient way to free up Crown court capacity so that very serious cases—not just rape, but robbery, homicide and serious drug offences—can be dealt with more swiftly.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.

[Sarah Sackman]

As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.

Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.

We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.

We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.

We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.

There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.

People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.

What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.

I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was

“as frustrating as it was foreseeable”

and that

“it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.

[Sarah Sackman]

I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My first job after graduating was in a magistrates court, which was just making the transition from writing court records in a huge ledger by hand to computerisation; I appreciate that it has modernised an awful lot since then. Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about the impact of persistent drug dealing on local communities. One of the things being piloted in Bristol is an intensive supervision court. We know that a huge number of crimes are committed by people with persistent drug addictions, so if we can divert them from the criminal justice system it will help to free up our courts. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to roll out that programme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.

One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.

As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.

People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.

[Karl Turner]

The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way for the final time, and then I will wrap up.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.

Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.

To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Third-party Litigation Funding

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I would like to inform the House that the Government intend to take action to mitigate the impact of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR and implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements.

Third-party litigation funding plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice. It enables people to bring complex claims against better-resourced organisations that they could not otherwise afford. Sir Alan Bates, for instance, has spoken openly about how without such funding he could not have brought his claim against the Post Office. The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR introduced significant uncertainty about whether LFAs remain valid and about the regulatory regime that applies to them. This uncertainty could be preventing significant numbers of claimants from accessing justice.

LFAs are also used in high-value commercial cases where there is a power imbalance between parties or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings. Therefore, this uncertainty also risks undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration, both of which bring significant benefit to the UK economy.

However, concerns have been raised about whether LFAs are always fair and transparent for the claimants using them. This has led to calls for greater regulation of the litigation funding market, which currently operates under a system of voluntary self-regulation. This is why, while it is crucial to act swiftly regarding PACCAR, I have taken the opportunity to consider litigation funding in the round.

I would like to thank the Civil Justice Council for its comprehensive and wide-ranging review of litigation funding, published earlier this year. Since its publication, my officials and I have carefully considered its recommendations.

I am pleased to announce the Government’s intention to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations. First, we will legislate to clarify that LFAs are not damages-based agreements, with prospective effect. This will mitigate the effect of the PACCAR judgment and improve access to justice by reassuring funders that LFAs can be used to fund cases. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of LFAs. This will improve transparency and fairness for claimants. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

It is our priority that legislation removes the uncertainty introduced by the PACCAR judgment and ensures that the litigation funding sector works fairly and efficiently for all. Once we have implemented these two changes, we will consider the CJC’s wider litigation funding recommendations in detail and announce any further changes in due course.

[HCWS1192]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

5. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of the further use of mandatory mediation in civil law.

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

Mediation saves people time, money and stress. It can also help to reduce court delays and save the taxpayer money. Mandatory mediation for small money claims is now well integrated into the county court process and is delivering real results in terms of time savings and cost savings.

[Sir Julian Smith]

Time pressure is one of the best routes to encourage alternative dispute resolution, as the Minister knows, but in the commercial court in 2024 the median time to judgment was 786 days. The UK law sector is up against huge pressures from Singapore and the middle east, which are offering six months to judgment and six months for appeal. May I urge Ministers to look at the competitive challenges facing UK law against such tough international competition?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Member raises a really good point. Such delays are depriving our businesses of productivity and the ability to resolve disputes sooner. The successes we are seeing on small money claims under £10,000, which tend to affect small and medium-sized enterprises, show the progress that can be made. The other thing I will point him to is the launch of our English law promotion panel, which is looking at competitiveness with other jurisdictions.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Before entering the House, I was an employment solicitor, and I saw the impact that judicial mediation had in our employment tribunals. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the role that expanding judicial mediation could have in bringing down the backlog in our employment tribunals?

[Sarah Sackman]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s experience in this area. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that important subject.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure Serco delivers prisoners on time at Bournemouth Crown and county court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to tackle the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation.

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

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, otherwise known as SLAPPs, are an abuse of the legal process and pose a threat to democracy. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. That is why we commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 related to economic crime SLAPPs, and we are monitoring how that is operating.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I welcome the Minister’s answer, but is she aware that in the space of one week the Solicitors Regulation Authority has lost two tribunal cases relating to SLAPPs? Do the Government consider the SRA fit for purpose in this area? Is further legislation not needed to prevent lawyers from pursuing abusive cases?

[Sarah Sackman]

I welcome the right hon. Member’s question. We are actively considering where we can further extend the definition of SLAPPs to those that range beyond economic crime. Obviously, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is independent of Government. I welcome its guidance reminding solicitors of their duties and of the consequences of breaches, and I hope that it upholds that guidance robustly.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for victim support services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support magistrates.

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

Our magistrates are the backbone of local justice, and I thank every magistrate the length and breadth of the country who gives their time to deliver that justice. In return, we need to support them. That is why we provide extensive training not just at the start of a magistrate’s journey, but on a continuing basis through mentorship. I recognise that we want to go further and provide stronger recognition for their service, and we will be looking in the new year at overhauling the expenses regime so that we can support magistrates.

[Matt Turmaine]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I recently had the opportunity to visit the county and family court in Watford, and while there I talked to them about the challenge of finding sufficient staff. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that staffing is what makes magistrates courts and family courts work, and will she outline further what support the Government are offering to them?

[Sarah Sackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I was glad to visit Barnet court in my constituency, which has newly reopened after a year. I noticed what many who cross the threshold into our courts see: the first welcome from court staff, which often allays nerves and anxiety in an alienating environment. That is critical, and it is why we want to support our court staff, we are investing in legal advisers who support our magistrates, and we are supporting all of them. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s local court in Watford if the opportunity arises.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?

[Sarah Sackman]

We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.

[Mr Speaker]

What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

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

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis. Whether for a family experiencing family breakdown, small business owners trying to resolve contractual disputes or victims of crime, we inherited a system in crisis in every jurisdiction. We are beginning to turn that oil tanker around. We are sitting at maximum or close to maximum capacity in every single jurisdiction, while investing up to £450 million in our courts every year.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Minister will recall that last week I mentioned two cases in my constituency involving juveniles and child sexual abuse. Those cases of alleged sexual abuse have been adjourned a number of times and, as I explained to her, the damage done to the lives of those children cannot be underestimated. I appreciate that reforms are under way, but what urgent steps can be taken now to ensure that those children have the justice that they deserve and can continue with their lives?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking case. I am aware of it and I will be writing to her on the particulars of it. It graphically demonstrates precisely why we need reform of our criminal courts. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just explained, that will take three things: investment in sitting days and criminal legal aid, which we are currently seeing; systemic reform; and modernisation. That third component is about how we can improve efficiencies in the here and now, through better adoption of technology and improving the smoother running of our courts, which will help the victims in the case that she outlines.

[Warinder Juss]

Justice delayed is justice denied is the harsh reality for the nearly 80,000 cases that are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. I am pleased that the Government are taking action to modernise our justice system and to be reassured that the sanctity of jury trials will be preserved. Considering that only 3% of criminal cases are currently tried by a jury, what assessment has the Minister made on the impact that removing jury trials from certain either-way offences will have on significantly reducing the present unacceptable court backlogs?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a number of incredibly important points. Behind each and every one of those 80,000 cases in the backlog is a victim, as well as someone who is accused who may be trying to clear their name. As the backlog heads in the wrong direction, with agonising delays for all participants, we will not sit idly by. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. It makes the important observation that 90% of cases in this country are currently dealt with robustly, properly and in a timely fashion without a jury in our magistrates courts. The whole package of reforms that we are bringing forward, which is not a pick-and-mix, is designed to deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the crumbling and decaying state of our court estate has become a metaphor for the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government. It is why we are opening new courts in Blackpool and putting shovels in the ground in inner London, and why we have increased the court estate budget by £28 million, so that we can improve maintenance and keep as many court rooms running as possible. In the end, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, money alone will not be enough. We need reforms so that we can run the system at capacity and deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

When this Government came into office in July 2024, magistrates were dealing with cases that had a potential sentence of up to six months, but that has now gone up to 12 months and by next year it could be two years. There is already a backlog of 361,000 cases in the magistrates courts. In my meeting with the Law Society today, representatives expressed deep concerns about whether magistrates would be able to take on longer, more emotionally draining cases, and that some magistrates may decide that they are not comfortable about depriving people of their liberty for that long. What assessment has been done of the ability of magistrates to cope emotionally, and of the magistrates courts to cope with those increases?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the sentencing powers and the proposal to increase them, rather than the wait time. The fact is that our magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction, dealing with 1.3 million cases a year. The Magistrates Association and the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive have endorsed the Government’s plans, which are a vote of confidence in our magistrates’ ability to deal with the caseload, and cases of this nature, swiftly, robustly and fairly, but she is right that our magistrates deserve support in dealing with emotionally charged matters. We will ensure that that support and training is provided.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

16. What estimate he has made of the number of prisoners eligible for early release under the earned progression model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

T3. I want to raise the case of my constituent from Pinxton. They were awarded a substantial amount of money at an employment tribunal over two years ago for unpaid wages. They have not been able to track down the company since then—it is using a shell address and is not responding to any correspondence. My constituent has paid a private company to try to find the company, but it has got nowhere. It has been two years of hardship and mental health issues, so will the Secretary of State outline what steps are being taken to make sure hard-working people get the money that is owed to them?

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

Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?

[Sarah Sackman]

I met Andrew Turner, who is a tireless campaigner; we were embarking on the work that is necessary to support families like his, and those that he represents. I have personally undertaken to ensure that this work continues, irrespective of which person is sitting in the chair. I will follow up not just with Andrew, but with his very dedicated MP, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne).

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

At the beginning of December, a sapling from the Sycamore Gap tree was planted by Micala Trussler and her family to commemorate what would have been her daughter’s 18th birthday. Since Holly Newton’s tragic murder, Micala has campaigned tirelessly to reduce the age limit at which someone can legally be classified as a domestic abuse victim. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising Micala’s tireless campaigning, and meet Micala and me in the new year to discuss age classification for victims of domestic abuse?

Restriction of Jury Trials

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the accuracy of data used to justify the restriction of jury trials in relation to rape victim attrition rates and magistrates court capacity.

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

This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts. Record and rising caseloads are leaving victims and many accused who are seeking to clear their name facing agonising delays, while some defendants game the system in the hope that their accusers simply give up on justice. We inherited a system in which, quite truly, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review of the criminal courts. He presented us with his report, and we considered it carefully.

On Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s proposals in the light of that report, following many of the recommendations. In announcing part of our plan to tackle that emergency, he centred victims. He commented that victims of rape are “pulling out” of trials and told LBC that

“60 per cent are pulling out of cases”

before they come to trial. That statement is accurate. It is unacceptable that around 60% of victims who report rape drop out of the criminal system.

After speaking to victims, campaign organisations and those who represent those victims and support them, we know that, for many, the fact that their trial may not come to court for several years is a key factor in their deciding to withdraw from the process or perhaps not even to report the case at all. The system was not designed for a scenario in which victims face such delays for justice. No one in this House thinks that the system is anything other than broken, which means that we are failing the British public.

On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the vast majority of cases—the less serious but still important everyday cases, which comprise around 90% of all criminal trials—are already heard in our magistrates courts, where cases continue to be dealt with swiftly and robustly. Our magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases a year, and it is not unusual to have an open caseload of more than 360,000 cases, as is currently the case in our magistrates courts. That ensures that there is around six months’ worth of work ready to be heard. We know that our magistrates courts deal with equivalent cases—those trials for either-way cases that can be heard in either the magistrates court or the Crown court—four times faster. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months, and we will continue to recruit at high levels in future years.

Ultimately, we must ensure that the Crown court has the capacity to deal with those who commit the most serious crimes, so that victims do not have to face those agonising delays and do not withdraw before their case even gets to court. Justice is simply not being served in that situation, and the Government will not watch idly while the system continues to fail those victims. It is for that reason that we are bringing forward our bold proposals and reforms, coupled with record investment—to ensure that victims and the wider British public are served and so that we can put to bed once and for all justice delayed being justice denied.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government are slashing jury trials under false pretences. Last week, the Justice Secretary suggested that 60% of those who report being raped are now pulling out of cases because of court delays, but Home Office statistics show that this year, only 9% of rape cases were abandoned after a charge was brought. Although that is not good enough, the fact is that the figure is down, and the number of victim-based prosecutions is near its peak. In some parts of the country, the backlog is far lower, and rape cases are rightly being prioritised. The Justice Secretary’s plans will do next to nothing to cut backlogs for rape victims, but his claims are certain to further erode women’s confidence in the justice system.

That was not the only claim that did not stack up. The Justice Secretary said that he will divert cases to the magistrates courts because they

“do not currently have a backlog”—[Official Report, 2 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 806.]

but as of September, there is a backlog—or open caseload, as the Minister now calls it—of 361,000 cases, up 25% on this Government’s watch. He claimed that scrapping juries will cut trial times by 20%, but Sir Brian Leveson’s own review found that figure to be “highly uncertain”, stating that “further detailed analysis” was required.

There are still reams of unanswered questions. The Justice Secretary will not let the Crown courts sit around the clock, when today, 63 courtrooms sit completely empty. He will not rule out applying these changes to those who are already in the court backlog, and he will not publish modelling showing that victims of rape will wait less time, or indeed any modelling whatsoever. Unless the Minister can answer those questions today, we can only conclude that the Government simply do not know. If they want to make a major change to our constitution—something that we have enjoyed for 800 years—they should do so on the basis of facts, not baseless claims. The plan is already unravelling, as did the last such attempt 20 years ago. I say to the Minister that it is not too late to avoid a humiliating defeat.

[Sarah Sackman]

As I said a moment ago, not a single person who has encountered the system—not the barristers, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the court staff, the victims or the jurors; no one whom I have met—thinks it is working as it should. The shadow Justice Secretary has made a startling defence of the status quo while victims—not just women and girls but of all backgrounds—continue to watch delays creep up and up. Some 80,000 cases are currently in our Crown court backlog, and behind each and every one of those cases is an individual human story—someone waiting to clear their name.

We inherited a broken system. We did not do what the previous Government did, which was stick their head in the sand and hope that the problem would go away, with no solutions, under-investing for years while undermining our justice system. We were not prepared to do the same, which was why it was important to ask an independent review made up of Sir Brian Leveson—one of our leading judges—academics and data scientists to look at the evidence from both this country and comparators from across the world, to consult and to produce a set of proposals for reform that will fix the system. In the meantime, the Government have been gripping the crisis. We have made record investment in sitting days, increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and invested in legal aid and the capacity of our legal community.

No responsible Government worthy of the name would take receipt of an independent review that is carefully considered, evidence-based and informed by experts and say, “Do you know what? We’ll just ignore that.” Responsible government shows leadership, which is why last week, we announced our proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and remove the right of defendants to insist on a jury trial when their case can be reasonably, proportionately and swiftly dealt with in a magistrates court. We followed Sir Brian’s recommendation to establish a Crown court bench division to deal with cases more swiftly. His report says that in his view and that of his expert team, doing so will provide time savings of at least 20%. On that basis, through investment, modernisation and systemic reform taken together, we will begin to see the backlog come down. That is Government offering evidence-based, expert-led solutions while all we hear from the Opposition is what cannot be done, letting down victims, letting down the public and ultimately undermining faith in one of the most important institutions in this country—our justice system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

There is no reason why the Government should not consider mode of trial as part of their reform of the criminal courts, but they would find more support if they could better evidence the effects of the proposed changes to jury trial. To what extent will they reduce the backlog? What proportion and types of cases will no longer be eligible for jury trial? If courts are to be swifter and have greater sentencing powers, what effect will that have on the prison population?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for his reflection that mode of trial is worth looking at. Of course, the Government will provide an impact assessment when we bring forward the legislation necessary to accompany these reforms, but I suggest that we do have an evidence base, as provided to us by the independent review of the criminal courts. We also have the very real evidence base that the offences we are talking about are not summary-only, which are already dealt with in the magistrates court, nor indictable-only offences, which will always have a jury trial in our Crown court, but triable either way offences. At the moment, defendants can opt either for a magistrates trial or for a Crown court trial. What we know is that where defendants opt for a magistrates trial, those are being heard four times faster on average than those heard in the Crown court. That is a pretty strong evidence base, coupled with that of the IRCC. Of course we will need to present the impact assessment of the package that we are bringing forward, but there is no doubt that the Government are taking action on an evidential basis, provided through an independent review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.

It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will answer the hon. Member’s last question first. All the bodies that she referred to—victim support, victims’ organisations, the legal community, the Bar Council and the Law Society—have engaged over many months, first with the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, and indeed now with the Ministry of Justice. That engagement is happening all the time.

On those who represent victims, the incoming Victims’ Commissioner has said that the system is broken and there is need for bold reform. The bold reform recommended by Sir Brian Leveson’s review is precisely the proportionate reform—radical, yes; and necessary, yes—that we are going to pursue.

On the hon. Member’s comment about victims and the significant figure of 60% of rape victims pulling out of cases, there are many reasons that victims pull out. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on in a victim’s head at any one time, but we all know how lengthy the delays are in our courts, and everyone is aware how retraumatising the court process can be. We know from Rape Crisis, for example, that one in three sexual offence trials is the subject of adjournment, so there is not just delay but victims thinking they have a trial date only for that to be put off. No one can say that that is defensible. For many, the fact that their case might not come to court for years is key to their withdrawing from the process, at whatever stage, so it is material to the context. That is why action needs to be taken.

As the Crown Prosecution Service data discussed at the Justice Committee has brought forward, one striking statistic shows the need for action: there were more than 4,000 cases that could have been heard in the magistrates court, but our current system privileges the defendant’s right to insist on a jury trial with the greater length of time that that takes. As a result, the person who has stolen a bottle of whisky or a bunch of flowers—a low-value item—has every right to insist on a jury trial, and is then stuck in the same queue as serious crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping. That is exactly how this works. And that is exactly why, on Sir Brian’s expert recommendation, we are seeking to remove such cases from the queue and reassign them to where they can be better and more swiftly dealt with in the system, so that we can come to the most serious cases more swiftly.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I have had a number of cases, including two recently. When the Opposition were in power, a woman came to me with her case, which was of historical child sexual abuse; her trial was being adjourned repeatedly, and there was a risk that the perpetrator would die before the case was heard. I now have two cases of children awaiting child sexual abuse cases that have had repeated adjournments. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government’s proposals might help to progress those cases, which are impacting lives?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s cases, which graphically highlight precisely why reform is needed and the grave crisis in our criminal justice system, which, as Sir Brian has told us, is on the brink of collapse. We need a holistic approach: reform, significant investment and modernisation. On the earlier question about efficiencies, do we need to improve the time that it takes to bring prisoners from prison to court? Yes, we do. Do we need to improve things such as listing, and look at whether they can be done more efficiently? Do we need to look at productivity in our courts? Absolutely. That is why we have asked the independent review of the criminal courts to conduct part two of its review, and it is why we are looking at these issues very intently with the MOJ. There is no silver bullet, and her constituents’ case illustrates the mountain that we have to climb. Such stories motivate me to work every day to get these reforms through and deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My maths teacher always required us to show our workings. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that only 3% of prosecutions proceed to jury trials. How can marginally reducing such a small proportion produce the savings that have been identified? Will the Minister publish the modelling?

[Sarah Sackman]

We have the IRCC—Sir Brian Leveson’s review. Over 388 pages of careful analysis, he sets out how his package of reforms will begin to bear down on the backlog. As I have said, an impact assessment will of course be provided in the ordinary way, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and assure the rest of the House that unless we were confident that the package of reform and investment that we are bringing forward was capable of bringing down the backlog, we would not be pursuing it. Of course, that is exactly what we are aiming at: to see the backlog coming down by the end of this Parliament, so that we can deliver swifter justice for victims.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was chastised by the Office for Statistics Regulation when he was Housing Secretary? Does she further agree, therefore, that we will not take lessons from him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I was not here when the right hon. Member for Newark was failing to show his working out. What I have observed, however, both in my professional life before I came to this House and since I have been the Courts Minister, is how the previous Government presided over an absolute collapse in criminal justice. The so-called party of law and order allowed the prisons to run boiling hot, with backlogs spiralling out of control, and caused a collapse in confidence in our courts system, not only in the legal community, but in the victim community. Unlike his Government, we will do the serious work of looking at where the evidence takes us. We identify the problem and do not stand idly by. We get out there and make the argument for how we will fix it.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?

[Sarah Sackman]

If the right hon. Member had attended earlier debates, he would know that I have been clear that the state’s obligation is to guarantee everybody who comes before the court a fair trial. The essence of a fair trial is a swift trial—not one that might be two years away. It is not a guarantee of a jury trial, because 90% of cases in this country already take place without a jury trial. I have also made it clear that we believe in jury trials. I do not believe in jury trials that are delayed for a couple of years, where witnesses and victims pull out of the system, but I do believe in jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice. As I have said, the quantitative and qualitative analyses have been happening not just within Sir Brian’s team, but within the Ministry of Justice. We will be publishing an impact assessment at the requisite time.

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

I am pleased, if not a little surprised, to see how keen the Conservatives have been to talk about issues of criminal justice in recent weeks, considering they showed next to no interest when they were in government and I was working in the prison system. I believe that the last Government stated that they would bring the Crown court backlog back to 53,000 by March 2025. Can the Minister therefore outline what the backlog was when we took office in July 2024? That figure is incredibly important when we are looking at why we need to take the bold action that has been announced by the Government in the past week.

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend knows, we inherited record and rising backlogs. As I have said, we have a mountain to climb. We are trying to turn around an oil tanker, and we are not going to do that simply by sitting our way out of the problem. That is what Sir Brian Leveson concludes in his report. Of course, we need additional sitting days, and we are already sitting over 5,000 more days than we were when we took over. Sir Brian concludes that that alone will be insufficient to turn the tide on the backlog, and that is why we need system reform coupled with the investment. That will do the job to bring down the backlogs to sustainable levels.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister. We all know that the Tories fiddled, leaving our criminal justice system to burn. As the Law Society president noted earlier this year, we are still not using our courts efficiently, despite what the Minister says. What steps have been taken to increase court sitting days and make better use of our under-utilised courtrooms?

[Sarah Sackman]

First, I pay tribute not just to our judges, but our court staff and our hard-working prosecutors and defence lawyers, because we know that judges in the Crown court are hearing almost 30% more cases than they were pre-covid. In that sense, the system is working harder. As I have just indicated, we have added more sitting days. We have added more than 5,000 more sitting days than were being sat when we took over in government, and I want us to go further. We need to match the system reform with investment, and I hope that we will be able to come back to the House at the conclusion of the concordat process, which needs to take its course, and assure the House that we are sitting at maximum system capacity.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is horrific that victims of rape and sexual assault are waiting years for justice, and we should never forget, in these conversations or decisions, the toll that that process takes on a victim’s life. Can the Minister please confirm that victims will be kept at the heart of the justice system, and that this Government will deliver timely justice for survivors?

[Sarah Sackman]

As she so often does, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We have in focus, at the heart of all that we are doing, the goal of delivering swifter justice for victims. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced a package of £550 million to be put towards victim support and keeping victims engaged in the process, which, as it takes longer and longer, is harder to do. Ultimately, the best thing that we can do for victims is deliver on the promise of bringing down the backlog so that they do not have to face these agonising waits to see justice done. If victims pull out—and, in these cases, the victim is often the only witness to the crime—the worst aspect is that it is not even a question of “justice delayed is justice denied”; justice simply is not served at all.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I think we would all agree that it is a tragedy when any rape victim withdraws from the criminal justice system, but I do not buy the faux outrage from the shadow Secretary of State. I was the chief executive of a rape crisis centre when his party was in government, and every single day I heard victims talk about the delays in the system causing them more trauma, about the police’s poor interviewing techniques and about the lack of understanding in the criminal justice system of the effects of the trauma that they had been through on that Government’s watch, and nothing was improving. We know that rape trials will not be affected by this decision on jury trials, so I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to use that as a justification for changing the jury trial process, but have the Government given any consideration, or will they be giving any consideration, to a specialist court system to deal with rape and sexual violence offences?

[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.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s treatment of the 60% figure only tends to confirm my belief that one is better off with the common sense of 12 ordinary people than with one legal professional. [Laughter.] Even she is smiling—good for her. Can she look again at this point? Yes, it is disastrous if 60% of women who allege rape drop the case before it proceeds to a conclusion, but if only 9% drop the case after the alleged criminal has been charged, the overwhelming reason for their dropping the case is not the length of the trial by jury, but the slowness between the reporting of the allegation and the criminal being charged. Will she accept that, in this case, she is looking at the wrong target?

[Sarah Sackman]

I smile because I know the spirit in which the question is asked. I know that it is asked in good faith, but I also say this: as well as being a lawyer, I am also a Member of Parliament and I am also a woman. The question that was asked earlier was put very well: a single victim of whatever crime—rape being one of the most agonising that we can imagine—is one too many pulling out of the system. We do not know exactly what is going through every victim’s head, and it is right to say that the 60% figure was accurate on its own terms. We do not know exactly why people might pull out of the system, but we do know that everyone is aware that the system is broken. Even when they come to consider whether to report a crime, they are aware of what that might entail, knowing the delays, the agony and the bureaucracy that lie ahead. Quite honestly, if something were to happen to me or a loved one today and I was advising them or asking myself, “Would I want to go through with that, knowing what I do about the delays?” I would have to think long and hard about it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

On Friday, I met senior detectives in Bradford who investigate and bring prosecutions for historical cases of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based abuse. They do all they can to support victims to get justice—in fact, West Yorkshire police were commended by Baroness Casey for its work—but it was clear to me that court delays add to the trauma experienced by victims and survivors who bravely come forward. That is true for those I have spoken to. How will these reforms speed up justice for victims of rape, serious sexual offences and vile grooming gangs?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her tireless work for victims in her community who have been seriously impacted by some of the crimes that she outlines. My job is to take a look at the whole system and how it is functioning for all victims, for those who are accused and for all participants in the system who are currently being let down. The package of measures that was announced last week includes an increase in sitting powers, and the removal of the defendant’s right to insist on a jury in favour of having cases triaged by the experts—namely, the court itself. With the establishment of a bench division, which Sir Brian advises, cases could be heard at least 20% faster, and we are taking cases such as fraud out of the list so that they can be heard by judges alone. We believe that, taken together, the package’s measures can deliver swifter justice for victims, including those in my hon. Friend’s own community.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Members on both sides of the House know how important these changes are, and getting them right is absolutely vital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) asked a specific question as to whether the Department has done an impact assessment. Could the Minister clarify whether that impact assessment has been done? If so, will it be immediately published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we should have a robust debate about the best way forward to fix what is undeniably a broken system. As a Department, we have several sources of evidence and assessment, not least the work that was done by the Leveson review. We will bring forward the impact assessment at the appropriate time, and the House will be able to scrutinise it then.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

There is capacity for almost 2,000 more court sitting days that are not being used for rape or other trials at the moment. Why is the Justice Secretary not prioritising funding those days to help reduce the backlog, rather than trying to scrap jury trials?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are looking, where we can, to invest as much as possible, but I remind the hon. Member that, when we talk about investment in sitting days, we must look at system capacity. That requires not just judicial time, but sufficient numbers of barristers—both defence and prosecution—and as the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, we cannot simply 3D print those. We have to invest in the professionals, and that is exactly what we announced last week, with £92 million in legal aid for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for barristers. I should also mention match funding for criminal law pupillages to develop the talent pipeline. All of that increases the system capacity, so that when we add on sitting days, it is not just a judge sitting there waiting for a barrister to turn up, which sometimes does not happen and leads to the trial being adjourned, but we have enough system capacity to run at the maximal and most productive level possible.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

In Shropshire and wider West Mercia, victims of rape and other serious offences are being told to wait for their jury trials into 2027, 2028 and even later. Meanwhile, defendants of some other offences are opting for jury trials, the magistrates having already accepted jurisdiction. Is it not time that we back, trust and empower our magistrates and district judges up and down this country?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member can get hold of Hansard and read my previous answer, which is that there will be an impact assessment at the requisite moment.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I find it heartbreaking to hear that there are victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual violence who feel that they are tackling a system that is absolutely broken. From a piece of casework I have dealt with, I can tell the House about a young lady, the victim of domestic violence, who had to wait so long for justice to be served that she actually returned to the perpetrator. To me, that is not only terrifying, but obviously it had a huge impact on her family. Can I ask the Minister, working with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to promise me that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape get the justice they deserve as soon as they can?

[Sarah Sackman]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Under-Secretary of State and I are working incredibly hard. This is central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, and we have to look at how not just the delays in our criminal justice system but the processes in our courts are often retraumatising women and girls. We are resolute in our efforts to tackle exactly what he has described.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Government’s proposals on jury trials are causing concern and consternation in my constituency, and my mailbag is quite full of people’s messages opposing the Government’s proposals. Just so we understand where the Secretary of State is on this, could the Minister please explain to us what he is doing right now such that he could not come and answer this urgent question himself?

[Sarah Sackman]

At the moment, the Secretary of State is giving a very important speech launching the Government’s anti-corruption strategy.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that announcement has been made first to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?

[Sarah Sackman]

Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very helpful to get through the questions and the Minister has done very well. Justice does matter and I think all of us represent victims of crime. The more quickly we can get through, the happier we will be. As I say, Chorley magistrates court would love to be reopened in order to help.

Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

The draft statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which outline the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission’s board of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the commissioners. I will refer to the Judicial Appointments Commission as the JAC.

The 2013 regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and to ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment. The amendments in this draft statutory instrument will change the total number of JAC commissioners from 15 to 16 by increasing the number of persons practising or employed as lawyers, referred to as professional commissioners, from two to three. It also expands the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers.

As the draft statutory instrument relates to the composition of the JAC board, it may be helpful to outline briefly the role of the JAC and its board. The JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.

The JAC is governed by an independent board of commissioners appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. There are currently 15 commissioners, including the lay chairman; the other 14 are drawn from the judiciary, the legal professions, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. Twelve are recruited and appointed through open competition, while three senior judicial members, including the senior tribunal commissioner, are selected by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals Judges’ Council.

A key objective of the board is to ensure that the JAC is upholding its statutory functions and duties, which include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, through fair and open competition, and with regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies, and make final recommendations for judicial appointments to the appointing authority.

The proposed amendments relate to the number of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner. I will address each in turn. On the number of commissioners, as noted, under the existing statutory provisions there are 15 commissioners, including the lay chair. That includes two professional commissioners, who must hold different qualifications, being a barrister, a solicitor or a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives or CILEX. Currently, as only two of the legal professions can be represented at any one time, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner. The draft instrument increases the number of commissioners to 16 by adding a third professional commissioner and retaining the requirement that they be from different professions.

The purpose of that is twofold. First, it will strengthen the JAC’s capacity to efficiently manage high levels of judicial recruitment. Secondly, it will ensure all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board. Creating a more certain route for the appointment of a CILEX fellow will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments. The approach will bring an additional sector perspective to the board and a commissioner to lead on outreach in the field. That is important because CILEX membership is generally more diverse on two characteristics than the other legal professions: 78% of CILEX fellows are women; and, as CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members are from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Under the statutory provisions for eligibility to be the senior tribunal commissioner, this role is open to upper tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal, chamber presidents of the upper tribunal, and presidents of employment tribunals for England and Wales, and Scotland. That means that not all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure are eligible. To address the inconsistency, an amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the upper tribunal, certain judges of the employment appeal tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the upper tribunal. The extent of this statutory instrument is UK-wide, as is its territorial application.

I will turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. The 2013 regulations were the result of public consultation completed in 2012. A further public consultation for these amendments was not considered necessary, given that the changes increase the number of commissioners, strengthening the JAC’s capacity for judicial recruitment, and address anomalies in the senior tribunal commissioner eligibility criteria. We formally consulted the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the JAC chair, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland. All were supportive of the changes.

I assure the Committee that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provider greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners, and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.

It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.

It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid Solicitor Fees Consultation: Government Response

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Criminal Legal Aid: proposals for solicitor fee scheme reform”.

Criminal legal aid lawyers play a crucial role in our justice system, taking on some of the most complex cases that go through our courts and ensuring the most vulnerable people in society can access justice. The consultation invited responses to fee scheme proposals that would allocate an additional £92 million per annum investment once fully implemented.

The consultation paper was published on 9 May 2025, with proposals that covered work carried out by legal aid providers at police stations, in magistrates’ courts, in the Crown Court, and in prisons.

After considering the responses, we have decided to implement the majority of the proposals put forward. These involve harmonising police station fees, a 10% increase to magistrates’ courts fees—including youth court fees—and a 24% increase to fees for work done in prisons. In line with our initial proposals, we will also increase some litigators’ graduated fee scheme trial basic fees for the lowest paid offences and will introduce a fixed ratio between guilty plea, cracked trial and trial basic fees.

As a result of some of the responses we received during the consultation period, we will be making some changes to our final proposals, so that we can ensure these measures support providers as effectively as possible. We have amended the escape fee threshold in the police station fee scheme to enable more cases to qualify for the fee, and we will additionally uplift fees for all solicitors’ appeals work by 10%.

This significant investment, once fully implemented, means that criminal legal aid solicitors will have received a 24% overall uplift in funding since the criminal legal aid independent review. This investment will support a stronger and more sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and retains the brightest and the best practitioners. It is part of this Government’s plan for change to ensure justice is done and our streets are safe.

We announced these fee uplifts in December 2024, before the Legal Aid Agency was subject to a cyber security incident in mid-2025. The LAA has swiftly responded with comprehensive measures designed to maintain access to justice and protect provider cash flow during system disruption. Throughout this disruption, we remain committed to delivering these important uplifts for the sector. We are pleased that we remain on track to deliver on our commitment to invest in the legal aid system.

We intend to bring forward statutory instruments to amend the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the changes and fee increases. Our intention is that the first statutory instrument will come into force from 22 December 2025. This will cover the crime lower fee increases set out in our response, relating to work in police stations, magistrates’ courts, prisons and for some appeals work. A second statutory instrument will be laid as soon as the required changes to uplift fees can be delivered through Legal Aid Agency digital systems. This will cover the crime higher fee increases set out in our response, relating to the LGFS and remaining areas of appeals work.

As well as our investment in criminal legal aid, the Government are also today announcing implementation of our fee uplifts for immigration and housing controlled work in civil legal aid confirmed earlier in the year.

[HCWS1110]