Right to Trial by Jury

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 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 Government’s reported plans to further restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases.

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

This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.

That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.

Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.

The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Or read the papers.

[Robert Jenrick]

While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.

Jury trials are

“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.

The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.

I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?

[Sarah Sackman]

How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.

Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:

“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”

The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.

I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.

I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.

I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.

Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, of course, I will not be commenting on a leaked document. No final decisions have been taken. What I can say is that we are giving very careful consideration to Sir Brian’s blueprint. We are giving very serious consideration to his conclusion that the current system, as my hon. Friend says, is broken and that we need structural reform. That requires that we countenance the idea of judge-only trials and a thorough review of what magistrate courts’ sentencing powers should be. It also requires that we ask the question that Sir Brian invites us to answer: when is it proportionate to have a jury trial, with all the rigour but also with all the expense and delay that can entail? Is it right that we ask somebody accused of stealing a bottle of whisky to be ahead in the queue of the rape victim waiting for her jury trial? That is the question he poses, and that is the question that when we come forward with our detailed plans, which need to be considered as a whole, it will be necessary for this House to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials

“a success story of our justice system”.

Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should

“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”

in order to clear the backlog?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.

[Mr Speaker]

I look forward to the court at Chorley opening at some point.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a failure for the north.

[Sarah Sackman]

What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.

We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.

I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.

Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.

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

The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member will know that I regularly engage with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and a range of other stakeholders. In fact, they agree with me that the system is broken. Indeed, whether they prosecute or defend, hard-working criminal barristers are experiencing a sapping of morale as they go into the crumbling buildings—presided over by the Conservatives—inefficient trials that crack, and trials that come three or four years after they were reported, with witnesses pulling out on the day. All that is deeply demoralising. Indeed, there is a huge degree of consensus between the Government and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association on the direction of travel. We must of course address inefficiencies; that is why Sir Brian Leveson and his independent reviewers are considering inefficiencies and productivity in the system. When part two of the review comes, we will take its recommendations equally seriously and look to implement them.

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

In 2014, 8% of those on trial for an either-way offence opted for a jury trial. By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, we know that the Crown court backlog is growing, that there are delays in those cases going to trial, and that more people are therefore dropping out and being denied their justice and their day in court. Is it not clear that some people are gaming the system to deny victims justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last week, I visited Wood Green Crown court, which has some of the deepest backlogs in the country, and met judges and barristers. They said that it was not uncommon to watch career criminals opt for a jury trial—their matter could be heard in the magistrates court, which has sufficient sentencing powers—and literally laugh in the dock. Why? Because they know that this Christmas and the one after that they will still be with their families without having faced trial, in the hope that witnesses pull out, the trial cracks and justice is not served. There are people gaming the system. That is the consequence of the delays, and we must do whatever we can to fix it.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Another day, another leak from the Government. The Minister says that no final decision has been made—we just have speculation—and suggests that we wait, so why does she not use this time to reflect on the comments from Conservative Members and bring back the courts used during covid, to speed up the process so that people continue to have the right to a trial by jury?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is right that we need to increase capacity. That is why, since we replaced her party in government, we have increased the number of sitting days by over 5,000—we have record sitting days. The fact is, however, that we must build system capacity; we need enough judges, enough prosecutors, enough court ushers, enough court translators. We need more magistrates, and we are embarking on an ambitious programme to recruit more of them. All that must happen. Unlike her party, we are investing in the system and looking to bring more courtrooms back into use, but ultimately, as Sir Brian Leveson reminds us time and again, spending our way out of trouble will not, on its own, fix the system. Former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk —one of the Conservatives’ own—said that the system would become “irrecoverable” unless we act, and, unlike the Conservatives, I am prepared to do so.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the racial disparities right across our criminal justice system. Sadly, there is nothing new about that issue, which runs from issues with policing to prosecutorial practices, and of course, our courts are not entirely free of that. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to public confidence in our justice system, and any differential treatment on the grounds of race or ethnicity is unacceptable. Regardless of which options we take forward to tackle the crisis, that principle—equality before the law—will run through them; I can assure her of that.

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

Quod erat demonstrandum. Yesterday, it was made abundantly clear that the Government’s priority is the recipient of benefits, way ahead of any consideration of victims, was it not?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am not quite sure how to respond to that. Was it a question? Was it a statement? Was it a rant? It displays a serious lack of seriousness. We have a backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. As I said, a victim of rape reporting her case in London today is told she has a trial in 2030. Does the right hon. Member think we should just sit back? Does he think that any responsible Government would take receipt of an independent review—detailed, carefully considered, evidence-based—and simply say, “We’ll just leave it on the shelf”? Forget it; we are going to respond to it, we are going to implement it, and we are going to act, because we care about one thing: swifter justice for victims. I am sorry he cannot say the same.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach, and therefore we need to get on with the job of reform?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—

[Mr Speaker]

Father of the House, you are better and bigger than that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I feel so strongly about it.

[Sarah Sackman]

So do I. I spoke to a victim of child sexual abuse who had waited years for his day in court. A couple of weeks before his trial date, he was given the devastating news that the trial had been adjourned for another year. I regret to say that he sought to take his own life upon hearing that. Luckily, his attempt did not work, but if we ever needed a more graphic illustration of the weight that these intolerable delays place on victims —on real people’s lives—that is it. That is why we have to do whatever it takes to bring down these backlogs.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment? There is a fundamental point here: are the Minister and the Government aware that victims and the British people have more confidence in juries’ decisions than the decisions of judges?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to focus on efficiencies and the use of technology, which is why the Ministry of Justice is looking at greater use of artificial intelligence for transcription tools and case summarisation—that is all to help us bring down these delays. We have to give a guarantee to everyone in this country that if they come before our criminal courts, they will have a fair trial. As I have said, 90% of people who come before our criminal courts are currently tried without a jury, and that is done fairly and with integrity. I stand by the idea that what we have to do is offer people a fair trial. Waiting four years for a trial simply is not fair, so we have to get the balance right, but the hon. Gentleman is right that efficiency, investment and structural reform are what will get the backlog down.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s serious approach to dealing with this difficult issue. Like many other Members, my inbox is full of heartbreaking casework. Some of the most heartbreaking is from victims of crime who are anguished, hurt and deprived of justice because of delays in the system and because the system is broken. Most of those delays started under the last Government, so the Opposition have some brass neck to talk about a broken system. Can the Minister confirm that when she and the Government consider reforms, they will put those victims in my constituency first and seek to end the delays, and that the motto of our Government will be that a justice system broken is justice denied, and it is our job to fix it?

[Sarah Sackman]

I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work, flip open the virtual or real ministerial red box, and think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog. I will bear those victims’ stories in mind as we approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?

[Sarah Sackman]

Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial. There is no right in our constitution to a jury trial—it is not there—but jury trials are a fundamental and important part of our legal tradition, and they will remain so after any reforms are brought forward. That simply does not change. However, 90% of people are tried without a jury, and that is done fairly. What we need to guarantee is a fair trial, and I have been mindful of our legal traditions, descending from Magna Carta and many constitutional documents since, as we approach these reforms.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I recently met the local Crown Prosecution Service in Exeter, which informed me that, as has been discussed, defendants who have the choice often choose a jury trial to delay their case and game the system. Because of that, 10% of adult rape cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged, as the victim no longer supports prosecution due to the long delays in their case. With the backlog at 78,000 and rising, victims are waiting years. Does the Minister agree that we need this bold action to get the court system back on its feet?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rape and serious sexual offences are one of the most poignant and difficult areas, and it is in our minds in these 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Rape Crisis published a report last week in which it reported that one in three rape victims faced delay to their trial. I am told that 60% of rape victims are pulling out of the process because they simply cannot live with the spectre of the trial hanging over them, and they doubt that justice will ever be done. What is the consequence of that? It is not just heartbreaking for the victim; it means that justice is not served. That is something that no one in this House can abide.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am afraid that I utterly reject the premise of that question. First, the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will other Members, for the Government’s detailed response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and to see which cases will be affected by the reforms. I utterly reject the suggestion that this is somehow an authoritarian gambit—far from it. I cannot think of anything more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee fair trial, which is currently being undermined as a result of under-investment by the last Government and by the backlogs. I am ensuring that we work towards guaranteeing a fair trial for every victim of crime in this country, and I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than that.

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

Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?

[Sarah Sackman]

Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. That does not mean that they always get it right or that they are beyond reproach, but they are all subject to the principle of acting without fear or favour. They undergo comprehensive judicial training, which rightly includes rigorous training in bias, including racial bias. In our magistracy, which is so reflective of the principles of local and democratic justice, we are moving towards a more diverse magistracy, so that in London, one of our most diverse cities, over 30% of magistrates are currently black, Asian or minority ethnic. We need to go further, but I assure my hon. Friend that whether it is our judges, our magistracy or the involvement of juries for our most serious cases, that democratic element will always be retained.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister rightly calls out the issues for rape victims, and she might want to have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is closing down police stations so that there is nowhere for people to report. I recently visited Harrow Crown court, which is temporarily placed in Hendon magistrates court while the building in Harrow is rebuilt. I asked the judge, “Why are the courts all empty?”, as only one court was operational. He said to me, “The biggest problem is finding lawyers for defendants to enable the trials to take place.” While the Minister is considering this issue, will she look at the investment that needs to take place to encourage lawyers to take on criminal justice cases?

[Sarah Sackman]

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This is, I think, the third attempt by successive Governments to reduce the right to trial by jury. It is a fundamental right in our system that should not be undermined, and particularly not because the Government have a current and, hopefully, temporary problem with capacity. In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister recognised that the Lammy inquiry of 2017 found that jury trials are more objective than judge-only trials, less likely to be racially biased and likely to give a fairer outcome. Is the Minister really content that we should be walking away from the jury trial system because of the current problems? Instead, is the answer not, as other hon. Members have suggested, to invest more in the system to deal with the appalling backlog, which she rightly says we have?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are putting record investment into sitting days, our lawyers and legal aid, and we are investing in technology. However, as Sir Brian Leveson’s review concludes, investment alone is not going to fix the problem that is undermining the fairness of those trials. In many cases, by the time jury trials are being heard, the evidence is years old, witnesses’ minds are no longer fresh in their recollection of the events and people are pulling out of the process. That is fundamentally unfair and not at all progressive, because we cannot guarantee the fundamental right to a fair trial. It is right that we look, as Sir Brian Leveson has indicated, at both structural reform and investment to ensure that we can guarantee a fair trial and, rightly, equality before the law for all.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. I have taken note of what she has said and, if I may, I will quote it back to her:

“a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness”,

a three to four year delay is “deeply demoralising”, and “justice delayed is justice denied”. How does she square that position with her support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right to quote back to me the headlines of the arguments that I am making in response to the urgent question about the backlogs in our criminal courts in England and Wales. On his question about my support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, it is a fair piece of legislation and one that I stand by.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. At the end of December 2024, there were 11,850 outstanding cases at our magistrates courts and 2,663 outstanding cases at Crown courts in Wales. Of course, some 23 Crown and magistrates courts have been closed across Wales since 2010. Does the Minister agree that fewer courts and their distance from communities are significant factors in reduced and delayed access to justice, and that that must be addressed as a priority?

[Sarah Sackman]

I pay particular attention to the regional disparities in the Crown court crisis and in the delays. We have to look at different regions and see what the right solutions are for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a particular issue in Wales is the distance that we ask magistrates to travel to perform what is, frankly, an amazing public service. The fact that we have an army of local volunteers who both reflect and serve their community is really important, and I have engaged closely with Welsh magistrates on this subject. She is right that to bring down the backlogs we need—I will not grow sick of saying it—investment, structural reform and modernisation. If we get all three, then regardless of where people live in England and Wales, we will bring down the backlogs and get swifter justice for victims.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cases and appeals of asylum seekers are heard in the immigration and asylum tribunal, not in our criminal courts. We are not only making investment in immigration legal aid so that those cases can be heard at a swifter rate, but sitting at close to maximum capacity sitting days to process those cases. When we talk about swifter justice for victims in our criminal courts, that must be our real focus and the real focus of the debate today.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Minister has spoken about the importance of swift and fair justice, but I feel this decision will set a very dangerous precedent that the state will become addicted to. I sincerely hope the Government do not go down this path, but if they do, I urge the Minister to ensure that this measure is in place only for the duration required to clear the backlog and is then abandoned. It must not become a central tenet of the justice system.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this decision has been prompted by a crisis, and the crisis we inherited from the previous Government is acute indeed. As we speak, day on day and month on month, that backlog heads in the wrong direction. As I have said, we need to do whatever it takes to bring it down to a sustainable level; the way we will do that is by investing in the system and through structural reform and modernisation, but we have a very long way to go. There is no doubt that we have a mountain to climb, and it is only when we are in a sustainable position and can say we are delivering swift justice for victims that we can revisit whether this measure is right for our country.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Trial by jury may be more expensive than trial by judge and magistrates, but does the Minister agree that, as we have heard today, this decision goes beyond just finances? The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is fundamental and essential to safeguarding justice, and it must be protected for all cases.

[Sarah Sackman]

The constitutional right that British people have is the right to a fair trial. People are waiting years for their day in court and seeing some defendants whose trial could be heard gaming the system. I believe that the Justice Committee paper says that there were more than 4,000 cases last year alone in which magistrates had sufficient sentencing powers to address the case swiftly. People opted for a jury trial, in some cases deliberately, because they wanted to drag it out, put their victim through that, see witnesses pull out and perhaps get away with it all. That is simply not fair.

We have to guarantee jury trial, especially for the most serious cases—rape, murder and serious drug trafficking—but I am not prepared to ask a victim of rape who has been waiting years for her day in court to get behind someone in the queue who has perhaps stolen a Mars bar but elected to have a jury trial to drag the matter out. That is simply not fair, and that is simply not British justice.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?

[Sarah Sackman]

No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman puts his question very well, as is typical of him. I agree that the British public have confidence in jury trials, and rightly so—they are a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so, whatever the exact nature of the plans we put before this House.

However, as I have said, it is not fair to ask victims to wait years for their day in court, undermining the fairness of the trial in so doing. We have to be mindful of the confidence that British people have in the outcomes of this process, which is why we asked an independent expert to look at this matter and looked at international comparisons. In Canada, for example—a common-law jurisdiction and society not so distinct from our own—where I met judges and visited courts, they use types of judge-only trial, and do not see any difference in the quality of justice that is delivered or in the outcomes. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and it is why we are considering this matter as carefully as we are.

Domestic Abuse: Children

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing a debate on this important subject. I thank all Members who contributed to this wide-ranging and incredibly sensitive and important debate; their contributions were outstanding. I also thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for sharing her story, which takes courage, and all those who shared personal stories.

I want to make absolutely clear how seriously I take the matters that have been raised today. Every child deserves to grow up in a home filled with love and safety, yet, as we have heard, for too many children a home that is meant to be a place of sanctuary can become a place of fear. It is the Government’s mission to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. The Ministry of Justice is working with partners across Government to strengthen protections for children from domestic abuse. Many of today’s questions and interventions touch on the need for not just cross-Government working, but working across multiple agencies and interaction between central and local government. It is critical that the whole system works together in the endeavour of stamping out domestic abuse and protecting children.

I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West says about our laws, reflecting the experience of children and young people who have suffered domestic abuse. He is, of course, right that we must ensure that those children, who are among the most vulnerable in society, are properly served and protected by the law. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), have mentioned the importance of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; I pay tribute to the previous Government for that legislation, which already recognises the profound impact that domestic abuse can have on children.

Section 3 of that Act makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse themselves. That is vital, because it makes it easier for children to access support such as mental health services. Looking more widely, the statutory guidance recently published by the Home Office on coercive and controlling behaviour clarifies that controlling or coercive behaviour has a significant impact on children and young people in relation to parental or other family member relationships. Taken together, those measures provide a clear recognition that abuse, even when it is not directed at them, can have a severe impact on a child. That is critical in underpinning the Government’s response to these crimes.

I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), who is a tireless champion on these issues. The murder of Sara Sharif is remembered with profound sadness. Although Sara’s father and stepmother are rightly serving life sentences for their appalling crimes, it is clear that the Government’s response to that tragedy cannot stop there. The local child safeguarding practice review into the case by Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership is an important part of that process. The hon. Gentleman will understand the importance of considering the findings of that review with care and delicacy.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already begun to set out the detailed steps the Government are taking to strengthen safeguarding and to keep children safe. The hon. Member for Woking will know that some of those measures are making progress in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such as obligations on local authorities to set up registers of children who are not educated in school and to consider the home environment when considering whether children should be permitted to be educated at home. I assure him and colleagues that we will continue to look at the recommendations of the review and identify ways to improve child protection in this country to mitigate the risk of such a tragic murder happening again, and I thank him for his tireless work in that regard.

Turning to the reform of the family justice system, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly brings to our attention the many vulnerable children in the family court system who have been harmed or are at risk of being harmed by domestic abuse. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who raised important points on family courts. As others have said, family judges and family courts have a very difficult job to do and for the most part do that job well—but no child should miss out on the chance of a safe and stable childhood because the system is too slow or complicated, or does not provide the right help at the right time. The Government are acting to make sure that when families struggle, the services around them respond with compassion, speed and fairness.

At the heart of our family justice strategy is putting children first. That means making sure that their voices are centred and their safety is protected, and that decisions are focused on giving them the best possible chance to grow up in a stable and supportive home. I am pleased to hear others welcome the Government’s announcement on the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement; I recognise that many Members and the people they represent have been campaigning for that for a very long time.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in paying tribute to the incredibly brave work, for some 11 years now, of Claire Throssell to vindicate the legacy of her sons Jack and Paul, who were murdered. Claire’s story is a heartbreaking reminder of what is at stake when the system fails children. Her courage and tireless campaigning demonstrate the need for the family courts to protect children from abuse. It has been an honour getting to know Claire, and I hope that this change in our law will mark a culture change in our family courts.

Of course, achieving that culture change is not just about the presumption, and it is important to recognise the centrality of the welfare checklist in the Children’s Act 1989. That looks at the wishes and feelings of the child concerned, the impact on the child of any changes in circumstances, how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs, and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.

As well as those changes in the law, we are not stopping at that announcement. As a Government, we have chosen to continue to build on the excellent results of the pathfinder model in private law children’s proceedings to improve the experiences and outcomes for all survivors of domestic abuse, including children. That work built on the findings of the harm panel report, and the feedback we have had from practitioners, and particularly from children and parents, is that they feel better heard and supported under this new approach. Alongside that, referrals to independent domestic violence advisers for a risk assessment, and better join-up between the court and local authorities and police, give the court a clearer assessment of the risk to children when they are making decisions.

Pathfinder courts are already operating across Wales, Dorset, Birmingham, West Yorkshire, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent and Worcester, and we want to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West will be delighted to hear that pathfinder courts will commence on the Isle of Wight in January 2026, and we hope that that will make a real difference.

I want to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to Jade’s law and parental responsibility. We are working with partners across the criminal and family justice system to implement Jade’s law, which would provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent has killed the other. We are currently working through the details of implementation with a wide range of family justice stakeholders. The mechanism is novel and it is important that we take the time to get it right.

Hon. Members will know that we are going further as part of the Victims and Courts Bill. That Bill includes two critical measures: first, we will restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment for serious sexual abuse against a child, and secondly, we will ensure that, where a perpetrator is sentenced for rape and that crime has led to the birth of a child, they will have their parental responsibility for that child restricted from the moment they are sentenced. I appreciate that that does not go as far as the hon. Member for Chichester urged, but these are novel pieces of law, and we need to see how they operate before going further. I feel assured that, taken together, the measures will protect thousands of children, ensuring that perpetrators who have committed some of the most serious crimes cannot continue to insert themselves into children’s lives and seek to exercise their parental responsibility from prison.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), asked about spending on domestic abuse specialist services. I echo the comments made by hon. Members about the importance of charitable and third sector services in that regard. We know the sterling work that those services do, and that they fill a gap all too often left by shortcomings in state support. I pay tribute to them, but it is not right that they work in an environment where they have to pick up so many of the pieces, so investment in specialist services and in child protection is important.

The Department for Education is rolling out the Families First partnership programme—which will be important—with an investment of £541 million in ’25-26. It will give families and children access to better local support services to enable earlier intervention, which we know is so important to enable families to stay together, where it is safe to do so. The Department for Education is also developing post-qualifying standards and social work induction to further strengthen early career support. That will help improve the quality of practice, and the retention of children and families social workers. We expect that domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, will feature prominently in the new programme. That work is coupled across Government with a £5.3 million investment by the Home Office into community-based support for children affected by domestic abuse.

I reassure hon. Members that the announced abolition of PCCs will not disrupt the provision of those community-based services. The structure may change, but the support and the investment in that support will not. In response to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, I note that the Government are committed to consulting on the establishment of a child protection authority before the end of this year.

Finally, I note the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire about the campaign by the shadow Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—which she makes on behalf of her constituent and Tony Hudgell—for a child risk register. The Government have heard that case loud and clear; while we were not able to support a specific amendment in the Commons, we are considering it with great care because we recognise that there is a gap there.

All of us, as I have heard this afternoon, share a deep commitment to safeguarding children and ensuring that they are fully protected and supported. That is why we will continue to work with partners across Government, with frontline agencies, with the courts and with third sector groups to protect children affected by the scourge of domestic abuse. I hope my remarks have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West, and all hon. Members who have made such thoughtful and sensitive contributions to the debate, that we have a legislative framework in place that recognises the impact that domestic abuse has on children, and that Departments across Government are taking action to make sure that the right support, help and protection is in place for them. We need to keep doing that, and I know that everybody here will continue to hold us to account, and to push us to go further and do better.

I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. Quite simply, all children deserve to grow up free from fear and abuse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West again for securing a debate on such an important subject.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to open this discussion on the clauses of a focused but important Bill, designed to drive innovation, enhance legal certainty, and strengthen our standing in the global digital economy. Let me turn first to clause 1—an unassuming clause on the page, but one with important implications for the future of our legal system and our economy.

Clause 1 is the engine room of the Bill. It provides a clear and powerful statement: that a thing—including something digital or electronic—can be recognised as personal property, even if it does not fall within either of the categories that our legal system has traditionally recognised. For centuries the law has drawn a simple line: personal property was either a “thing in possession”, that being a physical object such as a car or a watch, or a “thing in action”, something that exists because the law says it does and is enforced through legal action, such as a debt or a contractual right. However, the world has changed. Technology has leapt forward, and our law must keep pace. Today we have assets such as crypto-tokens. They are not physical objects, yet their existence is not reliant on the law. They do not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories.

Our courts have begun to acknowledge that such assets can and should be the subject of property rights, but without a clear, binding legal foundation, uncertainty remains—uncertainty that could stifle innovation, deter investment, and push the digital economy elsewhere. This Government will not allow that to happen. Driving sustainable growth is a top priority for us, and that means giving businesses and investors the certainty that they need to thrive. With this single clause, we are removing doubt and sending a clear message: we are open for business in the digital age.

By removing ambiguity, clause 1 ensures that those who hold or transact in digital assets are better supported to defend their property rights, transfer them and recover them when it matters most. The Bill reinforces our position as a global jurisdiction of choice for legal innovation, emerging technology and the digital economy. We are leading from the front. To be clear, clause 1 does not attempt to draw rigid lines around what qualifies as property—that is a deliberate choice. It rightly empowers our courts to continue developing the common law, case by case, applying centuries of legal wisdom to the frontiers of a digital economy. The reference to “digital or electronic things” in the Bill simply reflects where the issues most commonly arise today, without boxing in where the law might go tomorrow. The clause paves the way for fairer outcomes in cases of theft, fraud, commercial dispute or insolvency involving digital assets. It will reduce litigation costs, promote market stability and underpin our reputation as a jurisdiction of choice in a digital world. This is a small clause with big consequences. It is a bold, forward-looking step that reaffirms our commitment to legal certainty, technological progress and global leadership.

Clause 2 sets out the title, territorial extent and commencement date. Once granted Royal Assent, the legislation will become the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. That title—Digital Assets etc—is no accident. It has been carefully chosen to capture the technologies of today, such as crypto-tokens, while keeping the door open to future innovations. This is a law built not just for now but for what may come next. The Act will extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. That will minimise legal discrepancies across jurisdictions and help to ensure that the benefits, such as legal clarity, investor confidence and streamlined dispute resolution, are more widely felt across these jurisdictions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, owing to differences in property law. However, the Scottish Government introduced their own Digital Assets Bill on 30 September, confirming that certain kinds of digital assets can be objects of property under Scots private law.

Importantly, the Act will come into force the moment it receives Royal Assent—no delays, no retrospective effect—because the legislation does not create new burdens. It confirms and clarifies the law as it has been developing under common law. As a result, there will be immediate certainty, minimal disruption, and a strong foundation for our digital economy. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Minister to wind up the debate

[Sarah Sackman]

With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Third Reading

[Sarah Sackman]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me I start by reiterating my sincere thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their support and insightful contributions. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster), and all Members who have contributed throughout the passage of the Bill. Their engagement demonstrates strong, cross-party momentum behind modernising our personal property law.

I also pay tribute to the former Special Public Bill Committee, which gathered expert evidence and was ably led by Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Law Commission deserves particular recognition for its exemplary work, led by Laura Burgoyne and Christopher Long, and on which this Bill stands. Their engagement with stakeholders has been gold standard and demonstrated the benefits of coherent law reform—transparent, expert-led and deeply consultative. I would also like to thank the former law commissioner Professor Sarah Green for her contribution to this work and for giving evidence at Committee.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this Bill. I thank my policy officials, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear, the Bill managers, Harry McNeill-Adams and Lily Sullivan, and Helen Hall from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my private office, in particular my private secretary, Amelia Overton, and Meheret Ashenafi.

This is more than a Bill; it is a landmark step towards ensuring that the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, not only keeps pace with innovation but leads it. The Bill will give digital pioneers the certainty they need, backed by the legal strength they expect from our country. It shows that our economy is open, our ambition is global, and we are here to support innovation. By supporting the recognition of digital assets as property, the Bill helps establish legal certainty.

The Bill gives industry the confidence to innovate here, knowing that our legal system can support new models of ownership, transfer and settlement. This is how we translate legal reform into economic leadership. It is how we show that we are at the forefront of the technical revolution, and how that can be seen in the real world with the London Stock Exchange’s announcement of a new digital asset platform. This is the first major global stock exchange to implement a blockchain-based system.

This Government are backing growth, backing technology and backing Britain’s future, and as such, I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase access to legal aid for people in rural areas.

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

Legal aid can be a lifeline and should be available to those who need it, wherever they happen to live. This Government have made substantial new investment in legal aid—both in criminal legal aid, with an additional £92 million a year, and in civil legal aid, where we are investing an additional £20 million a year.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister for that response. Would she please join me in congratulating Coodes Solicitors, which provides a weekly pro bono surgery to my constituents in Bodmin? Firms such as Coodes face, in its own words, so much unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through when providing legal aid. As the Minister highlights, I understand that the Government have made some progress towards making the financial investment in the system that is needed, but is she aware of the incredible burden of this needless bureaucracy and will she please commit to simplifying public funding contracts?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I commend all lawyers who provide pro bono support to their clients, which is incredibly commendable. However, it is ultimately a sticking-plaster and no substitute for a well-functioning legal aid system. That is why, as well as increasing fees, we are investing in the transformation of the IT digital platform to enable providers to cut through some of that red tape.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to help increase access to justice for people from all social backgrounds.

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

This Government are committed to access to justice, and that involves supporting people from every social background to uphold their rights. As I said earlier, we are investing in civil legal aid. We have introduced the greatest expansion in a decade of legal aid through the Hillsborough law, and we continue to provide financial support for law centres and Citizens Advice so that people—wherever they come from, whatever their background—can access legal support.

[Ian Lavery]

The Labour Government’s investment in legal aid and legal services is hugely welcome. However, expert analysis has shown categorically that young people from more deprived backgrounds find it extremely difficult to access justice. Many people from constituencies such as mine are very much unaware of what might be available to them when they most need it. Can the Minister assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our people are acutely aware of what is available to them to access the justice they so rightly deserve and, in many cases, they urgently require?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. If people do not know their rights, they cannot enforce their rights, so raising awareness is incredibly important. It is important that we expand access to legal support where people are living their lives, and the online service where people, especially young people, can access digital legal advice is a vital component of that.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

The review of criminal law in this area is incredibly delicate, and we need to look at it in line with common law and case law, but we are keeping it under review.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to help tackle court backlogs.

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

Behind the backlogs in our courts, and behind each and every one of those case statistics, there is a human story, and there is no doubt that the delays in our criminal courts are taking their toll on victims and all participants in the criminal justice system. However, we are gripping the situation by investing in a greater number of Crown court sitting days, making additional investment in criminal legal aid and commissioning the review from Sir Brian Leveson. What is required is a once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal justice system, and we will be providing our response to that review in due course.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her answer. The situation she describes is similar to one that I am about to describe. A constituent of mine got in touch about a case of historical sexual abuse, which they bravely reported in 2018. After years of waiting, a trial date was set for this May, only for it to be put back again until July 2027—nine years after first reporting the case. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you can imagine the toll that has taken on my constituent’s mental health and wellbeing. I urge the Minister to progress at speed with her reform of the Courts Service and, in particular, address the problems in Shropshire where there are significant issues with the Crown court and magistrates court service.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am incredibly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience and I reiterate my sympathies. She articulates, with that case, precisely why it is vital that we pursue reform. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and the state’s obligation is to deliver fair trials. That is why we will do whatever it takes to bear down on the backlog as we bring forward our response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review.

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I have heard, from several constituents who are victims of domestic abuse, how the delays in the family court that were inherited from the previous Government, particularly for financial settlement orders, have compounded the traumatic experience and included ongoing financial harm and detriment. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to reduce those delays and, in particular, to support victims of domestic abuse through our courts system?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are committed to improving timeliness not just in criminal courts but in family courts too, and to providing better support to victims of domestic abuse, who we know make up many of the participants in that litigation. The Pathfinder model is working. It resolves cases faster and offers specialist domestic abuse support. We have expanded the Pathfinder model to five additional court areas and we are continuing that expansion into 2026. He will be happy to know that that includes Hampshire, where I understand his constituency is based.

[Mr Speaker]

That could also help with the reopening of Chorley court, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

15. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for the courts system.

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

This Government inherited a justice system on its knees, starved for years of adequate funding, but we are fixing the foundations. We are investing in our buildings, in our people and in a record number of sitting days—sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity in every jurisdiction. That is how we are fixing the courts system.

[Vikki Slade]

I was fortunate to visit Poole magistrates court last week; indeed, it is interesting to hear mention of the state of buildings, because they were appalling. I was most concerned when the district judge and court manager explained to me that there is no shortage of magistrates or court space and that the shortage is one of legal advisers in the system. They explained that the funding for one extra legal adviser would allow them to progress 500 cases a year, but they simply cannot retain them. What is the Minister doing to review that role and make sure that we can get those smaller cases through quickly?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is right that our court staff are the backbone of our courts system and they make it tick every day. It is an absolute pleasure, as the Courts Minister, to visit courts like the one she described. I recently visited Snaresbrook Crown court and it was a pleasure to meet staff there. As she says, legal advisers are critical to the functioning of the magistrates court, and that is why we are investing an additional £5.2 million in addressing the retention challenges that she describes.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to commend court staff and to highlight the significant issues in the courts system. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we uncovered problems with the buildings, the IT systems and the Probation Service—the whole system was in real difficulty. How long does she think it will take this Government to clear up the mess that the last Government left?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a mountain to climb, and we cannot fix the foundations overnight. This Government are committed to restoring the public’s confidence in the justice system. That is why, through the spending review, we have committed an additional £450 million to the courts system. That means, as I said, investing in our buildings and in our people to restore the public’s confidence in our system.

[Mr Speaker]

Reopen Chorley to help you!

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

16. Whether he plans to bring forward legislative proposals on litigation funding agreements.

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

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment on this issue? We had an incredibly constructive debate in Westminster Hall recently on the topic of third-party litigation funding. Litigation funding is what enabled Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters to fund their landmark legal action against the Post Office. It plays a critical role in access to justice and a vital role in contributing to our economy. For that reason, I am carefully considering, alongside colleagues, our response to the Civil Justice Council’s review to ensure that we get our reforms right.

[Sir Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for the constructive debate a week or so ago. May I press her on timing—as she said, this is important for consumers, businesses and the legal sector—and test her on the opportunities for early dispute resolution, which were mentioned in the CJC report and which I would encourage the Government to look at seriously?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the report is incredibly detailed and contains a whole host of recommendations. It is important that we go through that very carefully. We have all seen the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court judgment in the PACCAR case. We are looking at what the appropriate response would be. If we are going to effectively reverse the effect of that judgment, then we want to build back better and get the reforms right so that we can achieve the access to justice and the economic benefit that he so rightly says he is committed to.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T4. Following on from that, still less than 3% of rape cases result in a charge. It takes 400 days for resolution—painful delays for the victims. We have talked about this for so long, so often. What are the barriers to change?

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

The hon. Member raises a really important point. We need investment, structural reform and modernisation—that is, the adoption of technology. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his detailed review. We have got part 1, which suggests to us that structural reform. We are awaiting part 2, which should arrive by the end of the year, which will direct us as to how we can drive efficiency and get swifter justice for all victims, but in particular those of serious sexual offences.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Sasha Marsden was 16 years old when she was murdered, raped and then set on fire by David Minto. Sasha’s sister, Katie—who is my constituent and who joins us today—is campaigning for victims’ families to have fairer access to sentencing appeals. Despite the need for closure in sentencing, perpetrators are given multiple appeal opportunities, while victims’ families have just one chance. What will the Government do to ensure that victims’ families do not have fewer rights than perpetrators in this process?

Whiplash Reform Programme: Post-Implementation Review and Call for Evidence

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I would like to inform the House that today we are launching a post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme.

The review will assess the measures introduced in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. This includes the statutory definition of a whiplash injury, the fixed tariff of damages for whiplash injuries where the duration of the injury, or injuries, does not exceed two years, and the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without medical evidence.

The review will also consider the supporting secondary legislative change to increase the small claims track limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. The impact and effectiveness of the industry owned and operated official injury claim service, introduced to help claimants affected by the reforms, will also be assessed.

To inform the review, we are launching a stakeholder call for evidence today to gather expert opinion, data and evidence on the impact and effectiveness of the whiplash reforms. This call for evidence will run for eight weeks and will close on 22 December 2025.

The responses to the call for evidence will provide vital insight into the effectiveness of the measures in achieving their intended aims. They will be considered alongside data provided by operational partners and other Government Departments to inform the final assessment of the reforms.

We plan to publish the post-implementation review of the WRP in spring 2026.

[HCWS1002]

Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing a debate on this very important subject. It gives me an opportunity to cover three of my favourite themes: consumer protection, access to justice and growth, especially as it is delivered by the very successful legal services sector in this country.

We are here to discuss the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding, which was published in June. As others have said, litigation funding refers to the mechanism by which litigation is privately funded in England and Wales. Third-party funding is where a party unconnected to a dispute, most often a financial institution, funds the cost of the legal action in return for a share of any damages awarded. As others have observed, this performs two functions: a social function and an economic function. Third-party funding is an essential tool in ensuring access to justice for many. It enables those who would not otherwise be able to afford to litigate—ordinary people, the small businesses referred to— to assert their rights before a court of law, against often far better resourced opponents, often large corporations and institutions.

Without third-party funding, as others have noted, the sub-postmasters would not have been able to bring their landmark civil claim against the Post Office. Those individuals without the financial means or legal clout to bring a claim themselves, were able to secure compensation for their losses as a result of third-party litigation funding. Such funding has also been used to support equal pay cases, environmental challenges, consumer claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches, and the other sorts of cases mentioned today.

As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) notes, this also makes a huge economic contribution. Along with the quality and calibre of our judiciary and legal services, third-party funding is an important factor in attracting international business to England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice. That is because third-party funding is also used in high-value commercial cases, where there is a significant financial imbalance or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings.

It is important for the House to recognise that third-party funding plays a critical role in supporting the attractiveness of our jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Legal services contributed £42 billion to the economy last year. I am happy to be their greatest champion, but it is fair to say that the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case has created a degree of uncertainty for funders and litigants alike.

As we have heard, the case concerned litigation funding agreements—LFAs. The Supreme Court held that third-party litigation funding agreements were damages-based agreements. The ruling rendered many such LFAs unenforceable, by bringing them into the scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements. As others have noted, that has created a degree of uncertainty. There is a concern and very real risk that funders are beginning to pivot away from London, England and Wales to look at other jurisdictions, such as New York, Paris and Singapore, more favourably. In short, that is not good for UK plc.

The PACCAR judgment and the report of the Civil Justice Council that followed present an opportunity for the sort of debate we are having. What would it look like to reverse PACCAR? Do we want to go back to exactly what the regime looked like before? Can we evolve an even better regime, which provides the right regulatory balance, ensuring access to justice, and that damages-based agreements work for client and funder alike? How do we develop that? For that reason, the Government have taken time to ask the CJC to conclude its work, and we are considering carefully how to achieve that balance.

Third-party funding is currently subject only to self-regulation via the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. I welcome and echo the invitation by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to those who are not currently subject to the code’s ethical and operational standards to seize the opportunity to bring themselves within what is currently a voluntary regime.

Despite litigation funding’s importance to effective access to justice, not all feel that current third-party funding arrangements always work in the client’s best interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) pointed out. Some have questioned funders’ role and level of control in legal proceedings. Those weaknesses in the pre-PACCAR regime are ones we recognise and want to take time to consider, so that we can ensure that third-party funding works for all.

In the light of the judgments and those concerns, the Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, has conducted a thorough and learned review. It looks at this issue and the wider ecosystem for third-party litigation funding and its regulation. The scope of the review was to set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party litigation funding, and to consider access to justice, effectiveness and a host of regulatory options. Specifically, the review considered whether the current arrangements for third-party funding deliver the effective access to justice that we all want to see. We are incredibly grateful for the report.

We are now taking the time, as I said, to consider the report and its recommendations very carefully. I am sure that hon. Members here today will appreciate that it is essential to take this detailed and considered approach to what is a technical area but one that is fundamental to the human aspects of access to justice. We must ensure that the right balance is struck to ensure fair and effective access to justice, while enabling economic growth, which is, as so many others have said, the primary mission of this Government. We are aware that many are eagerly awaiting the Government’s response, and I look forward to announcing our way forward in due course. The stakes are high: access to justice, consumer protection and economic growth. We have to get this right.

I will say one more thing in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon on retrospectivity. I think it is highly unlikely, given the general rule-of-law principle against retrospectivity, that we would look to have that, but as I said, we must get this right; we have to get the balance right. We want an improved regime that works for the funders and for their clients and consumers.

Question put and agreed to.

Lasting Power of Attorney

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for continuing to raise awareness on this extremely important subject.

While I cannot speak to the individual cases that my hon. Friend raises, I send my deepest sympathies to those individuals impacted by the behaviours and abuse he describes, which were directed at them by people who had been selected to protect them and trusted with lasting power of attorney. I recognise the personal and financial impact on those affected people, and the impacts that are more widely felt by families.

My hon. Friend drew attention to the risk of abusers misusing lasting powers of attorney, and he highlighted the Office of the Public Guardian’s important role in investigating such concerns when they arise. His strong, ongoing commitment to raising awareness of those issues is welcome. As many hon. Members will know, he tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject at the end of last year. That Bill has not yet reached Second Reading, but I know that he continues to engage across the mental capacity sector to raise awareness of it. As he noted, we met and discussed the Bill and his work in this space, and I welcome that engagement. I know that he has also engaged directly with the Office of the Public Guardian so that they can work together. Today’s debate is another demonstration of his dedication to the issue.

For context, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the legal framework for supporting individuals who may lack capacity to make specific decisions. It ensures that any decisions made on a donor’s behalf are in their best interests, and that their rights and autonomy are respected. A lasting power of attorney is a legal document that allows a person—the donor—to appoint one or more trusted persons to make decisions on their behalf if they lose mental capacity. In that sense, at its best, it is a source of empowerment for individuals.

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we need to set the very real issue of financial and economic abuse in context. The evidence demonstrates that the incidence of such abuse is thankfully relatively rare. At the end of 2024-25, the Office of the Public Guardian had 9.3 million lasting powers of attorney on its register. A total of 11,300 concerns were received by the Office of the Public Guardian during 2024-25. Some 96% of those concerns were responded to within five working days. Of those concerns, 3,800 cases led to a full investigation by the OPG, and 24% of completed investigations resulted in court action.

That does not for one second diminish the significance of the impact of abuse in individual cases, but it tells us that cases of abuse are rare in the context of a powerful and empowering tool for many. We want the LPA to be accessible, affordable and empowering. Indeed, I was advised by my officials that we should all take one out—obviously, through the proper processes and with the proper safeguards. It is important to set this discussion, which centres on the role that banks and financial institutions play, in the context of the existing regime and its safeguards.

LPAs must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before they can be used, and there are safeguards in place to protect against abuse. A lasting power of attorney must contain a certificate, signed by a person with relevant skill and expertise or by someone who has known the donor for at least two years. That person confirms that the donor understands the LPA, and that no fraud or undue pressure was applied in the making of it. That confirmation is an important protection against the coercion and abuse that we have been discussing. There is also an existing statutory right for attorneys and persons named in the LPA to object to its registration if they have concerns about how the LPA has been made. Once the LPA is registered, anyone—any third party—can raise an objection about how it is being used for the Office of the Public Guardian to consider. Those are the concerns that I spoke about, which in 3,800 cases last year led to an investigation and, in many cases, to court enforcement.

As I have said, the abuse of LPAs can have serious financial and personal consequences. The OPG plays an important role in identifying and responding to such cases. It investigates concerns raised about an attorney’s actions. It has powers to request information from individuals and organisations such as banks, care providers and medical professionals. It can ask attorneys to explain their decisions and to provide records. If the investigation reveals serious concerns, the Office of the Public Guardian can apply to the Court of Protection to suspend, restrict or remove an attorney.

The Court of Protection plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from the abuse or misuse of powers under a lasting power of attorney. It can order the revocation or suspension of LPAs or the removal or replacement of attorneys if it determines that the attorney is acting contrary to the donor’s best interest. If a donor has lost capacity when a lasting power of attorney is revoked and there is no other attorney to act, the Court of Protection can step in and appoint a deputy to manage the donor’s affairs. It can also issue orders to protect the donor, such as freezing bank accounts or prohibiting certain actions by attorneys. If an attorney’s behaviour raises concerns but does not breach the criminal law, the OPG can still order remedial actions.

The point I seek to make is that we have a regime that contains a sequence of safeguards designed to guard against the very abuse that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East raises. It is also important that we scrutinise and hold the Office of the Public Guardian to account. That is the job of the Ministry of Justice, so I take very seriously the cases that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly where there are suggestions that the Office of the Public Guardian has not been as proactive as it might have been. That ongoing performance review of the OPG is critical.

I want to look ahead to the future. I am not for one second seeking to minimise the severity of what my hon. Friend described, nor seeking to suggest that there is not room for improvement or that we cannot strengthen those safeguards, because that will be a critical part of modernising the lasting power of attorney. As others have mentioned, such powers are only going to become more critical in an ageing society with growing numbers of people losing mental capacity through conditions such as Alzheimer’s or dementia.

As a Government, however, we are committed to going further and modernising the service to increase the safeguards in the lasting power of attorney process and to improve access to them. The Powers of Attorney Act 2023 introduced several provisions to enable a modernised system. To combat fraud and abuse, the Act will facilitate the introduction of further identity checks for parties making an LPA. The Act also lays the groundwork for reforms to the objection process so that any third party—typically organisations already involved with vulnerable adults, such as local authorities or the police—can object to an LPA being registered. Those reforms, which are in train, are designed to make the LPA system more secure, providing greater protection for individuals appointing attorneys to manage their affairs.

I am conscious of time but I will say something quickly about banks. My hon. Friend will understand that the Treasury leads on the regulation of the banking sector and on safeguards for vulnerable consumers, including those with LPAs. I am not a Treasury Minister but I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which is the independent regulator, on vulnerable customers, including vulnerable donors of LPAs. In 2023, the FCA introduced the consumer duty. Banks, of course, are also subject to the financial abuse code, the Equality Act 2010—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

First, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thank him for his interest in the subject and for his question, to which my response is yes. I hope our work is useful—the Government have said it is—within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but, equally, many of the same points apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister is going to intervene on the two points we have heard from my colleagues or on the point from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure she has heard his point and will make sure that the work is shared. In any event, I undertake to ask my secretariat to ensure it is communicated.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I understand that am allowed to ask a question, so I will frame this as one. As the Minister with responsibility for the courts, I am tremendously grateful to the work of the Justice Committee. The report on the county court and the lens that the Committee has placed on our civil jurisdiction is incredibly welcome because, as the Committee says, the focus that the Department places on criminal justice cannot be allowed to divert from the important reform programme that we need in the county court, for all the reasons the Committee has stated.

With the helpful lens that the report places on the county court and the recommendations that the Government have taken on board in mind, and although I would be first to acknowledge that we have a long journey to travel, does my hon. Friend agree that the latest civil justice statistics—on delays in small claims coming down; on delays in fast, intermediate and multi-track coming down by almost seven weeks; on the greater use of mediation in small claims; and on a new electronic document-processing mechanism, moving away from the frustrating paper-based process—are all steps in the right direction that take on board the thrust of his report? Does he agree that that represents some progress towards where we need to get to?

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, as I have already put on the record. Without making this too cosy, it gives me confidence that my hon. and learned Friend, as the Courts Minister, is seized of this issue and understands its seriousness. That came across in the evidence she gave to the Committee, and she has the background and skills to ensure that change happens. That gives us a lot of confidence.

On my hon. and learned Friend’s specific point, yes, I concede that there are some early indicators of improvements. We would like to see that continue over the years to come. We are very conscious of and aware that—this is obviously no fault of this Minister or this Government—there has been a very long process of decline, which means the climb out will be quite slow. We want steady progress along the way. As the Minister says, the report identifies many problems, but the digitalisation one is crucial. I hope we can soon see the new programme for that, because that is how the courts will become efficient, usable and customer friendly. I know it was tried in good faith under the reform programme, but we have to be honest and say that that has largely failed. The ball is now in the Minister’s court to try to succeed.

Sentencing Bill

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Shocking!

[Esther McVey]

“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.

As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.

In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that

“Criminal justice is in crisis.”

Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.

The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.

I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will conclude my point, then give way.

Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—

“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.

[Dr Mullan]

Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.

Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.

The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.

A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.

I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.

The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.

[Sarah Sackman]

I certainly will, Mr Efford.

Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.

Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.

We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.

The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.

[Tessa Munt]

I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I am happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that.

In short, this Government believe that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis in our courts. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and we will do what it takes, but we also know that we need to get it right. That is why we are taking the time to carefully consider Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and why I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members across the House, as we consider necessary reforms to save our justice system.