Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Caroline Voaden]

Q Do you not have any concerns about the quality of the service if you are widening the pool to people with other qualifications?

Sarah Hammond: There is a balance between ensuring that we widen the service and not letting professional standards drop. We have a very comprehensive induction and training programme for Crown prosecutors. They have a 12-week induction programme when they join us. For those who join us who perhaps do not have experience of criminal law or have stepped out of criminal law for a while, there is also a separate course that serves as a refresher into the basic principles of criminal law. I am happy that there are some safeguards and training in there to ensure that prosecutors are of the standard we require.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have two questions. The first relates to queries raised around the associate standard, for which you are looking to recruit. Are there any minimum standards that you would look for in any candidate for the new associate roles, and what is the current vacancy rate at the CPS that we need to fill through this? The second question concerns private prosecutions. Do you think there will be any potential impact on the CPS in terms of an increase in the use of private provision and prosecutions?

Sarah Hammond: If I may, I will take the first question in two parts. I do not have that figure on the current recruitment rate with me today, but we can write in and let you have it. On minimum standards, we would have an interview process for people to become Crown prosecutors. There would be minimum standards for people to pass that interview stage, and we would not lower them just because we are broadening the pool of Crown prosecutors. It is important that professional standards do not slip.

I am not aware of any reason why private prosecutions would increase as a result of the particular recruitment issues, but if that is problem, obviously we will look into it, and work with our colleagues on that as well.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q A quick question: would you support the publication of sentencing remarks to support transparency, and to enable victims to reflect on what was said in court?

Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q My first question on the commissioner’s powers has already been asked. My second question is on magistrate powers in the Bill. Obviously, six provisions have been included, and you mentioned last year that court backlogs are a real issue. Are there any other powers, within the magistrates’ powers that have been granted, that you would seek to include that would reduce the timeframes and also ensure victims’ redress?

Baroness Newlove: We are going to wait for Sir Brian Leveson’s report, because it does not matter what I say. It matters what Sir Brian comes up with. However, as my background is working with magistrates and Crown courts, I am looking at district judges, or DJs—who used to be called stipendiary magistrates. I want to see more of them, because I can assure you that if you have a stipendiary magistrate—and there are only two laypersons, by the way, and this is one—the professionals have to get their act together. It depends on what Sir Brian Leveson is looking at, and—

[The Chair]

Order. I am very sorry to interrupt, but we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Rebecca Bryant and Charlotte Hamilton-Kay gave evidence.

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Brewer]

Q What difference do you think the measures proposed in the Bill will make to victims and survivors, and what might the gaps be?

Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome.

Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim.

Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap.

I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve.

Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors.

The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning.

There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them.

We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice.

The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q I have a few questions. First, on unduly lenient sentencing, is there currently an issue primarily with education of this scheme? Is there a broad awareness among victims that the scheme currently exists? Or does more time needed to be added on? If it is an education issue, that is fundamentally different from saying, “Add on a few more weeks and it might solve the problem.” Fundamentally, is this an education issue?

The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?

My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.

Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists.

I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors.

There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.

Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver.

Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.

We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency.

I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill.

Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen.

I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.

On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Q Are you confident that you have the resources and capacity to give the officers involved in the victim contact scheme the training they require in domestic abuse, abuse and traumatic sexual violence and their particular effects on the victims they will deal with through this helpline?

Chris Jennings: Yes. We are very used to dealing with the impacts of all those sorts of crimes in our world. It is the bread and butter of what we do. We will need to make sure that we give people the appropriate skills and training and do not throw them in at the deep end, but we are well used to doing that and we have the skills to do it. I have no reason not to be confident that we can make that work.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: We are also building on a service that is delivering good outcomes currently. In 2024, so very recently, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, which provides our external scrutiny, found our statutory victim work to be outstanding for three of our regional inspections. We also had an inspection in 2023 of general victim services that found the services to be good. We are building on a good level of service delivery currently and victim liaison officers who are doing a good job. We are very concerned to ensure that their training remains relevant and pertinent to the specific issues that the victims who use our service are often involved in. There is dedicated training for domestic abuse.

We are also concerned, as the service, and particularly the helpline, expands and extends, to ensure that those who deliver the helpline will be involved in the most appropriate training, including domestic abuse and a trauma-informed approach. We will build in those training requirements at every juncture and for every member of staff involved in the scheme.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q I have two questions. First, is it correct to say that your officers in court settings are not trained to gag prisoners or to engage in restraint of prisoners to present them before the court? Would it require wholesale retraining of officers in the system to engage in that change of behaviour?

My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim?

Chris Jennings: Maybe I should pick up the first question. Depending on how a perpetrator appears before the court—whether they are beaming in from prison via video link or attending in person at court—there are different responsibilities in terms of who undertakes the potential restraint of the prisoner. If we deliver somebody to court, court officers take custody of that person and look after them in the dock. I am less able to speak about the skills of the court staff, because it was many years ago that I worked in the court service and I do not feel up to date.

If you are in prison and beaming in via video link, I guess—to an earlier question—it would be possible to train prison officers who are already skilled in some forms of control and restraint in a different way. My instinct would be, although I am not perfectly qualified, that for court staff that would be quite a leap.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: On your second question about a switch from exclusion zones to restriction zones, we are currently working through the finer detail of that policy change and its impact and implications. We will take stock and determine what policy change is required to enable staff to make the change, what practice and operational guidance and instructions will be required, and what training element will be required, should that be necessary. We will be working through all those potential implications to this change. Our staff are very well versed in exclusion zones and understanding those. I am confident that they will be able to understand the change in emphasis and what some of the implications are, and will be able to bring the necessary degree of professionalism, integrity and foresight to those arrangements.

Chris Jennings: Our relationship with the police will be key, too. We work closely in partnership with them on these sorts of things. That will be required during this change, too, to maintain those close operational relationships on the frontline.

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

Q I have already declared my interests but, for the purpose of the panel, I am a member of the Prison Officers’ Association and a former officer at rank of SO, and I am trained in all the relevant uses of force.

I want to come back to the point about compelling attendance at sentencing hearings. The Government’s Bill states that a relevant officer may,

“for the purpose of delivering the offender to the courtroom, use reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate.”

That is in relation to the existing use of force policy framework and the relevant Prison Service orders that apply to it. Do you agree that, when you look at the use of force framework, the words “necessary”, “proportionate” and “reasonable” relate to the whole spectrum of use of force, from the very lowest level, such as a guiding hold, right to the top level, and therefore the word “restraint” in the amendment tabled by the official Opposition does not detail what existing restraint would be used that is not already covered in the current policy framework?

My second question is this. I have never heard or seen gagging in any Prison Service policy, so from your operational experience, what implement would you suggest would be used for gagging and how would it be applied?

Chris Jennings: In reverse order, that is well beyond my area of expertise, because, as you rightly identify, that is not something that is in use in the service at the moment. Perhaps, in some unfortunate hostage situations, other prisoners may deploy such techniques, but not our staff, so I am not qualified to offer a perspective on what sort of equipment may or may not be appropriate.

On your first question, again, I am not an expert on use of force—I have not done the jobs you have done to get to the role I am in now—but I think that the description you gave of the policy is accurate. That way that you described it is what it means at every level; that would be my interpretation.

Independent Sentencing Review

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Tristan Osborne for the last question on this statement.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Leaving the best until last, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As a former police officer, I can say that community payback works. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me and many of my colleagues in the criminal justice system that rehabilitation of offenders, including filling potholes and clearing fly tipping, is popular, not only in Chatham and Aylesford but in Newark and across the country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am determined that we toughen community punishment and make sure that unpaid work truly pays back to the communities that have been harmed by crime. That is why I work with businesses and local authorities, so we can all have a system that drives down reoffending—a system where reparations are made to the communities that have been harmed by crime, whether they are in Newark, Birmingham Ladywood or indeed anywhere else.

Victims and Courts Bill

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the families of victims across this country who are here listening to us today, and the victims who are seeking justice through this Bill? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her strong articulation of concerns about rape and domestic abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her very strong speech. There have been some extremely passionate speeches today, with constituents’ views at their heart.

As a former police officer, I have seen the criminal justice system from both sides, and I can tell the House that it has fallen short in recent years—not just in prosecuting crime, but in supporting those who are most harmed by it. We have heard similar testimony today. This Bill is an important and necessary step towards restoring the principle that justice is not just about punishing offenders, important though that is. It is also about standing up for the most important part: victims. As I have said in Westminster Hall debates, justice delayed is justice denied. Given the previous Government’s record with regard to policing cuts, soaring court waiting times, the mismanagement of probation services and our prisons being left full, I am afraid the inheritance is dire, but this Government are trying to correct those mistakes. I will cover just three points, because I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak.

On victims’ rights, it is absolutely correct that we should have reasonable ways of getting a perpetrator into a courtroom, but the Bill needs to go further; I would support audiovisual recording of such things. We do that for the Supreme Court, where people are able to see sentencing. With victims’ consent, justice for high-profile cases should be in the public domain. I urge the Government to go further by allowing the rest of society to see justice being served, as I think we are now reaching that point in our technological development.

I welcome the fact that the Bill grants victims a statutory right—not just a courtesy—to be kept informed and to have their voices heard during critical stages of the process. I also support granting enhanced powers to the Victims’ Commissioner. As someone who worked as a police officer, I know that antisocial behaviour, from nuisance biking to graffiti and persistent noise, is a major problem in many communities across the country. The Victims’ Commissioner will have the power to stand up to local councils and other bodies of authority on behalf of people who have less of a voice in society. I welcome that measure, because I believe that victims of antisocial behaviour should be treated the same as any other victim of crime.

I welcome the time limits for sentencing reviews, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned. He will be aware that the Bill extends those limits; if a review is received in the last 14 days of the existing 28-day period, there will be an additional 14 days to act. Could the Bill go further? Of course it could, but this is a welcome step none the less.

Lastly, I will discuss the court backlogs and the impacts on communities, which I have raised in Westminster Hall debates. I welcome the powers in the Bill to improve sentencing powers for six offences, including unlawful subletting, breaches of restraining orders and violation of criminal behaviour orders. We need to get the magistrates to step in and work with that.

In short, there is a lot in this Bill that we should support. I encourage colleagues to vote for it today.

Court Waiting Times: Kent

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered court waiting times in Kent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank everyone present for attending. I appreciate that it is the end of the term, so it will be a pleasure to witness the popular and lively debate that we are going to have over the forthcoming hour, I hope, but we will see.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to open today’s important debate about court waiting times in Kent and, more broadly, across the entire country. This issue has become more pressing in recent years and is symptomatic of deeper structural challenges across the entire justice system of England and Wales. The issue is not just about numbers or administrative delays, but about real people whose lives are being upended because the justice system is struggling to deliver in a timely manner.

I hope that today’s debate will allow us to scrutinise these issues and, more importantly, to come together to find practical and meaningful solutions to the crisis that we are facing, because at its core the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied” remains as relevant today as when it was coined. That truism has never been more evident than in the context of the growing delays in trials and hearings. For victims, defendants, witnesses and everyone involved, long waits for justice can be an agonising experience. The delays are not just frustrating; they have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives, for their mental health and for the reputation of the justice system itself. When delays are allowed to go unchecked, the system loses its legitimacy and people begin to lose confidence in its ability to deliver justice at all.

This is a national issue affecting courts across the entire country, but Kent has been particularly impacted by the delays, especially certain parts of the county. Some courts are experiencing far more severe backlogs than others. For example, according to open-source information, Maidstone Crown court currently has 2,367 outstanding cases, compared with Canterbury, which has 894 outstanding cases. Those figures are interesting, and I will go on to talk more about them. Additionally, the latest figures from the Kent police and crime commissioner, covering the period from July to September last year, show a 269% increase in court backlogs compared with 2019. This leaves a total of 3,261 Crown court cases waiting to be heard in Kent as of September of last year.

The stark disparity in waiting times between courts is deeply concerning, as it undermines the principle of equal access to justice for all. It is a problem that demands urgent attention, as it reflects a growing imbalance in how the justice system is applied. I know it is popular in this place to talk about “two-tier justice”, to coin a phrase, but it appears that under the Governments from 2019 to 2024, many victims and alleged perpetrators, and their families, have had no-tier justice—they have been left in an ever-extended limbo.

The constant pressure to move the system forward means a record-high Crown court backlog across England and Wales, now exceeding 73,000 outstanding cases. That represents a 10% rise between September 2023 and September 2024 and a near-doubling of the backlog versus 2019. It is essential to note that these figures are not just abstract numbers. They represent real people—victims and defendants who have been waiting months and, in some cases, years for their cases to be heard. The cases vary in nature. Some are extremely distressing; they include rape and other sexual offences. For those people, the growing backlog is not just a statistic but a source of extreme anxiety, frustration and uncertainty. For the police, it means an ever-increasing cost to them and the risk of losing cases because of the time that it has taken for them to get to court.

The backlog has a profound impact not just on individuals but on the entire criminal justice system and confidence in it. Courts that are overloaded struggle to maintain their pace. They are increasingly relying on stretched resources and often working in difficult conditions. For those working in the system, deeply honourable individuals—judges, barristers, solicitors and clerks—who have given over their life, in some cases, to supporting the criminal justice system, there is a constant pressure to clear cases more quickly, which has created an ongoing mental health crisis among staff and concerns about the fairness of the justice process in meeting those timelines.

The problem is not only the sheer volume of cases but their complexity. I know that the Government are doing some work around sentencing to look at how we can streamline these processes, but the complexity of cases involving serious violence and domestic abuse requires significant time and attention.

How do we resolve these issues? I have met a number of professionals, including police officers who have been working at the frontline and professionals in the Crown court system itself, whom I have met independently of the process. I have also met people from advocacy organisations and groups, who have suggested a number of recommendations. Some are structural and will involve cost, but there are others that I have been working on with them. One of those is the question of how we can move cases around the system as it stands. As I understand it, the current system does not allow transfers easily between court jurisdictions within geographies, so my first question for the Minister is, can we look at a more centralised approach to case distribution, to move some of the cases from areas of high backlogs to areas of relatively low backlogs? For example, in Kent, we could move cases from Maidstone to Canterbury or other areas around the region, to reduce those times.

My second question for the Minister is about expanding digital and video recording equipment—capital investment —in some of these courts. We know that, with such investment in pieces of equipment, courts can streamline cases. Does the Department have an investment programme to investigate the cost-benefit of speeding up court cases as part of a revenue versus capital exercise? Has that been positioned to the Treasury?

Thirdly, there must be a review of sentencing. I welcome the Government’s current move to look at sentencing, in a process being led by David Gauke, among others. One issue that judges have raised to me is that a significant number of people are electing to go to Crown courts, creating additional pressures on those courts. What could we do in the sentencing process, and what steer has been given, to try to reduce the throughput into Crown courts? I fully accept the principle of justice in this country that individuals have the choice to go before a jury, but is there some way of reducing the throughput into Crown courts?

Fourthly, we know that there is a capital investment issue in some Crown courts, but I understand that family courts are operating out of some Crown court locations across the country. Other family courts are operating out of council buildings and other locations that do not need cell capacity. Has there been a conversation about the family courts moving out of Crown court locations, since they do not need the cell capacity, and freeing up that court space for Crown court and criminal cases? That is another capacity question.

Fifthly, on recruitment of judges, I understand there are significant pressures around locums and trying to get KCs to come into Crown courts to cover the backlog of cases. Is there a streamlined process that could be managed centrally, to advertise or promote that as a career aspiration, rather than an ad hoc process where people can be requested to come in on a regional basis? More central management and support is required from an HR perspective, including supporting criminal justice officers and clerks and the processing of cases in our Crown courts. In many cases, a lot of back office processing is required for the court’s management of individuals. I suggest that, if we invested more in that back office space, we could process cases more quickly.

Some of those solutions require some capital investment —I suspect the Minister will not be entirely happy with that, because it requires engaging with HM Treasury—but some do not. Instead, they require a change in the system’s approach to the judiciary. I absolutely understand that there will be pushback on some of these suggestions, since this has been a nominally independent system for many decades and almost centuries. However, when I have suggested many of these ideas to judges and other court professionals in the system, they have said that in some cases they are already operating with these models. There is already shared casework among some of the London Crown courts, for example, because they have ad hoc agreements. We could support existing conversations between senior professionals in the court system to ensure that we are reducing backlog.

Ultimately, all these ideas are part of a wider pattern to try to reduce backlogs in the Crown courts, which would ultimately serve all our communities: it would help the police with resource allocation around ongoing cases that have reached charging and are waiting to be presented at Crown court; it would help the victim, because the individual would get their day in the sun, and justice, much more quickly; and it would help the defendant, because an innocent person will be able to get their case heard in front of a court without having to wait, in some cases, for years, with all the tolls on mental health toll and on families that such a wait entails. It would also help to restore confidence in our criminal justice system, which is in crisis at the moment due not solely to cuts to Crown courts, but to a lack of policing, and lack of confidence in the back office, in probation and in other criminal justice approaches that we have taken.

I am not suggesting that my solutions will resolve all the problems with our criminal justice system, but this backlog is causing significant concern among residents in my part of north Kent. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank all for contributing this afternoon. I have nothing further to add, and wish everyone a relaxing break.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered court waiting times in Kent.