Courts and Tribunals Bill
Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Before we begin, I ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea, coffee, soft drinks and sandwiches are not allowed, although water is permitted. There are a couple of procedural things to do before we hear from our witnesses. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then consider a motion to enable the reporting and publication of written evidence to the Committee. There is also a motion to allow us to deliberate in private before the oral evidence session begins, to talk about how we are going to handle the session.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Copies of written evidence the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, which is very useful for the Opposition and for the Government, as I am sure you all know. I said to the Minister before we started that my view is that the Government’s job is to get legislation through and the Opposition’s job is to scrutinise it, and I will protect both in that pursuit. My job as Chairman is to help both sides to achieve those aims, and it is entirely possible to do so.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. If any Member has an interest that is relevant to their question or speech, they should declare it at the appropriate time.
Examination of Witness
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We will now hear oral evidence from Sir Brian Leveson. We must stick to the timings of the programme order that the Committee has agreed, so we have until 9.55 am for this panel. Will the witness please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister and MP for Bexhill and Battle. I want to take you back to the process of your appointment and ask whether, prior to your appointment, you had any discussions with Ministers or officials about your views on the right to elect and the use of jury trialsQ .
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to ask about the process of your review. Did you undertake any visits to Crown courts, and if so, which ones?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You mentioned that you visited Liverpool.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I do not want to assume what you may or may not know about Liverpool, but are you aware that Liverpool does not have a backlog in its courts?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Are there any lessons that could be drawn out for the rest of the country? You have given us some that you think cannot be.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to move on to the references in your report to the modelling. I have various quotes from part 1 of your report, to refresh your memory of what you said. In paragraph 11, on page 34, you say:
“I have no doubt that the MoJ will want and need to conduct more detailed modelling, including through impact assessments of any recommendations taken forward.”
It is a common theme throughout the report that you say, repeatedly, that you expect that the Ministry of Justice will want to undertake more detailed modelling than the modelling you undertook. Are you aware of what, if any, more detailed modelling the MOJ did undertake?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I will take you through some further questions.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
On the right to elect, your report—we are not talking about further work that you are not responsible for—says:
“It has been assumed that disposals per day in the magistrates’ court are in line with the current average.”
So if we change the system, disposals will remain at the current rate. If we are trying more complex, more serious cases, is it reasonable to assume that the disposal time will be the same as for those currently seen for less serious cases?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
If they are being given sentences of potentially up three years versus, for example, six months, you do not think that will have any impact on the time, complexity or seriousness of the cases?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am being pressed for time, so I have just one final question.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
The most specific element of modelling that the MOJ undertook was something called a structured elicitation workshop, which found that the time saved would be between 10% and 30%. At the lower the end, that is half of the 20% estimate that you put forward. Would you accept that?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Okay, so it would be fair to say that your report points to the need to do further modelling, the MOJ has undertaken that modelling, and you reject the modelling that your report says the MOJ needs to undertake to better understand the impact.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Sorry, but to correct the record: those people were not opposed. There was an MOJ-orchestrated workshop of neutral parties and judges, and they said it would be 10% to 30%. That is massively different to your estimate.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Yes. A whole series of stakeholders were invited by the MOJ and they potentially strongly disagree with your central conclusion of 20%. I have no further questions.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q Sir Brian, I would be grateful if you would elaborate for the Committee on the point you made about cultural change. Your view, expressed in the report, is that you think that a judge-only or Crown court bench division would save 20% at least—at a conservative estimate. You refer to a cultural change; can you elaborate and explain what you mean by that?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q You made the point across both parts of your comprehensive review that what is needed to address the crisis in the system is a holistic package of reforms, rather than a pick and mix of reforms. Do you believe that we can turn the tide on the backlog without structural reform?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q The Government are seeking to take forward your proposal, in the independent review of the criminal courts, on the introduction of a permission test for appeals from the magistrates courts, rather than what is currently the case, which is an automatic right of appeal. What was the rationale behind your recommendation? Why do you see it as both a proportionate and a fair response to the current need for reform?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Hello, Sir Brian. My name is Jess Brown-Fuller. I am the MP for Chichester and the justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I will rattle through a couple of questions so that other Members get a chance to ask theirs. As part of your review, did you look at the concept of rape and serious sexual offences courts? If you did, why did they not form a basis of your recommendationsQ ?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Do you believe that the two parts of the review were commissioned in the right order?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
I want to get three more people in, so pithy questions and pithy answers, please.
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
I serve on the Justice Committee and am a former Crown prosecutor, so I have an interest in the Crown prosecutions aspect of this.Q
On 17 March, we heard evidence on the Justice Committee from Tom Guest, the director of policy at the Crown Prosecution Service. He talked about the CPS being supportive of the structural reform that is proposed in the Bill. He said that we were “at a critical juncture” and that this is
“a generational opportunity for end-to-end reform. Our view is that we have gone far beyond the point where piecemeal or non-legislative solutions will suffice. They are definitely part of the solution, but they will not solve the problem. The status quo is failing victims, witnesses and defendants.”
Do you recognise that sentiment, and do you have any comments in relation to the view of the Crown Prosecution Service and its role to play in this structural reform?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Neither the question nor the answer were pithy enough.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Why was it possible to get through two trials a day in the ’70s, but it is not nowQ ?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
But jury trials are not the principal reason.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions during this panel. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence, Sir Brian. We would have liked to have longer with you, but we have many witnesses to question. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for coming and for giving evidence.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
There we go: that is a very generous offer. For hon. Members who signalled that they wanted to ask questions, my apologies, but from what Sir Brian just said, he will make himself available to meet you at will.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Thank you very much, Sir Brian.
Examination of Witnesses
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We will now hear oral evidence from Claire Waxman, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera Baird. It is good to see you and to have you back here, Vera, albeit in a different guise.
I will follow the same procedure as I did in the previous panel, but I want to get more Committee members in, as I know that Members on both sides of the Committee missed out. I ask Dr Mullan and the Minister to try to keep the Front-Bench questions tighter, so that we can get more participation from all parts of the Committee.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I think the witnesses were in the Public Gallery for the introductions, so I will skip straight to my questions. Claire, you have expressed your support of the structural reforms, including the reduction in access to jury trials. Could you take me through your policy formulation process when making such a decision to support a particular policy point?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q So you feel you are reflecting what victims want.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Are you familiar with the letter to the Deputy Prime Minister from a coalition of more than a dozen violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, London Black Women’s Project, the Centre For Women’s Justice and Welsh Women’s Aid, who oppose the changes to jury trials?Q
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q My next, very simple question is: do you accept that there is a diversity of opinion among those representing victims about whether it is the right step to take?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Welsh Women’s Aid?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Sorry—we have to be really tight—you think Welsh Women’s Aid does not necessarily speak for victims?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Sorry, we have to be really tight with the questions. Do you think, if I were to ask Welsh Women’s Aid, they would say, “We support the changes to jury trials”?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Kieran, can we just ask a question and get the answer?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You have made that point.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Sorry, but you have made that point. I am asking you a very specific question. Do you think Welsh Women’s Aid supports the change to jury trials?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
They do not—thank you. That is fine. I have finished.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q My first question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. There are measures in the Bill that address the admissibility of evidence in RASSO cases. How will those measures ameliorate the position for victims of those sorts of crimes?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q Claire Waxman, you have been asked repeatedly about this letter. We have a witness from Women’s Aid coming later who will no doubt talk to the same issue, but you were not given a chance to elaborate on the distinction between the sorts of groups that signed that letter and the sorts of victims you speak to regularly, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to do so.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Thank you.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you to the panel for coming. Sorry to use your words, Claire, but I am going to quote from the letter that you sent to the Prime Minister. You said that victims
“also stress important safeguards: tackling the lack of diversity on the bench, and ensuring judges are robustly trained in the dynamics of abuse and trauma.”
You know that over many years many different parliamentarians have tried to legislate to ensure that everyone in the judiciary has mandatory training on those important safeguards. You also know that we are always told that, because the judiciary is independent, we cannot legislate to mandate that training. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure the important safeguards that victims have reflected to you?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you. How do the victims that you speak to and represent feel about the fact that these legislative reforms will not necessarily move the dial until potentially 2035, when we could see the backlog down to pre-covid levels?
Matt Bishop (Labour, Forest of Dean)
Good morning, all. I welcome your work and the support that you offer victims—all of you, in what you have been doing. I am sure there is cross-party support for that in the room this morning. Do you think the changes in the Bill will improve the confidence of victims that, when they report crimes, they will receive justice more swiftly than they currently do and, more importantly, that the changes will also encourage more brave victims to come forward and report crimes?
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
Thank you for your time, Claire. If I am interpreting your answer correctly, your basis for supporting the removal of jury trials is that it will save time and allow victims to get justice quicker. Would your position change if that is not the case and those time savings do not come throughQ ?
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
Q Your letter says that this will result in quicker justice for victims, and that is why you support it. My question is: if that is not the case, would you not support it?
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
Q That suggests to me that if it did not save time, you would not support the proposal.
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
That is what we will be analysing over the next few weeks—whether it will or not.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We will limit ourselves to one question each at this stage so that everyone can get in. If there is more time, I will call people again.
Paulette Hamilton (Labour, Birmingham Erdington)
Good morning, all. I want to ask a quick question to the former Victims’ Commissioner. Vera, based on your many years of experience as Victims’ Commissioner and working alongside the justice system, do you think structural reform is needed at this stage?Q
Paulette Hamilton (Labour, Birmingham Erdington)
Thank you. You have explained that perfectly.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Victims say that they want to see greater diversity in the criminal justice system, and I agree with them. Which group of people is more diverse: juries, the British public or judges?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q So do the changes in the Bill reduce diversity in the criminal justice system?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q But we do agree that people with more diverse backgrounds elect jury trials and that option is being removed for them.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
I am asking the questions.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Joe, I think three punts is enough. We have to move on.
Amanda Hack (Labour, North West Leicestershire)
To put the focus back on victims, Dame Vera explained clearly that it is the defendant who chooses. What would be the victim’s choiceQ ?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Kieran has asked me to come back in, but please keep it tight.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to pick up on this discussion of the letter, which I think you characterised as coming from the perspective of women and girls as defendants in the system, not victims. I want to read you part of the letter:
“The Government’s proposed reforms will likely create significant operational disruption and practical challenges that pull resources from more effective measures to reduce the backlog. This would prolong the uncertainty that leads many survivors to withdraw support for the prosecution of their abuser.”
Do you accept that the letter does, in fact, also talk about the impact on victims of the jury trial changes?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Sorry, I have just read you a direct quote about them as victims. Do you accept that it is in there?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q People will have heard the quote and they can make up their own minds.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I have read it, and I have just read you a quote. If you do not want to take a common quote at its face value, that is fine.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Order. We cannot have a row going on.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Dame Vera, you talked about Charlotte’s powerful testimony. Would you accept that Charlotte has said it is wrong to use the voice of victims to advocate purely for reforms, as though all victims agree with them, and that she is opposed to the reforms?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Oh dear!
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I think it is very unfortunate for you to refer to Charlotte as being “on her own” in that way. It is very disrespectful.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Order.
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
Thank you for the amazing work you do for victims—it is a shame that respect is not being afforded across this room today. Victims are at the centre of this, and we should try to remember that in the debate.Q
To bring it back to victims—you referred to this, Claire—the Bill makes changes to the bad character evidence. Can you go into a bit more detail on what that is like from a victim’s perspective to have to go through a line of questioning about bad character evidence? Why is it so important that we are changing it?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We are going to move on, because there are a lot of questions to get in.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
I have a question of clarification for any member of the panel who wants to answer. In the letter received from the wider VAWG sector, the offences they are concerned that victims of coercive control or abuse might be charged with after striking back are triable either-way offences and therefore affected by this Bill, but rape and sexual assault, as far as I understand it, are indictable-only and will remain so. The impact on those more serious cases that have been discussed will therefore be due to the impact on the time to trial and on the efficiency of the courts, which we know will be uncertain and somewhat delayed. Is that your understanding? In some of the evidence we have heard, it sounded like the assumption is that rape trials will become judge-only, but that is not what this Bill is about.Q
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
But the victims’ groups who have written in because they are concerned about the criminalisation of women are talking about triable either-way offences, which are directly affected by this Bill. Are their concerns there valid?Q
John Slinger (Labour, Rugby)
Professor Hohl, do you think the Bill will lead to a fairer system, particularly for women?Q
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q May I ask for a clarification? Is Charlotte on her own in her views? Is she the only person who holds the views she has expressed?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
indicated dissent.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q In the previous panel, Sir Brian asked how we could model something that had never been trialled. As a panel, would you support a pilot of what the Government are suggesting, so we can take the qualitative data and see whether it makes a fundamental difference, or we should go now and not, for example, put a sunset clause in?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Can you respond briefly, please? I want to get Paulette in.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Very good.
Paulette Hamilton (Labour, Birmingham Erdington)
Q Thank you for allowing me back in, Chair. My question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. Let me start by saying that justice delayed is absolutely justice denied. As has been talked about, there is a lot of distrust in the system. With your vast experience in criminology and criminal justice, could you give us two clear reasons why these reforms are so needed?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We need two clear reasons in less than a minute, so fire away.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Wonderful. That was remarkably brief and most welcome. Thank you so much for your participation. We have greatly benefited from your presence, so thank you for answering all our questions. We are very pleased to let you go and move on.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
We will now hear oral evidence from Women’s Aid, Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, Charlotte Meijer and Morwenna Loughman. Once again, we must stick to the timings of the programme order. The Committee has agreed that this session will end at 11.25 am. I will ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly; I did not do so with the last panel for reasons of speed.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Impressively brief. If we can have those kind of pithy answers—and pithy questions, by the way—we can get through our questions and cover as much ground as possible.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q First, I am very grateful for you coming today to give evidence. We often debate things and hear from third parties but nothing is more important than hearing from people, such as yourselves, who have direct experience, even if we do not necessarily agree with the policy outcomes that might flow from that. Because it is so important, can you open with the experiences that you think are most important to get across to the Committee? Then we are clear that everybody has had an opportunity to make the points that are important to them. Farah, I know that you are representing an organisation, but perhaps you could start.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Jade, do you want to come in?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Thank you very much. Morwenna?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am really sorry for the experiences that you have had, and certainly for any role that we played in government in not better addressing these delays and the challenges that you faced. The consequences of that are really powerfully illustrated by the things that you have talked about, so thank you for sharing that. I really hear all the evidence that you have given.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q Let me echo the shadow Minister’s thanks to you for being here. I appreciate that you have spoken in Parliament on other occasions, but I do not underestimate what it takes to repeat those stories again and again so that people like us can be educated on what that first-hand experience feels like.
Charlotte, I wanted to pick up on something that you said. You talked about transparency and about the benefit that the recording of proceedings in the magistrates court would have. We are committed, as part of these reforms, to recording all proceedings in the magistrates court. Can you describe and explain what difference you think that might have made in cases like yours?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q I have one more question. It picks up on something that you said, Charlotte, but I am happy for others to comment if they have a view.
As you have heard from previous witnesses, the primary thrust behind the Government’s measures in the Bill is to address the unacceptable delays that you have all described. However, we also have a responsibility to build back a better system. One choice that the Government made was to remove the right to elect, so that it is the court that allocates cases to the appropriate venue. We think that that makes things quicker and more efficient, but there is also a normative idea behind it that it is the court that should triage cases; you mentioned that in your remarks, Charlotte. What is your view on that reform? From a victim’s perspective, do you see sense in it, or not?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you all for being here; I am very grateful to you for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Farah, you mentioned the presumption against parental responsibility. I agree that that is a really important step that the Labour Government are taking, but the rest of the family court process is currently out of this Bill’s scope. Could anything fundamental be introduced into this Bill to make the experience better for victims, who often go down a twin-track approach through the criminal courts and family courts?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
Thank you for your testimony so far and for your bravery. Morwenna, you mentioned that you waited two and a half years before your court date. My apologies for going into the detail, but can you go through the stresses and strains of that wait and its impacts on your life and possibly on other victims as well?Q
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
Q I thank you all for being here. I know that this must be incredibly difficult. You are incredibly brave, and it is wonderful to see you channelling something that was so negative for you in a positive way, so thank you for that.
We have focused a lot on jury trials, but there is a real opportunity here to think about what we need to deliver improvements in our judicial system, because the thing we all agree on here is that it is not working as it should. We might disagree on the best way to address that, but we do agree on the fact that change is needed in some form. What would you like to see in this Bill that is not there? What is needed to address some of the issues? Any of you who want to answer, please feel free to take the question.
Matt Bishop (Labour, Forest of Dean)
Q At the risk of sounding like a broken record, thank you to the panel for coming in. It is very brave of you to come and relive your stories and experiences. Following on from the previous two questions, maybe this is one for Jade, Charlotte and Morwenna: given the delays and uncertainty in the court process and how that affected your recovery, how do you think the changes in the Bill will better protect victims and survivors in future from the impact that you have experienced?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Jess, I cut you off earlier—forgive me.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q I appreciate that—thank you. It was a question for you, Charlotte, about the shock that you experienced when you tried to request the sentencing remarks. Is that correct? You were quoted £20,000 and you found that people trying to get their court transcripts generally were being quoted incredibly high prices. As you mentioned, the Government have moved on that, so sentencing remarks will be available from spring next year. We are continuing to try to push that further: we do not think that sentencing remarks often tell the entire story.
There is an amendment that is going to the House of Commons today that is specifically about bail decisions and the route to verdict that juries are presented with before they go away to deliberate. Do you agree that sentencing remarks are only part of the journey that we need to be on, and that we need to be quite ambitious in ensuring victims have all the evidence in their own case, so they can start to move on and process?
Amanda Hack (Labour, North West Leicestershire)
Q Thank you for sharing your experiences. It has been incredibly powerful. Jade Blue, you said that change is not optional—we need to reduce the suffering. That has resonated with me. We need to create a system that is bearable. As victims—and you have obviously experienced trials at different places in the system—do you feel that these reforms would have made the system bearable? Is there anything specific in the reforms that you could point to?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Thank you very much for sharing these very powerful experiences to help all of us here make better decisions. I would like to direct my questions not to the criminal court changes, but the family court changes. I should say that I was a practising family law solicitor and represented mothers who wanted to stop abusive fathers from seeing their children, and my wife is still a practising family law solicitor, registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society.
I turn specifically to the removal of the presumption that a child should have involvement from both parents. What do you say to the overwhelming body of evidence that for most children—not all, but most—it is in their best interests to have some contact with both parents?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q But the law is really clear. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 says that
“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
That is already there. Section 1(3)(e) says that the court must have regard to harm that a child
“has suffered or is at risk of suffering”.
Those two provisions will instantly knock out any presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to have some involvement—that does not even mean contact—of both parents. I am just trying to understand why you think this change is needed, given that those provisions are already in the law.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q My point is that bar is already there. The Children Act starts with it—it is in section 1(1). I do not need to say this, but absolutely every death, particularly where the state has been involved and a court decision has been made, is a tragedy, but presumably you will agree that those tragedies will continue even with this change in the law if other things are not done within the family courts to deal with what are primarily safeguarding issues, rather than broad presumptions over children’s interests.
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
Q Thank you so much for being here today. I am really interested in the victim’s perspective on fairness, the treatment of victims within the current criminal justice system and the changes being made.
As a former Crown prosecutor, one aspect of the criminal justice system that concerned me was the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. As you all know, if somebody is convicted in the magistrates court, they have an automatic right to a retrial at the Crown court without having to give any reasons, regardless of whether there was a fair trial in the magistrates court or otherwise. If the victims and witnesses want to continue the process, they have to give evidence all over again through that appeal, otherwise the appeal is successful.
The Bill seeks to get rid of that automatic right and put the process more in line with the Crown court appeals process. There will have to be grounds to suggest that the original trial was unfair. As victims and survivors who have had access to the criminal justice system, what is your view on the current system of retrials and appeals from the magistrates court in terms of fairness to victims and the likelihood of victims attending to give evidence and being re-traumatised? I am also interested in whether the automatic right to appeal and have a retrial is used as coercive control in the current justice system. There is a lot to unpack there, I grant you.
Paulette Hamilton (Labour, Birmingham Erdington)
Q Thank you all, and can I add to everybody’s remarks about the powerful testimonies that are coming across today? Following on from Joe’s question, my question is for you, Farah. The Bill’s impact assessment states that repeal alone is unlikely to materially change the outcomes. As the chief exec of Women’s Aid, what further steps does Women’s Aid feel need to be taken to protect children from a parent?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
I know that Kieran and Jess wanted to come back in. Kieran Mullan first—briefly, please.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I want to ask about something called the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I will start with you, Morwenna, as a person who went through the Crown court process, because it is not applicable in the magistrates court at the moment. Were you aware of the unduly lenient sentence scheme when the sentencing was given?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I guess I am focusing on the perspective of victims and victims’ right to appeal. As I mentioned, with magistrates court cases you do not have a right to say that you thought the sentence was unduly lenient. I think that is because, when the scheme was set up, the maximum sentence was six months—perhaps there are questions about the ability and meaningfulness of that.
Obviously, an increased sentencing length means that someone could be sentenced for three years in a magistrates court, without a right to appeal that sentence. This question is to all three of you. Do you think it is important to ensure that, even if we increase sentence lengths in the magistrates court, victims have the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to appeal sentences that they think are unduly lenient?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Excellent. That is the best answer we have had—definitive and short. Great.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q My question is to Morwenna, although the rest of the panel might be able to feed in. Morwenna, you spoke about the impact of the adjournment of your case. I do not underestimate how re-traumatising that is: you build yourself up to the day when you think you will be in court, only to be told that that will not happen. I think you mentioned that that happened twice.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
You also spoke about the concept of floating cases. Were you told beforehand that your case had been listed as a floating case? The reason I ask is that the legislation does not address how many adjournments we have. There is no mechanism in the legislation—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—to address how often cases are adjourned. Listing officers will continue to list floating cases because they know that so many victims drop out of the process, or the CPS comes back and says that it does not have enough evidence to convict, and so on.
Did you have an ISVA supporting you through the process? Were you communicated with well enough? Did you know that your case could fall at that final hurdle? The most important thing is what victims such as yourselves would like to see from that process to understand that your cases could get adjourned, were they listed as floating cases.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
I will call the Minister and Alex, and try to squeeze them both in the time.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q Listing was just raised and, obviously, listing is not dealt with in the Bill; it is a judicial function. We have heard about some really good practices in Liverpool. Outside of this Bill, we are working with the judiciary on a national listing framework, which the judiciary will administer. I want to really quickly get the view of the panel, because you mentioned floating lists and how that was a problem in your case. I think we need to hear those views as the judiciary develops that national listing framework.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Alex, ask your question too, and then there will be a minute to answer it.
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
Q Thank you, Chair. I have had the privilege of listening to all of you speak before; thank you very much for being here. I think you were all here when Sir Brian Leveson was giving evidence earlier. He said that the only way to tackle delays was to do all three: reform, investment and modernisation.
As victim-survivors, how would you feel if the Government adopted the Opposition’s proposal, which is to only do two of those three things and leave one on the table that might speed up the delays in the criminal justice system? Do you think the Government would be going far enough if they left options on the table?
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Last word, witnesses—over to you.
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
That brings us to the end of our session. My task is a very pleasant one: to thank you. Thank you so much for coming. Your evidence has been invaluable to this Committee and really worth while. I will just add this. As Members of Parliament, we meet all kinds of constituents with the most life-changing challenges who face up to the most dreadful and awful things. Sometimes those people turn that to something positive, and that is what you have done. Thank you so much for coming today.
That brings us to the end of our morning session—
John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)
Hang on a minute! The Opposition are getting on the wrong side of me; that is very dangerous. That brings us to the end of our session. We will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in the Boothroyd Room.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Q69 Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. We will now hear oral evidence from the Bar Council of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Good afternoon to you both, and thank you very much for coming. Ms Karmy-Jones, I want to pick up your remark about having victims at the heart of your thinking. You will have heard evidence, either through the earlier hearings or in the public debates surrounding this issue, that some victims’ advocates are insisting that these reforms are necessary to support victims. Has that give you any pause for thought about the positions that you have taken? If not, why not?Q
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Do you think it is unfair to characterise people like you, who oppose those elements, as being in any way not concerned with victims—as being anti victims’ rights or experiences?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Do you want to add anything to that, Ms Brimelow?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Right. You mentioned the letter. It also refers to these reforms as a potential distraction from some of the hard work that you talk about. You may have heard that this morning the Victims’ Commissioner characterised that letter as being purely about the perspective of women and girls in relation to their being defendants. Do you think that is a fair and accurate characterisation of that letter?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q I am going to direct my questions to Ms Brimelow. I think we agree that the delays in our criminal justice system are a scandal and that something needs to be done about them, don’t we?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q And I think we agree that there have been multiple drivers of how we got here. One of those drivers was the real-term cuts to justice spending under the previous Government, including cuts to legal aid and court closures. That was one of the drivers, wasn’t it?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q So there was a cut in investment. There have been several things that we needed to do, some of which have been welcomed by both the Bar Council and the CBA—not least the uncapping of sitting days, which the Government have committed to.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q That is welcomed. It also includes the introduction of match funding for criminal Bar pupillages; the need for action on prisoner transport, which needs to happen and which you pointed to as an issue; and the need for improvement in our listing practices. We need to do all those things—that much is clear, and we agree with that. But you will have seen the conclusion of the independent review of criminal courts, which is supported by the Government’s conclusion that, of themselves, investment and efficiencies will not be enough to keep up with the demand coming into the system, let alone bring down the backlog. They simply will not, will they?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Yes.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q We will come on to that in a second. I have a chance to ask questions of the IFG a little later. You have not put forward any alternative reforms. You have said—in fact, to be fair, it was Ms Karmy-Jones who said it—that you reject the reforms contained in clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill in their entirety and that you would reject any constraint on jury trials.
Let us come back to the IFG because the IRCC’s modelling is clear that, without structural reform, we will not bring down the backlog. A key conclusion of the IFG is that the major constraint on productivity is the workforce challenge. We know that 4% of Crown court cases did not go ahead last year because of the lack of barristers. The Bar Council and the CBA have pointed that out, and we know that the number of publicly funded silks has dropped by a quarter in the last decade. That is right, is it not?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q So you would agree with me that we cannot get those numbers of criminal lawyers back up to where they were overnight, can we? It is going to take years to train enough barristers to address that aspect of the productivity challenge, is it not?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q I think there is consensus between us that we need to grow capacity in the criminal legal profession. I think where we are disagreeing is that we say that it is unrealistic that that will happen in the short term. It is going to take years to build the Bar back to what it was in 2016, from where it is currently. It is going to take investment, legal aid and match funding for pupillages, and it will take years.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q We both agree that we need investment. We agree that we need to do a major drive on efficiency and the Government are doing that. Sir Brian’s team concluded that both those things would not be enough to bring down the backlog. My question to the Bar is, “What do you know that Sir Brian’s team does not?”
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Thank you both very much for being here—we really appreciate your time. What effect could the Bill’s proposed changes to jury trials have on newly qualified legal professionals, who quite often cut their teeth on jury trials with lesser sentences? Also, at the other end of the profession, have you done any polling or modelling to see whether this could impact the number of legal professionals staying in the profession?Q
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you. The victims in the previous session spoke about a necessary change in culture in the criminal system, which I think is a shared view across all the parties represented today. Can either of you see anything in the legislation before us that will provide that change in culture?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We have a very limited amount of time, but please come in, Riel.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Thank you. We have two minutes and lots of Members who would like to speak.
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
I will ask a quick question for clarification before I ask my substantive question. Ms Karmy-Jones, thank you, but I am a simple employment solicitor, so apologies, but for full transparency, will you confirm something? According to the Institute for Government, barristers may be reluctant to replace Crown court cases with magistrates court cases because they pay less. Will you confirm to the Committee that your members would get less in fees for magistrate cases than in a Crown court caseQ ?
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
Just as a general ballpark figure—
Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)
Q I will come on to my substantive question then, because I have not got much time. You said that we should not remove the right to elect, as juries act as a safeguard against prejudice, but 90% of cases are already heard without a jury. I suggest that those cases have no safeguards against prejudice. Building on that, we know that a number of the more serious cases in the magistrates courts are dealt with by a district judge sitting alone. Is the position of the Criminal Bar Association that those should be replaced by full jury trials?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
If we have very quick questions and responses, I can perhaps squeeze in two more.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Riel, in my submission from the Criminal Bar Association, there is concern about risks to judges in public criticism. Q The example given is on sexual offences, but I want to ask about protest-related offences and more political crimes, where the victim is the state or a powerful actor. Would the risks to judges also apply in those cases?
Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)
Today, 58 out of 516 Crown court rooms are not sitting. Do you agree that it would be better to address that issue—and how would we address it?—rather than limiting jury trialsQ ?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. Sorry to stop you, but that brings us to the end of time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. Sorry it was so short.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Q We will now hear evidence from Claire Davies KC, Samantha Hillas KC and Caroline Goodwin KC. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Given your experience of seeing how proceedings flow in the courtroom on a day-to-day basis, I want to talk to you about modelling and the estimates of how much time will be saved. In relation to the proposed new Crown Court bench division, Sir Brian Leveson’s report says:
“Modelling assumes cases sent to the CCBD are 20% quicker to try than Crown Court cases with a jury and that the same proportion of cases ultimately plead guilty. However this… 20% assumption is highly uncertain”.
Do you agree that the central assumption is highly uncertain? What are your views about how will this operate in practice?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q The other thing that Sir Brian says—this is in relation to the Crown court bench division, but it is replicated across all his major recommendations—is:
“Should the MoJ consider pursuing this course of action, it may wish to consider undertaking further detailed analysis in order to understand the potential time-saving fully.”
Besides the stakeholder engagement exercise, are you aware of any of the “further detailed analysis” that Sir Brian said was necessary before coming to any conclusions about the time savings of the policies?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Thank you.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q It is good to see you all again. We have had a number of engagements over the past year, so it is good to be able to engage once again. You have heard a number of different witnesses from a number of different angles on the scandalous delays in our criminal courts. As circuit leaders, I expect you agree with me that something needs to be done to address it. I am looking at Claire, because I know the problems are especially acute in the south-east. I am right about that, aren’t I?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q No doubt you would also welcome the investment the Government are making in uncapping sitting days and thereby removing the financial limit on how much you and others can sit in the Crown court.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q You will have seen the conclusion of the independent review of criminal courts: that, notwithstanding maximum investment and efficiency measures that doubtless need to be taken, those two things alone are incapable of reducing the backlog. That is the evidence of the independent review.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q I understand that you do not agree, but I do not understand that any of the circuits have produced independent evidence of their own to suggest that that conclusion is wrong and that we can bring down the backlog without some form of reform. I understand you disagree with the reforms the Government are pursuing, but I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q One final point. I am happy for each and any one of you to come in. There is certainly no twisting of figures. These are figures produced by an independent review and Government modelling. But you are absolutely right: there needs to be maximalist investment, which is why we have uncapped sitting days. I entirely agree, and there are some excellent models from Liverpool and elsewhere, about blitz courts, and we are beginning blitz courts in London and the south-east as of April. But the conclusion of the Government’s modelling and the independent review is that those things alone, vital though they will be—we cannot do this without them—will not bring down the backlog. There is no other evidence that the backlog can be brought down without some form of reform, is there?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Thank you very much. The Minister wants to come in very quickly, and then I will bring in the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Just finally to Ms Davies, if I may, you said that efficiencies must be tried first. That argument has been aired very widely. Do you have any sense of how long those efficiencies would take to bring down the backlog? If we pursued all the efficiencies, which the Government are doing—I have mentioned some examples—and maintained uncapped sitting days, how long would it take to bring down the backlog?Q
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
It is in the impact assessment.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you all for being here today and providing evidence to the Committee. Can any of you outline the reasons why Crown court hearing time has dropped to an average of 3.2 hours per sitting day? Is that drop anything to do with jury trials?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you. At some point, I would love to talk you through my amendments, which suggest fundamental reforms but not by curtailing the right to a jury trial. This is probably quite a simple question, which will mean that we can move on, but do you believe that the Crown court backlog could be fixed without reforms to jury trials?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
My question concerns appeals. I am looking to see whether there is synergy here. Across your regions, 1% of cases that come from magistrates are appealed, so, accepting that the magistrates system is working, why do you not accept the principle of extending magistrates’ sentencing powers—as we have done in the past from six months to 12 months—from 12 months to three years?Q
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Are you familiar with the argument of the retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses, in Q The Guardian this week, that a third of the backlog could be cleared if we employed retired judges to undertake a winnowing exercise to clear the cases that will never come to court, and is he correct?
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
It is fair to say that the CPS’s breadth of experience across the criminal justice system is unparalleled, given that it takes cases through the system, from advising the police at charge through to the magistrates court, the Crown court and the appeals court. Is it right that it is in a good position to understand the system fully, from start to finish?Q
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
I am getting to my point; I am very conscious of time. It is fair to say that the CPS has a good overview of the system.
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
Q Thank you. Tom Guest, one of the directors at the CPS, recently gave evidence to the Justice Committee. He said:
“Our view is that we have gone far beyond the point where piecemeal or non-legislative solutions will suffice.”
He went on to say that the official view of the CPS is that the 20% time-saving projection regarding jury trials in the independent report is
“very much on the conservative side”.
Does the CPS not have a credible voice on those two points?
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
Q Indeed. I think part of the CPS’s role is to look at the impact of the court backlog on the system as a whole, and jury trials are a part of that. A big part of the work of the CPS is in the court back office, in relation to other aspects of juries that create time pressures on the system: preparation of jury bundles, dealing with jury queries when people have been summoned, juror expenses, and so on. Having fewer jury trials in itself will help with that back-office preparation and work, will it not?
Linsey Farnsworth (Labour, Amber Valley)
Having been a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, I find it very disturbing that you take that view.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
As a former family solicitor, I want to focus my questions on the proposal to remove the presumption that involvement by a parent in a child’s life is in the child’s best interest or good for the child’s welfare. Given that, in children’s proceedings, it is already the law that the child’s welfare shall be paramount, and given that, sometimes, children can be used as tokens between warring parents, I wonder, Samantha Hillas, whether you find it strange that we are going to hear evidence today only from parent groups, and not from groups representing children’s interests. Is that odd to you, as it is to me, given that we are dealing with changes to children’s proceedings, where a child’s welfare is paramountQ ?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Given that there is no one here representing children, as a children’s lawyer, can you help the Committee understand what a presumption of a parent’s involvement in a child’s life is, as compared with the overriding concern for a child’s welfare that must be uppermost in the court’s mind? Can you help the Committee understand what that means?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q My questions cannot be answered because there is no one here representing children’s groups, but that part of the Children Act 1989 is not about presumption of contact, is it? It is about presumption in favour of involvement in a child’s life.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
But the Government want to remove that.
John Slinger (Labour, Rugby)
Thank you for coming today. My question is for Claire Davies. The open caseload is 80,000 and is projected by some potentially to rise to 200,000. In your evidence so far, you have not been able to identify a timeframe for the measures that you would prefer to be the focus at the moment. Do you Q think that victims would view that with concern, given that we have all agreed that justice delayed is justice denied?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q What is your comment on the fact that the Government are asking us to support and understand the estimates of Sir Brian Leveson based on his experience, and to accept modelling that is uncertain, but when you and thousands of others sign a letter criticising them, using that same experience to justify your views, we are told, “That’s not credible. Surely, you need to listen to Sir Brian.”
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
You have 30 seconds to respond.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Matt, do you have a quick question?
Matt Bishop (Labour, Forest of Dean)
I will keep it quick. I think we all agree that victims are very brave, and we know that the delays are having a massive effect on them. I think we all agree, too, that the measures in the Bill will reduce timescales—
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. That brings us to 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 Witness
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from Claire Throssell. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Claire, will you briefly introduce yourself?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Following the Divisions in the Chamber, the timings for this afternoon will be adjusted. I will announce at the start of each panel when the questioning will start and end. We already heard your introduction before the votes, Claire. If you do not mind, we will jump straight into the questions.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Thanks ever so much for coming, and for your patience with the parliamentary procedure. I know that these things are really challenging sometimes, so I want to thank you in advance for talking about difficult things. Also, rather than being dependent on what we may ask you, I want to give you the opportunity to lay out two or three points that you really want to get across to us today.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Thank you so much for that; thank you for sharing.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I know that these words will not necessarily shift your view, but I do not think anybody in this room would think that any of that was your fault, or that you should share any of the blame for what happened to your children. Your testimony is really powerful.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Thank you, Claire, for sharing such a powerful testimony. I think I first met you during a Westminster Hall debate, which was called by your tireless and fearless MP Marie Tidball, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. Your testimony is compelling and it is why we are bringing forward the provision in clause 17 of the Bill to repeal the presumption of parental contact. We know that will not protect every single child, but it does send quite an important message about what we in Parliament say, which is that the courts should always have at the forefront of their minds the best interests of the child, and that alone. I just want to say thank you.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you, Claire. Can I just acknowledge that children who are yet to go through the family courts are safer because of you and your tireless campaigning over many years? I hope you can hold that close as you go on. I believe that all campaigners like you, who never fight for themselves, are fighting for the next generation—the job is never done. My question to you is: what is the next step? What would you like to see in legislation going forward, especially in our family courts, to protect more children from harm?
Matt Bishop (Labour, Forest of Dean)
Q It is good to see you again, Claire. I echo everyone else’s comments about your very powerful evidence. You will remember that the last time you attended a debate in the Chamber, certain Opposition Members commented—we have heard comments and suggestions even today—that sometimes mistakes happen and both parents should have the right to their children at all times, but do you agree that this is an opportunity, and that the Government and, in fact, all parliamentarians should be doing everything we can to make sure that the 68 does not go to 69? I would rather that we make a mistake and the child survives than make a mistake where a child dies. Do you agree?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Thank you so much, Claire; it has been really powerful to hear from you. I have heard from a constituent who has a close family member going through all of this, and she has been advised by solicitors to avoid the family court at all costs, describing the potential outcomes as a “lottery” and talking about very patchy training and understanding. Would you back my constituent up on those conclusions?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. Thank you, Claire. I am sorry, but we have reached the end of the time allotted for your evidence. Thank you so much for sharing with us today. We really appreciate it and your campaigning.
Examination of Witness
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from Doug Downey. We have until 4.54 pm for this session. Thank you for joining us today. Will you please briefly introduce yourself?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Hello, Mr Downey. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin by asking you about what read-over we might get in relation to challenges you have had with court backlogs. Do you have experience of waiting times and backlogs that increased from an ordinary level and were brought back down again? What did you do to secure that?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Has there been any change over that period in the use of jury trials? Have you used them more or less?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Would it be fair to say that you had an increase in the backlog and then a decrease, without making any changes to the extent of the use of jury trials?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q We have covered jury trials and changes around that, but if you were going to pick one or two other things that you did that you think had the biggest impact on reducing your backlog, what would they be?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q It was very good to have the chance to meet not just you, Mr Downey, but many of the judges at the superior court of Ontario on my recent visit to Canada. I am glad that you are able to join us. I want to ask you about two things: the efficiency and the pace with which judge-alone trials are conducted, as compared with jury trials, within your system, and your perceptions of the fairness and integrity of those judge-alone trials. As you just explained in response to the shadow Minister, judge-alone trials in the criminal court have been a feature of the Canadian system for decades, I understand.
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q I am aware of that distinction. Distinguished academics such as Professor Hoyano have made the point about the distinction with the system that we are bringing forward, where we are removing the right to elect. I understand that in your system, it is the defendant who elects. It is right, is it not, that many defendants actually elect for judge-alone?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q The point about the pace at which the trial moves is an issue of contention. Some people say that having judge-alone for the same type of case will not save time compared with a jury trial. In your experience, once the election has been made by the defendant within the Canadian system, how much time is saved for the same sort of case with a judge-alone trial as opposed to a full jury trial?
Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)
Q Other Committee members want to come in, but I want to ask you about fairness and, importantly, the perceived fairness and confidence that communities have in the system. On my visit to Toronto, it struck me what a diverse city it is. I believe that 50% of the residents of greater Toronto were born outside Canada. Is that something that you measure? Can you help the Committee understand the confidence that the public has in judge-alone trials?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q Thank you, Mr Downey, for your time today. I profess my ignorance of the Canadian justice system—it will stay with me forever that I do not know exactly how it works. Is the lay element in your criminal courts just 5% of all criminal cases?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Yes.
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q That is helpful. What sentence can a judge sitting alone give, and are there particular cases that will be heard with a jury?
Jessica Brown-Fuller (Liberal Democrat, Chichester)
Q I have a quick follow-up question, based on your earlier comments. Do you believe that a large part of the confidence in the Canadian model is the right to elect?
Tristan Osborne (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)
Q My question concerns the potential issue of judges being identified and targeted because they are dealing with cases at a high level. Clearly, in your situation, judges are dealing with high-level cases and sentences. Have you seen any evidence that judges are particularly targeted if they hand down higher sentences?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Q In Canada, 96% of your criminal trials are without a jury. In this country, 97% of our criminal trials are without a jury. Would you support reducing the percentage of jury trials even more in Canada?