Uncorrected oral evidence: Support for jurors
Oral evidence, 27 October 2026.
The Chair
Welcome, Minister and your colleague, to this fourth evidence session of the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry into support for jurors. We are delighted to have the Minister with us. I would be grateful if you could both introduce yourselves for the record.
Sarah Sackman
I am Sarah Sackman KC MP, and I am the Minister for Courts and Legal Services.
Daniel Flury
I am the operations director in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Baroness Buscombe
Thank you for joining us today. What assessment have you made of the adequacy and consistency of current support for jurors who have distressing experiences as part of, or as a result of, their jury service?
Sarah Sackman
I shall preface what I am about to say by recognising that jury service is a crucial civic duty, and we are grateful to all the individuals from various backgrounds who undertake it. Before addressing the important question that you raise about support, it is important to say that the majority of jurors have a positive experience. Many people that we see, both from our experience survey and anecdotally, tell us that they welcome the opportunity to participate in such an important civic duty, one that people take seriously. They end up learning a lot about our justice process and indeed our society. But you are right: the support that we give jurors through that experience—before they come to court, when they are summonsed at court and in the follow-up—is something that, I am glad to say, we are paying far more attention to than we ever have done in the past, when we just invited people to jury service and the aftercare and support were limited, to say the least. I want to express my gratitude to the committee for that. The main things that we have done in terms of an assessment are twofold, and Daniel will add something if I have missed anything. First, we undertake a jury survey that asks people about their experience and provides the courts service with data around how we can improve our operations to make sure that they are consistent, and that the information and support that we are providing are consistently applied across the court estate. Secondly, the committee will be aware that last year we commissioned Dr Hannah Fawcett and Dr Matt Brooks to examine current practice across 16 Crown Court centres to consider what good looks like—that was the title of the assessment—in terms of understanding juror needs and what support they needed. They looked at things like the facilities, such as the waiting room, as well as the deliberation and what support was offered to jurors. In particular, the assessment tested a structured end-of-trial intervention, enhanced jury officer training and whether a dedicated support line was of value. So we have a much richer picture than we have had for some time to understand the juror experience and what might be needed in terms of support.
Baroness Buscombe
Could we talk a bit about the Rivers Centre in Scotland, where we understand that for the past 30 years NHS specialist psychological support has been offered to those who have suffered, or who feel they have suffered, some kind of trauma through the process of being a juror. Is that something that you are looking at?
Daniel Flury
We are certainly aware of what is happening in Lothian, in the Rivers Centre, where there is an explicit offering of psychological support after a jury trial. Our approach in HMCTS is, as you probably know, to refer them either to their GP, who we think is best placed to make a clinical assessment, or to Samaritans or any other sort of charity. So, while we have lots of material to signpost those who have undertaken jury service, we do not make an explicit offering. That is something else that we are considering as part of our response to the Fawcett and Brooks report, but at present we have no intention of replicating what they do in the Rivers Centre.
Sarah Sackman
To build on that point, we are always looking to other jurisdictions, particularly those close to home, to identify what best practice looks like, as we should, but it is important to highlight that out of the Fawcett and Brooks study—which was fairly broad in scope, looking at 16 Crown Court centres—we are going to institute national minimum standards, which we have never had before. So that is an important step change in terms of consistent standards and support for jurors, irrespective of where they are in the system or in the country. However, the study found that the uptake for the really specialised counselling service that is provided was pretty low. That is not to say that it is not of value to those who are sitting on a jury where there is traumatic content or where there are particular vulnerabilities, and of course that is right, but we found that in general terms the majority of trials did not evidence a demand for that specialist service. That does not mean jurors are not entitled to expect a decent waiting room, proper direction from both judge and jury officer, and proper information throughout the process; of course they should, and that is the national minimum standard. But it is important that we distinguish between where there really is a need—trials that involve particularly grim and awful evidence that is likely to trigger a need for additional support—versus the majority of trials, where the study showed there was not really the demand. We can continue to look at this, of course, and we will continue to see what the results from the Scottish work show.
Daniel Flury
To illustrate that point further, during the Lucy Letby trial, Manchester victim support intervened and provided support to jurors who sat on that trial. We had something similar with the David Fuller trial in Maidstone in Kent, where there was particularly harrowing evidence, although he eventually pleaded guilty so it was not required. So we can obtain support directly for very specific trials, and the judge may direct us to obtain specific support for certain trials, but these are the exception rather than anywhere near the norm.
Baroness Buscombe
I have two short follow-ups because others have questions to ask. First, some of us were lucky enough to go last week to the Old Bailey, and we had an interesting discussion with the recorder and those who manage the court. Of course in some ways the Old Bailey is exceptional in terms of the kinds of cases, including some very difficult cases. While we understood that the take-up might be quite low in terms of people needing more support, I would argue, if I may, that knowing the support is there is in itself a huge support—just knowing that you have that if you need to turn to it. Secondly, do you have a timeline for publishing minimum standards that you would like to see applied across the board?
Sarah Sackman
Those are all really good points. You are right that in many ways the Old Bailey is exceptional in terms of both the kinds of trials that are heard there and the nature of it as a Crown Court centre. I am not going to gloss over the fact that there are parts of our court estate that are not where we would want them to be. That is why we are making a more significant major investment in maintenance than we have for a very long time. To answer your question, the national minimum standards will, as I said, set clear expectations for the information that jurors are provided with, including signposting practical support—you are right that they may not need support, but if they do then it will be clear where to get it—as well as signposting how jurors can raise concerns during the process. One might be feeling pretty resilient at certain points but then at other points in the trial feel really quite different, and that will be incorporated within the national minimum standards. Our ambition is to introduce those national minimum standards next year. That is the timeline. I should say that, while we have a pretty good idea of what we expect to be in them, the work of this committee is really well timed.
The Chair
On the question of what they might contain, you said that following the assessment you had a better idea of what is needed, clearly accepting that, even though it might not necessarily be for all jurors, some jurors will need it. To pick up the point that has just been made by Baroness Buscombe, the idea of jurors knowing what help is available is clearly advantageous. I have in front of me the main government document, which lists all the details about jury service. Nowhere in the list of about 12 headings is there any reference to support for jurors. It is contained in the document, which is encouraging, but, amazingly, you have to find it under the heading, “Discussing the trial”. That is where you find what help there is for jurors. It tells me: “If you find the trial distressing, you may be upset by the trial and want to speak to somebody privately. Speak to court staff; they will give you advice”—and in a minute we will go on to the issue of court staff’s ability to do that. But it also says: “For emotional support, speak to your GP to find out what support is available, and you can contact the Samaritans, although they cannot give advice”. So you are told that you can go to your GP, who will try to find some help for you, but he or she cannot give it, and the Samaritans cannot give advice. That is the sole reference to support for jurors in the official detailed government document about jury service. They are given a separate handout, which does not say that the Samaritans cannot give advice but says that you can talk to them day or night, and that your GP can help you to find free counselling services. Do you think that is adequate?
Sarah Sackman
I will defer to Daniel over whether that represents the totality of the information that jurors are given, because I believe they are also sent information in the form of emails, which include a video link. There is also information, as I said, that is provided at court. Frankly, though, that may be one of the things that we need to take away from this exercise as we institute national minimum standards. By analogy, in the correspondence that we produce within the Ministry of Justice when people write about quite distressing subjects, the signposting that we provide is now routinely really quite clear. If one of the takeaways is that we need to improve that signposting then that is a valuable takeaway.
Daniel Flury
I certainly accept that the guidance is in need of some codification, if I can call it that. In some ways, this is what the new standards are about. You should not have to look in other areas to find out the full facts on it—I accept that point—but the guidance or standards will cover information including the details of the video and so on: expenses, signposting, facilities available, reasonable adjustments, details of what to expect in court and support you will be provided with.
The Chair
I am grateful for that, and we will come on to each of those issues you have mentioned in a minute. What I am concerned about is whether or not you, first of all, accept that you need to do more highlighting, which I think you have said you agree with. Secondly, do you think that what is on offer that you are going to highlight is remotely adequate—signposting to a GP, who may help you find free counselling, and signposting to the Samaritans, who “cannot give advice”? Do you think that is adequate? However much you advertise it with huge posters and videos and everything, is it adequate?
Sarah Sackman
Can I address that in a couple of ways? First of all, we clearly do not think it is adequate; that is why we are instituting national minimum standards. If we thought the status quo was good enough, why bother? We do see that there is room for improvement, building on the evidence base that we obtained through this study. You will see that that will consist of a couple of different areas of work: work around internal monitoring of standards to make sure that we have consistency of practice everywhere, but also the ambition to produce a public-facing jurors’ charter, which will explain what every juror, irrespective of where they are in the country, can expect from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and what to do if those standards are not met. That is a really big step forward. There is a point around how that information is presented to jurors, which we all accept can be better. A takeaway should be what goes in that initial summons letter, as well as the information that is provided throughout, because you might not retain that letter. The second part of your question relates to the adequacy of signposting people to their local GP or NHS 111, which has a mental health element, and the Samaritans. For the majority of jurors, it probably will be adequate to know that there is a recognition that sitting through a criminal trial can surface things which have a psychological impact, and the best ports of call are going to be dedicated charities like the Samaritans or the NHS. However, that is not to say—this is to come back to Daniel’s point—that targeted support is not going to be warranted where you have particularly traumatic subject matters.
The Chair
I will stop you there if I can, Minister, because some of the details will, I hope, emerge during some of the subsequent questions. What we are getting is a clear understanding that you accept that the signposting, whatever it is, is currently inadequate and needs to be beefed up.
Sarah Sackman
The phrase I would use is, “It can be better”, and we are going to make it better.
The Chair
That is very helpful. Before we move on to the next issue, I call Lord Anderson.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Thank you very much, and welcome. It is a specific question, really provoked by something Daniel Flury said. You mentioned that the witness support service had been helpful to jurors during the Lucy Letby trial.
Daniel Flury
Victim Support, yes.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
I am so sorry; you mentioned Victim Support being helpful to jurors as well as to victims. I just wanted to know a little bit more about that. Was it planned in advance that Victim Support would get involved? What was the nature of the support? Was it during the trial or did it extend to the period after the trial? You did mention one other case—I think it pleaded—but are there other examples of Victim Support being used in this way? Are there plans to roll it out more broadly or make it more widely available?
Daniel Flury
It is very much an ad hoc arrangement. We were approached by Victim Support in Manchester as something that could offer this service. When we spoke with the judge during the trial, it was something that it would be sensible to put in place. There is another case I know about. I cannot remember the defendant’s name but it was a multiple rape trial in Manchester again, and the same Victim Support provided that service. It is not something that happens routinely. It would happen either because the judge asked for it to happen or because HMCTS identified a need to support a jury through a particularly distressing trial. There is a process whereby we can contact either Victim Support or other charities to provide this. This is something that HMCTS, if it is not free of charge, pays for itself.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
So they were supporting the jury as a whole, not individuals.
Daniel Flury
They are. Just to be clear, they are not supporting the jury during the trial. It is post-trial support.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Oh, post trial. Were the people offering that support the same people that had supported the victims or the victims’ families in that trial?
Daniel Flury
I do not know, but I very much doubt it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Yes, I hope not.
Sarah Sackman
I will just provide some data for context. In the study that was undertaken—the Fawcett and Brooks study—there was an end-of-trial intervention and a bespoke counselling service was made available to all of the jury trials that were covered within the scope of those 16 Crown Court centres. Of the 17,811 jurors that were captured by the trial, 10 took up the service. I absolutely acknowledge the point that, for those 10 who attended at least one session, that will have no doubt—I hope—had real value. I also absolutely acknowledge the point that Baroness Buscombe made earlier: that the fact of knowing that there was this bespoke counselling service and this dedicated helpline available may well have provided comfort, reassurance and resilience to many of those. It does paint a picture: 10 out of nearly 18,000 jurors. I will obviously be interested to see what the committee’s conclusions are but, while we may well need something more than is currently there, it needs to be targeted. It needs to be proportionate. The demand case for maintaining that counselling service, given its cost at a national level for all jurors, was not made out by that study. In a tight fiscal environment, I have to be really thoughtful about how we target our money. I do think that that context is important for the committee.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
You are saying, or perhaps you are still thinking about it, that the answer to that question is not Victim Support—that it might very occasionally be appropriate, as it seems to have been in the Lucy Letby trial, but you are not saying that that limited number of jurors could get the support they want or need from Victim Support?
Sarah Sackman
In the context of the Lucy Letby trial and the local context in Manchester, informed by the judge in that case presiding over that and ascertaining what they thought was necessary, I am saying that that the skill set that Victim Support—I understand in that case that a phone number was available—would provide would be of benefit to a set of jurors who were looking at a pretty distressing case. But I am not necessarily saying that that is the only way that you could support jurors. We are saying that the support that is currently available obviously takes different forms. What is going to be right for one person? One person might prefer to go to their GP; another might prefer to call the Samaritans. The point is to target support and signpost it clearly to people to know what is available to them. Many people might not have heard of Samaritans; we have in this room, but there will be some people who have not.
Daniel Flury
I will add a point on the Samaritans. We do offer a little more than just, “Here’s a number. Good luck”. We have what we call a specific referral pathway that court staff can use, which does get us through to an enhanced level of service in the Samaritans. It is a little more than just referring them to a telephone number or website.
The Chair
That is helpful to know. Perhaps if you could just write and give us a bit more detail about, that would be very helpful.
Lord Moraes
Thank you, Minister, for your time this morning; it is much appreciated. We have already alighted on the role of court staff, and we have been looking specifically at the training for them, which has already come up. Could I ask you specifically what training is available to court staff for supporting jurors?
Sarah Sackman
You can, and I am going to direct that one, if I may, to Daniel, because he will give you a fuller answer than me.
Daniel Flury
I hope the committee has seen what we call our training workbook for jury bailiffs, which sets out the skills and expectations and the role of jury officers. We can certainly send it to the committee if you have not seen that; it sets out what is required. The role has changed quite considerably over the years from one that was there principally to administer the oaths, deal with expenses, and usher jurors in and out of the building. I talk to jury officers now, and they play far more of what they call a social worker role. These are the sort of people we are looking for, especially in our court ushers as well as the jury officers. We are looking for people with good listening skills, empathy and the ability to defuse situations and deal with people who are upset. In HMCTS as well, we have recently rolled out a package of what we call trauma-informed training, which sets out how the consequences of trauma affect certain individuals and what you can do in response to that. It is our ushers and jury officers who really are at the front line of all of this. We last updated our training workbook in 2025. I am expecting to further update it, probably after the findings of this committee emerge, because we clearly can see that the role of the usher in particular has changed quite a lot and we want to help them adjust to the changed level of expectation.
Lord Moraes
It is becoming clear to the committee—we have been looking at this very closely—that, on investigation, the role of court staff is much more important than it would first seem. It is a highly sensitive role. It affects them, as we have just heard, but it also affects the jurors quite profoundly. Do you think the training is adequate? Are we identifying best practice—is that satisfactory at the moment?
Daniel Flury
I certainly think the training is adequate. I always think there is more to be done to improve the situation. The difficulty with a lot of this is that it is about people’s personalities—whether certain jury officers empathise with people and so on. But there is always room to identify and spread best practice a little further. Can I just focus on two specific things we have done for ushers and jury officers in the last 12 months? First, we accept, as I have just mentioned, that the role has changed quite considerably over the last 10 or 15 years. We have recently upgraded them. They were at the lowest level of the Civil Service grades—what is called an administrative assistant. They have now been moved up to the next grade above. That change in grade and, of course, change in salary reflects the increased level of expectation. That has been an important step of recognising the role they play, but there is more to be done on spreading best practice and so on, as you say.
Baroness Berridge
Thank you very much for attending today. A group of us had the pleasure of going to Southwark Crown Court—not the Old Bailey. We were surprised to learn that administrative staff who deal with the jurors—not the jury officer or the jury usher—were receiving two or three calls a month from people who had served on juries in Southwark Crown Court and who were struggling. Some of those were quite serious. I really felt for the staff we saw, who were distressed and did not feel things were adequate. You say “not routine” but, routinely, defendants, judges, barristers and CPS have an access service. Court staff are moved out if they are struggling with a trial, routinely. This is happening, they said, across the London courts. At that level, two or three a month are phoning in with these concerns. Do you not accept that there does need to be a routine service? Otherwise, staff who are not trained in this are picking up really distressing calls from jurors who are struggling after sitting on trials.
Daniel Flury
There is quite a large pool of admin staff in the Crown Courts. Those answering the phones one day may act as an usher the following day, so they will undergo the same level of training. Again, they will all be required to do the trauma-informed training. But I accept your point that these phone calls are made and can be harrowing. We are reliant on that referral back to a GP or the Samaritans in the same way that an usher is. We do support our staff, as you suggest. If they have been sitting on a particularly harrowing trial, we look to find them what we call a lighter trial in the following week to give them a break; it is the same for clerks. But again, we are reliant on the referral routes that we have already mentioned in these circumstances.
Sarah Sackman
That is right. It is very interesting to—
The Chair
Sorry, I just want to pick that up. You keep saying that you are reliant on the referral route. But the point that Baroness Berridge made in the introduction of her question was that everybody else in court, whether they are barristers or judges—the whole lot—has procedures in place with specifically qualified people to provide them with support. The jurors do not, and that is the missing bit, surely.
Sarah Sackman
You are right—there is not dedicated provision—but I would make two points. First of all, on the court staff that are receiving those calls, no one is claiming that they are there to provide mental health support, but they do receive the training that Daniel Flury just referred to, and they can direct those people to where they can access that support. That is the first thing. The second thing—of course, the examples that you have heard perhaps cut against it—is that we did do an academic-led assessment. I do not believe that Southwark was included in those 16 Crown courts, but 16 Crown courts is obviously a significant sample. In that case, within the context of that study, people were directed to a specialist counselling end-of-trial service for jurors. The uptake, as I have indicated, was incredibly low and did not substantiate the demand for what we are talking about here.
The Chair
Could you then tell us whether or not the demand for the support for barristers, for example, which does exist, has a high take-up—a take-up higher than the jury take-up was for the trial?
Sarah Sackman
Sorry—this is the service that barristers can access?
The Chair
Yes.
Sarah Sackman
I do not have that data to hand, but I do know from engaging with the Bar that, on self-care and well-being and for those engaging in traumatic subject matters—not just in crime, of course, but in family as well—a lot of work is being done by the Bar. No one is suggesting that jurors are pure spectators. They are obviously actively engaged in every stage of this. But there are pathways. When a dedicated counselling service was put in place in an empirical study, the take-up was low. We have to identify what is a proportionate response to the demand, such as it is. I am not for one second denying that the evidence that you heard or anecdotal evidence that you picked up at Southwark suggests that there is not demand within Southwark. There may well be.
Baroness Berridge
I have one specific follow-up. The jurors are the only people in the room who are compelled to be there. They are compelled, and they are also cut off from all the ordinary support mechanisms that we know from massive studies protect you: peer groups and being able to talk about it afterwards. They might need more support than anybody else in the courtroom. Have you made that comparison?
Sarah Sackman
We accept, not least by the provision that is in place, that in certain cases jurors may need support. I think it is factually correct to say that, in the vast majority of cases, there is no demand for this. That is not to say that, in certain types of cases, targeted support and the availability of pathways is not going to be needed. However, the fact that in our jury experience survey 60% or thereabouts report a positive experience means that we need to be quite targeted and proportionate in how we meet the demand, such as it is. I do not deny that in the sorts of cases we have been referring to—the Letby trial or the sorts of cases that the Bailey or Southwark Crown Court might play host to—there will be an enhanced need, but in the majority of trials, which may or may not involve violence or may be at a lower level, it is not going to be needed. We conducted an assessment. This is not us searching for answers in the wind.
The Chair
But the assessment that you keep referring to constantly says that more is needed. It might say that take-up was not particularly great, but it very specifically says that more is needed.
Baroness Buscombe
I think a lot of us feel that it is not enough to say “We will signpost to your GP”, since I cannot get to see my GP and nor can a lot of people. Here is an idea: have you looked at, or should you be looking at, social prescribers? The problem with Samaritans—I have chaired its advisory board, so I know it well—is that it is only a listening service. It is not there to tell you what to do. However, social prescribers, who are trained to focus on the individual through the NHS, could be an option that you look at. Perhaps people could somehow link into them to make them feel that there is something a bit extra there which can get them back into normal life if they have suffered trauma. That is just an idea.
Sarah Sackman
It is a valuable idea, and we should take it away and look at it. I do not think we could undertake to embed the social prescribers within court but, as we have acknowledged, we need better signposting and enhanced training for our court staff. By the way, I want to take this opportunity because I have the platform here to say that those staff are the eyes and ears and the public-facing—almost customer-facing—part of the court. As someone who has, as you have all done, toured courts the length and breadth of the country, I can say that by and large they do a tremendous job for not much money, and I acknowledge that.
The Chair
On that happy note, we turn to Lord Tope.
Lord Tope
Minister, in your opening remarks, you said you are giving more attention than ever before to juror well-being, yet this is the first year for some time that the Government have not supported Juror Appreciation Week. Why was that?
Sarah Sackman
I saw that in the notes in preparation for this session, and I am not sure it is right. We shared details and information on social media about it. There is no suggestion that we as a Government do not appreciate jurors or indeed their well-being. The fact that, as I said, we commissioned a study to look at this very issue is demonstrative of that.
Lord Tope
Are you saying that you did support Juror Appreciation Week this year?
Daniel Flury
Anything that supports the well-being and good functioning of the court system we support. We supported Juror Appreciation Week through sharing links and so on, and we are happy to do more for future weeks.
Lord Tope
You have supported it in previous years and we will wait to hear authoritatively about this year. Will you support it next year?
Daniel Flury
I see no reason why we would not.
Sarah Sackman
I want to be really clear here that we, in our government communications, supported jurors during that week. We have our own mechanisms for engaging and recognising the work of jurors; anyone who has heard me in the House of Commons will have heard me do that all the time. I will say that perhaps there is some more that we can do on that specific week—
Lord Tope
That specific week, yes.
Sarah Sackman
I want to offer you some reassurance: I would not read too much into this. We are supportive of juror well-being—clearly we are, otherwise we would not be doing all the work that we are on national minimum standards.
The Chair
To save time, if we can, we were categorically told by the group that organises Juror Appreciation Week that this year the Government did not support it. That is what we were told. We would be grateful if you could be kind enough to go away, have a look at that and come back, because if we have been given misinformation then you can correct it, and that would be very helpful. If you can tell us in what way you supported it, other than publicising it—whether there was cash involved or whatever—that would be helpful too, and we will pick that up a little later.
Sarah Sackman
Sure.
Baroness Berridge
Turning again to the enhanced support for jurors pilot, in its evaluation there was no comparison to existing best models of practice. We are fortunate to be in a situation now where we know how to support people, whether emergency service workers, journalists, or people in NGOs reading accounts of torture going through secondary trauma. Can you explain why the evaluation does not make a comparison with the models of best practice that we know can help people before, during and after this kind of experience?
Sarah Sackman
The evaluation and the whole study was conducted by two highly experienced academics, who took into account a large dataset and conducted a structured assessment. If there are any omissions or failure to go wider, ultimately they looked at what they looked at. We at the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS—I will bring in Daniel here if he wants to come in—are always considering what best practice looks like and looking at other jurisdictions to see what they do and what we might learn from them. As part of my briefing for this committee, I was furnished with information that the department routinely looks at not just Scotland but Canada, Australia and New Zealand—other similar jurisdictions. Perhaps that was not captured in the study, but there were choices made by the academics involved in that study and they have to be left to get on with their work and the scope of that study. However, we look at what best practice looks like.
Baroness Berridge
You keep making reference to “targeted and proportional”. We have had evidence that on occasion there are trials that collapse because of jurors not being able to sit through the entirety of the evidence, not having realised that they would not be able to cope with that. In your costings, have you taken into account lost trials or trials that have to restart? It is also common that the opening happens but people realise at that moment, “I am not going to do that”. Have you balanced the costs of that against the costs of extending support routinely to jurors?
Sarah Sackman
We do look at that. Every ineffective trial—I do not mean to sound too technocratic about this; we know that there are real human beings and psychological impacts involved—is a colossal waste of time, effort and taxpayer money, and has knock-on implications, not just for the jurors involved, in the example you are giving, but for witnesses, victims and defendants whose lives are put on hold. However, it is important to contextualise this. We have an all too high and ineffective trial rate in this country. By far the biggest drivers of that rate are the absence of counsel on either side, prosecution or defence counsel. There are other drivers, but not necessarily for the reasons that you say. As I understand it, juror absence, but perhaps nothing to do with the psychological impact of the trial, accounts for in the region of 1% of those ineffective trials—Daniel will tell me if I have got that stat wrong, but I believe it is around 1%—and there could be lots of drivers within that, such as childcare or a juror falling sick. I understand where the question is coming from, and any trial that collapses or has to be adjourned for this reason is one trial too many, but we have to put it in context. When we talk about overall system efficiency, our evidence is not that this is a major reason for trial collapse or ineffectiveness.
Baroness Berridge
Maybe you need to write us about this. What I have outlined, and we have had evidence of this, is starting a trial but then losing a juror and having to start again with 11, and then adding a 12th to that. Is that an ineffective trial, or is it an effective trial for your statistics?
Sarah Sackman
We will write to you with the detail, but a trial can continue even if one juror cannot continue. I think the minimum number of jurors is nine. I am very sorry for the jurors for whom that is their experience; that is clearly distressing and they deserve support. However— I am happy to write to you about this—I believe the number of trials where multiple jurors pull out for this reason will be very exceptional.
Daniel Flury
The principal reason really is sickness or, if a juror has to be discharged, it is where they realise that they know someone—the defendant or witness in the trial—and they have to tell the judge that they can no longer do it. But that is very rare. There are no published stats on where jurors say, “I can’t quite cope with the material and I need to come away from this trial”, but if they did then that is when the judge would make the decision on whether they could be discharged.
Lord Bach
I am down to ask a factual question. There is also a supplementary, which I think I know the answer to already so I am a bit embarrassed to ask it. The main question is: do you have any plans to alter the juror experience survey that was done to include questions on juror mental health or well-being? I think the answer to the supplementary that follows it is that you definitely do not, but: do you know how many jurors go on to need support as a result of their jury service?
Sarah Sackman
Your first question highlights the fact that in the current anonymous juror experience survey there is no explicit well-being question. In light of the study that we have been discussing and the subject matter of this committee investigation, I do not see why it cannot include that, and, as we embark upon an effort to get these national minimum standards right, I think it ought to.
Lord Bach
As far as the stats are concerned, if you know how many jurors go on to need support, I presume the answer is that you do not.
Daniel Flury
No. Other than the Fawcett and Brooks study, we do not even have a proxy measure.
Lord Bach
I am not surprised, and I am not upset by that answer.
Lord Dubs
Minister, you have referred on a number of occasions to looking at practice in other countries. I wonder if I can continue on that theme. There are therapeutic exemptions in jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia that allow jurors to discuss deliberations with a registered medical professional. Have you thought of introducing such a system in England and Wales?
Sarah Sackman
We have thought about it and we are aware of it. I have enormous respect for those jurisdictions; I had the privilege of visiting the Supreme Court in Ontario and engaging with their leaders there. These therapeutic exceptions create legal and clinical questions that we would need to grapple with, such as who can receive disclosure for what purpose and under what confidentiality duties. To be perfectly honest, no change is currently being considered. As I have said to the committee, we are always looking at comparisons with the ways that other jurisdictions do things, but at the moment we do not intend to change how we operate here.
Lord Dubs
You have just referred to looking at other jurisdictions. Are there any lessons from other jurisdictions that you think are sufficiently relevant to tell us about today?
Sarah Sackman
Something that I am interested in, on which we have a very keen focus related to the questions that you are raising about juror well-being and support, is the Scottish model and approach, which makes provision for targeted research into what happens in the jury deliberation room. At the moment we have no provision to enable that research, partly because of the important principle that what happens in the jurors’ deliberation room needs to stay there. However, for some time now Scotland has had a framework that allows for research to be done into what goes on. In theory, that could tell us a lot more about what jurors have to go through, not just about what happens in a jury room but maybe about some of the support, the ways that jurors might flag things or how they feel that they can raise some of the issues of concern that you have been talking about. That is something that happens in Scotland. It would need a change in the law, but it is one of the issues that I am looking at quite closely, not least because it was raised with me by some of our Back-Benchers in the Commons and I think it is a really valid point.
The Chair
Could I just pick up a point there so that we get it absolutely clear? Are you saying that your understanding is that to make that change would require primary legislation?
Sarah Sackman
It would.
The Chair
Okay, I just wanted us to have that on the record. I want to turn to the wider issue of what jurors can and cannot do in terms of talking to people. We are well aware of the current rules: following a trial, a juror may talk to anyone they like about everything that happened in open court, but they may not talk about what happened in the jury deliberation room. That is the issue that we have just been touching on. However, if I am an ordinary member of the public observing the trial, then I too can talk to anyone I like. As a member of the public, I can also post on social media anything I like; that is subject to issues around harassment, misrepresentation and so on, but I can still do it. It is categorically stated that a juror cannot post comments about the trial on social media even after the trial has finished; that is contempt of court, and they could be fined or sent to prison for it. Can you explain why a member of the public can go on social media but a juror cannot?
Sarah Sackman
That is a well-established principle, and for good reason. The member of the public posting on social media might be ill advised to do so. While the law does not prevent jurors from seeking support and discussing what happened in open court, how it affected them and what support they need, the principle that juries’ deliberations must remain confidential both during and after the trial is a really important one. It preserves the integrity of that trial, and it protects not just the jurors themselves but the other members of the jury. In the same way—this is not just about posting—that jurors are prohibited from carrying out internet searches on defendants and the like, it is an important safeguard.
The Chair
I agree with everything you have just said.
Sarah Sackman
You asked me to justify it, and I am saying it is the right thing to do.
The Chair
I did not. I am asking you a very different question.
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry. Maybe I misunderstood the question.
The Chair
Let me be clear again. I entirely accept that they cannot talk about what goes on in the jury room. We may have exceptions for medical reasons or whatever, or we may not, but they cannot do that. They cannot say anything to anyone while the trial is in progress, nor can they put anything on social media. That is all accepted. There are different rules for journalists, but exactly the same rules apply to members of the public sitting in the gallery. When the trial is over and finished, a member of the public can then post—subject to being careful not to misrepresent or whatever, because they could be taken to court for that—on social media about what happened in open court. However, the rules specifically say that a juror may not post about what happened in open court on social media. I am just asking why there is that distinction.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to give you a pretty similar answer, which is that the juror has been directly involved in arriving at the verdict. Their commentary on what happened in open court on social media will inevitably stray or bleed into what is likely to have happened in the deliberation room and in the ultimate determination of a verdict that they participated in arriving at. So it is right that jurors be prevented from commentating on what happened in open court, as well as on what happened in the jury room. As for the differential treatment between the juror and another member of the public, we have an important principle as well as confidentiality in the jury room, and that is open justice. What happens in open court is there for anyone to see, and, freedom of expression being what it is, people can have their say on what happened. It would be difficult to police that distinction between the deliberation room and open court if a juror were commentating, so it would be an unwise move to lift that prohibition and constraint on jurors.
The Chair
Does WhatsApp count as social media?
Sarah Sackman
What happens in a deliberation room, in the jury room, remains confidential, and WhatsApp and other communication vehicles would be included in that.
The Chair
Again, I am not talking about making any comment about what happened in the deliberation room. I am talking about what happened in open trial, which in some cases the public would have seen via television and will have heard about in newspapers, on TV and from everyone reporting on it, and it will have been seen by people sitting in the public gallery. So all of that is available, but currently we have a situation where everyone else can go on social media but the juror cannot, and I am still struggling to understand why. I am then asking the separate question: is WhatsApp considered to be social media? Does that therefore mean that I, as a juror, cannot tell my family group what happened in open court? If so, why not?
Sarah Sackman
I will invite Daniel Flury to comment in a second, but I will just say this. In principle, the reason for the constraint on jurors commenting on social media is very clear since it could endanger the integrity of what had happened in the jury room. You would not expect a judge post trial, beyond giving sentencing remarks, to commentate on what had happened in open court, including on a family WhatsApp group. I would regard that as inappropriate. So, in so far as it is helpful and assists to give definitive guidance, I would not get into the habit of family WhatsApp groups, because we know that WhatsApp groups that we think are closed groups can quickly end up being broadcast more widely. I would really guard against that. It is not the place of jurors or judges to provide a commentary on what happened in the trial.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Hopefully, this is a more straightforward question. Although there have been changes in the Courts and Tribunals Bill on its introduction to the Lords from where it started in the Commons, it still contains plans to reduce the number of either-way offences and, I think, some complex fraud cases being tried by jury. That suggests that a higher proportion of jurors will now be on more serious violent and sexual offences. First, was an impact assessment of the Bill undertaken before its introduction? If so, did that assessment include the possible impact of more jurors dealing with more emotionally challenging and difficult cases?
Sarah Sackman
Yes, there was an impact assessment, as you would expect, and I invite members of the committee and Peers more widely to read it, as the Bill has now entered your place. Did it look specifically at this question? I do not believe it did, and for good reason. I totally understand the premise of the question, but the reforms to criminal courts proposed in the Courts and Tribunals Bill will not materially affect the juror experience that we are talking about. Even under our current system, unreformed, jury trials have always been preserved for the most serious cases. The fact that 3% of our trials are conducted with a jury means that, by definition, the ones that we are most concerned about in the context of today’s discussion—serious sexual violence, homicide, the really horrible stuff, if I can call it that—have always been heard with a jury trial. That is not altered by these reforms because we were always preserving jury trial for those cases. I suppose you are right that, given that the reforms have the effect of diverting to magistrates some cases that under the current system would be heard in the Crown Court, as a proportion jury trials are hearing more serious cases, but really those more serious cases have always been heard with a jury trial, and that does not change as a result of these reforms. There is therefore no particular need to look at that question, if that makes sense.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I understand what you are saying but, to be frank, it does not really make sense. If you think that more jurors will be hearing more difficult cases, is not there a case for you looking at the impact of that on the body of jurors as a whole, and at whether or not you ought to make contingency for more support for jurors?
Sarah Sackman
I do not know that more jurors will be hearing more serious cases. The serious cases that would always have been heard with a jury will continue to be heard with a jury.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
But some cases that would have gone to Crown will not do so. In fact, quite a number of cases will not go to Crown any longer. Both you and, probably, I are speculating in our discussion on what the nature of those cases might be, but, given that previously they were indictable offences and could have gone to Crown, they will in some way be more serious cases, will they not?
Sarah Sackman
The only cases that will be retained by the magistrates under the reformed system fall in the category of triable either way, where the court, under the new system, deems them suitable to be heard with a magistrate. So, by definition, they would have to fall within the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ court, which are obviously lower than the Crown Court. Juries are always being preserved for the most serious cases, including those traumatic ones. That does not change under this system. I hope that makes sense. The sorts of cases that I expect to be retained within the magistrates’ court, therefore not requiring a jury, are less serious cases of, for example, theft. The example that is often given is shoplifting—the theft of a whisky bottle or something. At the moment, a defendant in such a case can elect for a jury trial. Under the reformed system, that right of election would be removed, the court would triage that case and, we think, in many cases, where the CPS makes representations and the court thinks it can retain it, it will keep it. That does not alter the jury experience. The jurors will still be hearing the diet of the most serious cases as they have always done. That does not change as a result of the reforms.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
So will you be monitoring the nature of the cases that hitherto would have gone to Crown but that courts in future will be able to decide stay in the magistrates’ courts?
Sarah Sackman
I am sure we will. First, that goes to the efficient operation of our criminal justice system, so we are going to look at how that triage is being undertaken by the court operating in practice. The other aspect to it is that, as part of the Bill, at Report we tabled a government amendment to incorporate an independent review of how the reforms were operating, particularly to look at how that allocation plays out and how it is impacting those with protected characteristics—the impact on the defendant but also on other participants in the system. So yes, of course we are going to look at where cases end up, because that is going to impact directly on our operation and the resource that we provide to the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court to ensure that we have a system that is working well.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
You gave the example of theft, which is clearly a case of a certain kind. But either-way offences that may no longer be heard by juries can include things such as threats to kill, possession of a knife and burglary. If the court decides that those cases stay in the magistrates’ court, I put to you again that some of them could contain issues that juries will find difficult to cope with.
Sarah Sackman
But, if they are in the magistrates’ court, they will not have a jury. We are here discussing the impact on jurors and, obviously, the allocation will be fact-specific. If it has aggravating features, I am confident that the court will allocate it to the Crown. But given that we are talking about the impact on jurors here, if the court deems it suitable to be heard in the magistrates’ court, that will be a question for it—either a district judge or a magistrates’ bench. It will not impact jurors at all.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I take that point, but arguably some of those cases should be heard by juries, and therefore the impact on them should be considered.
Sarah Sackman
Right, but the principled question of whether you think that all these cases should be heard with a jury, as they are now, goes to the principles that lie behind the Bill. I remind the committee of a couple of things on that—not to get into the Bill. First, we have a Crown Court backlog of 80,000 cases, and we undertook an independent review of criminal courts—led by Lord Leveson, with David Ormerod and with very experienced Cross-Bench Peers, such as Lord Burnett—explaining that, for a long time, many cases have gone to the Crown where both the CPS and the magistrates’ court have indicated they could hear them. Driven by the defendant’s right to elect, they have ended up in the Crown, with all the resource implications and impact on the backlog that that has had. That is one of the rationales behind these reforms. The other rationale is the principle of removing the right to elect. We think that the court should triage the venue where cases should take place so that the resource dedicated to them is appropriate to their seriousness. Of course we can have a debate about the merits of that Bill, but in terms of the juror impact, which we are here to discuss today, if a case is retained by the magistrates because the court considers that that is the best place for it, that will not impact jurors, who will continue to have to hear some of the most serious cases—as is right, because jurors and juries are an essential feature of the English and Welsh legal system. They are a good thing, which is why they have always been retained as part of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Baroness Berridge
On this question about the diet and when you set these national minimum standards, is the department doing any work on whether the diet has got more difficult for jurors? When we were at Southwark, we found that there are many more RASSO cases. Many rapes are filmed now. Will that be taken into account when you set national minimum standards? The oral description of evidence has a very different impact on a juror, we believe, compared to seeing moving footage. The introduction of body-worn cameras means that, for example, the discovery of a body, if it is evidentially valuable, can be much more traumatic for a jury.
Daniel Flury
This is just the sort of thing that we do. We know that RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—has massively grown over the last 10 years, driven by police, prosecution and so on. If you turn the clock back 10 or 15 years, there were lots of what we call acquisitive crimes. It has completely changed, especially in the London Crown Court, where it is almost wall to wall RASSO cases. You are right that audio-visual has completely changed, with the proliferation of body-worn cameras. About 75% of all Crown Court trials now have an element of audio-visual material, which drives our training package. I mentioned trauma-informed training being rolled out across HMCTS. This is not just to provide a better service to those who use the courts; it also reflects the changing nature of the material that comes before the court. We will continue to do that, either through the work of this committee or through the work of our own teams, in trying to reflect what happens in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court, helping our staff and those who use the Crown Court—
Baroness Berridge
And the jurors.
Sarah Sackman
That is a really good point. The changing pattern of crime and the increase in the number of RASSO cases is an important feature of the challenges that the criminal justice system is confronting. You are absolutely right, in that context, to highlight the impact on jurors. It is an important culture shift in the whole criminal justice system that more of these cases are coming to court. In that context, I will mention two things in addition to what we have been talking about today. But you are absolutely right: it is pertinent to raise the impact on jurors. One is the extension of Operation Soteria principles to the Crown Court in relation to RASSO cases and the Government’s commitment, and the investment committed, to establishing specialist RASSO courts in every Crown Court centre. We are proud of that commitment. It is about a trauma-informed setting in which all the staff and the ticketed judge—everyone—has trauma-informed training. Jurors will indirectly benefit from being in a setting where the material that surfaces in a typical rape or serious sexual violence case will be contextualised, handled and directed, in terms of how evidence is given, by court staff who are in receipt of trauma-informed training. It is all part of a culture shift. But your question is a really good one, because I think your point is: do not forget the jurors.
Baroness Berridge
Is there no trauma-informed change to the introduction to them, before they sit on the trial, that is specialist? It might be a national minimum standard.
Sarah Sackman
There is not at the moment. But, as I said, we are going through a culture shift. Some of that is in national minimum standards, some is in the establishment of RASSO courts and the training around that, and some is in the measures in the Bill. Some of the later and, if you like, less controversial measures in the Bill contain Law Commission clauses that go to how evidence is presented in those cases. That again will indirectly impact on jurors. So the question is pertinent, and the system is responding to it in a number of ways.
Lord Empey
Noting Lord Tope, in respect of your first answer to the committee, you said you were paying a lot more attention to the position of jurors than had been paid in the past. We know that a jury will consist of people with different backgrounds and employment characteristics. If they are in the public sector, the chances are that they will be paid while they are serving on a jury, whereas, in the private sector, if you are a small business person—a one man band, as it were—it comes back to how we pay expenses to jurors. We know that there are not unlimited resources, but when was the last review of juror expenses and when is the next one? The figure of £5.71 is emblazoned into our memories as the supplement that people are paid. Quite clearly, it would barely buy somebody a cup of coffee in today’s money. When was the last review undertaken and is there one pending?
Sarah Sackman
The last review was undertaken in 2010, and there has been no uplift in juror expenses since. In 2025, we spent £36.9 million on juror expenses, two-thirds of which covered financial loss. I am not going to gloss this. The rates have not been increased since 2010. The daily rate for a juror is £64.95, rising to £129.91 after 10 days. It then rises to £228.06 after 200 days. You will know that jurors can claim allowances for financial loss, additional care expenses, travel and subsistence, but no one is suggesting that the rates have kept pace with the cost of living and inflation. We are asking people to do a civic duty, and I appreciate that for people from different backgrounds—those on lower incomes, and certainly those who are working for small businesses or self-employed—that can be particularly burdensome. We will look at this as we start to consider preparations for the next spending review, but I want to be entirely honest with the committee: we have prioritised, within our criminal justice budget, lifting the financial limit on sitting days, not least to address the backlog—that was a major financial commitment—and investing in criminal legal aid to keep these trials going. That is where we have chosen to put our money to keep the justice system going. I want to be as candid as I can about that.
Lord Empey
Minister, the committee is not naive enough to believe that money is in unlimited supply, but, my goodness, if anyone in the Ministry of Justice had not had their wages increased since 2010 there would be an issue. Given the importance of the jury to the criminal justice system, we ask you to look at that very quickly. It is outrageous, let us be honest.
Sarah Sackman
As I said, I am committed to looking at it in the spending review and to undertaking that. Again, though, to put that in the context of the system we inherited, as a point of analogy, practitioners and providers of civil legal aid in areas like housing had not received an uplift since 1996. I have corrected that—I have committed £20 million to civil legal aid in housing and immigration—but there are other areas that are yet to receive an uplift. That is the stark position in which the Ministry of Justice found itself, having been on the receiving end of real-term cuts for a number of years. I appreciate the point that is being put to me, and I do not fundamentally disagree with the principle or the force with which it is being made, but we have to put in context the choices that Ministers are faced with. We are making record investments in sitting days, criminal legal aid and court maintenance, something from which jurors indirectly and indeed directly benefit from. Some of the £287 million capital budget will be going on the facilities that jurors have to interact with, and that is a good thing. I will look at this issue and consider what can be done within the scope of the next spending review, but it is important to put it in context and explain the choices that we have made.
The Chair
We all understand the difficulty that you have in answering as a Minister, not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we appreciate that the department has to make choices, so we understand where you are coming from. However, you will understand that the committee has been very disturbed by some of the information we have received about the impact. I shall take an extreme case to illustrate that. If I am a juror, and for me to be able to do my civic duty I need childminding, given the average cost of childminding, for a two-week trial I will need to find somewhere in the region of £700 up front, and I am not able to claim that back until after the trial. For most people that is a huge sum of money. So there are issues around when people are paid and whether or not we can go back to a system that used to enable people to be paid at the time. The cost would not have to go up—although I accept that there might need to be a bit more of a monitoring cost—but it would be a case of payment to make it easier for the individual juror. What thoughts been given to that?
Sarah Sackman
I recognise those sorts of costs. As someone who has two young children, I recognise those costs of childcare, and there are other forms of caring responsibility too. No one is suggesting in the current climate, the cost of living being what it is, that this is not a significant burden. There are hardship exceptions. One can, either upon summons or even indeed at court, apply for jury service to be deferred, and in rare cases—but they do happen—to be excused altogether. You are right to highlight the burden on jurors. Although we have not touched on this, particularly where we are talking about small businesses and employers, losing a member of a team for some significant time without recompense can be a burden as well. No one is suggesting that this is not a duty, but there is a degree of sacrifice as well.
The Chair
We could question what level of sacrifice we should expect people to make. If someone says—and we know that they do—“Look, I can’t do jury service because I simply can’t afford to do it”, then they can be excused because the rules allow that, but the real concern is that unfortunately that then has an impact on the jury pool, which is no longer truly representative of society. We really should look at ensuring that there is no delay in payment. That may not solve the problem about nothing having been done since 2010, which obviously we will raise in our report, but at least payment up front would not cost you more money, while it could ease the burden for quite a lot of people.
Daniel Flury
We do, and we can, make interim payments to jurors while the trial is ongoing, whether that is taxis or certain expenses to ensure that they can get through some of the hardship that a trial may may bring. But you are right: we defer or excuse thousands each month, principally in the name of illness or mental health, but a large number of them are principally for caring responsibilities.
The Chair
Have you seen the forms you have to fill in to do that?
Daniel Flury
I have seen the forms.
The Chair
I strongly recommend that you have a look at what you are asking people to do, and to consider how those forms are written. I am grateful for the questions that we have had on our main inquiry. We have got a few more minutes before I know the Minister has to go off to other things, but I know a number of my colleagues would like to use this as an opportunity, since the Courts and Tribunals Bill is beginning its passage through the House of Lords only today, to ask the odd question or two if you are happy to answer them. So I throw it open to any of my colleagues to do so.
Lord Bach
This is very dangerous stuff. Speaking personally, I appreciate very much what this Government have managed to do in terms of the issues that you raised just now about raising fees that have not been raised for a very long time, including a time when I was the Legal Aid Minister, so I do not do this with any sort of grandness. I should declare that I am the unremunerated chair of a law centre; I hope you believe that law centres generally do very good work. Does the department realise that some law centres are feeling very much at the moment, like everyone else, that they are not capable of doing things, because of the world we live in? Hillingdon Law Centre closed its doors after 40 years just the other week, which presumably will have a profound effect on people living in that part of west London. I wonder, given all the fiscal difficulties that there definitely are for the MoJ, whether you are giving some thought to what you may be able to do in order to help. This is more like a Parliamentary Question than a question for a committee like this, but it is the first time we have really had the chance of discussing these issues of social welfare law and law centres.
Sarah Sackman
I hugely value the work that our law centres, other support charities and citizens advice bureaux do. They provide a lifeline and, importantly, early legal advice for people. I am visiting North Kensington Law Centre tomorrow. I started my own career at the free legal advice centre at Toynbee Hall in the East End of London, so my commitment to law centres and my understanding of the value of the work they do runs deep. That is why as a first step the Government have committed £16 million to legal support for several dozen organisations. I think they value that multi-year support, knowing that they are going to have the money for future years. However, as the Minister responsible for both legal support and legal aid, I am keen that we move to a more preventative model. Getting that early legal advice is often as important, sometimes if not more so, than spending lots of money on legal aid, by which time the problem has become acute. The analogy with health sometimes works: it is being seen early by your GP and nipping a problem in the bud before it gets more serious and you end up in court. So the value of the work of law centres is patently obvious to me, and we need more of it. I would like to shift some of our spending to earlier in the process. As we build up to the 80th anniversary of the 1949 Act that instituted legal aid, I would like to enhance our law centre movement because that what they do is hugely valuable. We are talking about access to justice in this country. In today’s day and age there are huge amounts of information but it is not necessarily provided by people who understand how to give that advice. There really is no excuse for legal aid deserts, so we are looking both at supporting law centres financially and at developing sources of government-accredited advice, using technology, so that the promise of access to advice really is a universal one. We have lots of exciting things happening in the department, and I reassure you that your enthusiasm and passion for law centres is one that I absolutely share.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I am sorry for asking you this question, Minister, because you are not responsible for this at all.
Sarah Sackman
Oh dear.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
But here you are now, and therefore I have to ask you. You have mentioned the backlog in court proceedings, both in magistrates’ courts and obviously in the Crown, and the delays in people waiting for their case to be heard, and the lack of justice that that means for people. Magistrates’ courts are really struggling and many people are waiting for trials, in very sensitive cases, for years. Can you report any progress being made in reducing the delays in court proceedings, both in magistrates’ and in the Crown?
Sarah Sackman
Yes, I can. I call our approach the kitchen sink approach, by which I mean we have to throw everything at it. There is no silver bullet for addressing the delays in the Crown Court and—to a lesser extent, but we keep a watchful eye—in the magistrates’ courts. The central insight of Lord Leveson’s independent review is that we need three things. The first is investment, and the biggest investment, which I referred to earlier, is lifting the cap on sitting days. When we had a financial limit on how much Crown Courts could sit, it meant that when even those Crown Court centres that are operating well and efficiently, like in Liverpool, hit their cap, they could not sit any more. We have lifted that. That means that Liverpool is not just getting through its backlog; it is also taking on some cases from Manchester. I was there the other day. We are sitting more and getting through more cases, and the rate of growth of the backlog—I am not saying it is coming down, and I am coming to that—has stabilised significantly because of the investment we have made. The second thing Lord Leveson talked about was efficiencies. We have to make the system more efficient. We have published our response to the Leveson review and are accepting a programme of work around efficiencies. You will have heard me talk about the video remand hearings and about a case progression officer in every Crown Court centre. We are doing short-trial courts, sometimes known as blitz courts, and you might have seen them at the Bailey on your visit. There are a host of measures that we are doing to make the system work more efficiently. The third aspect is the most pertinent one for today. The IRCC concluded that without structural reform we would not bear down on these delays. So are we making progress? We are, in areas 1 and 2—we are making progress in so far as the Bill has come from the Commons and is now coming to you for very important scrutiny. However, we will not get the backlog in our Crown Courts down unless we look at the whole system and ask ourselves: where do cases need to be heard? The most serious ones must always be reserved for a jury trial, but cases that do not need a jury trial, and which can be heard just as fairly in a magistrates’ court, should be retained there. That is the central premise of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and I hope the Bill will get on the statute book. When we have all three levers, I think we can get the backlog down—that is what our modelling shows.
The Chair
Can I just ask the sort of knotty question that people might ask? You might well succeed in getting the Crown Court backlog down, but are you not going to increase the backlog in the magistrates’ courts?
Sarah Sackman
You are right to ask the question, which I have asked of our officials who are doing the planning, because we do not want to divert the problem from one place to another. The way that we avoid that is twofold. The starting point is that the magistrates’ court is a more efficient jurisdiction. A triable either-way case, which could be heard in the Crown or in the magistrates’, is heard four times faster in the magistrates’. It is an efficient jurisdiction. It has a caseload, but it does not have a backlog anything like as bad as the Crown Court’s. The second thing that we have to do, and we are doing it, is to increase the capacity of the magistrates’ court, and we are doing that in a number of ways. The committee will know about the magistrate recruitment campaign. Our objective is to have recruited an additional 7,000 in order to get up to 21,000 magistrates, which is where we were in 2014, by the end of this Parliament. We are recruiting more legal advisers and district judges. We have to expand the capacity of the magistrates’ court in order to cope with the additional demands that we are placing on it, but I am pleased to report, from the stats that we published just a few days ago, that our recruitment programme, which we have reformed and invested in—we have increased the marketing budget fourfold, and we have a team working on the uplift programme—is on track. By the time I hope the reforms kick in, the magistrates’ court will be ready to receive that additional workload. We cannot turn on the reforms unless that is ready, and we will not do that, but I am confident that we can be ready.
The Chair
What discussions have you had with HMPPS about the impact of basically more trials overall throughout the whole system taking place, and therefore the increased pressure on prisons and the Probation Service?
Sarah Sackman
As you can imagine, that has been a really important part of the discussion. I was asked earlier about an impact assessment, and what you are asking about is detailed in the impact assessment. The effect of being more efficient and getting through more trials is that you increase demand and pressure on the prison system, which, as we know, is already under huge pressure. However, you get through the remand cases as well, and that can be of huge benefit, not least to the individuals who are on remand and whose lives are in limbo, either unable to engage with the routines that they would if they were in the permanent estate or, frankly, allowed to go free if they are innocent. So those impacts are complex but they have been modelled to a really high degree, and that is all set out in the impact assessment.
The Chair
That is important. The reduction of remand prisoners is going to be of enormous benefit.
Sarah Sackman
It is going to be huge.
The Chair
They are currently 20% of the prison population, which is just ludicrous. You have been very generous. You offered to be generous with your time so that we could touch on a couple of issues to do with the Courts and Tribunal Bill. For that, and for your answers, I thank both of you very much. If there are any further things that you think you should have told us or you wish you had told us, or perhaps you want to change the words you used or whatever, please get back to us, but I ask you to do that really quickly because we need to get on and produce our report so that it can be helpful to you in your deliberations. I thank you on behalf of the entire committee.