Criminal Court Reform 2025-12-02

Mr Jenrick criticised the Lord Chancellor's proposals, highlighting inconsistencies in his previous statements and questioning the necessity of scrapping jury trials. He pointed out that more than 50 Crown courtrooms were empty due to lack of funding, despite unused sitting days potentially reducing the backlog by up to 10,000 cases.

Responds by criticising the shadow Justice Secretary for not mentioning victims, providing historical context on court reductions under austerity measures, and defending reforms as necessary to address a demand issue caused by DNA evidence, CCTV, and increased arrest rates. He emphasises that jury trials will continue and that magistrates can handle more cases.

Recognises the commitment to addressing the Crown court backlog but calls for an evaluation of reforms' effects on reducing backlog, fairness, conviction rates, and sentence length. He supports staying within limits proposed by Sir Brian Leveson.

Critiques the plan to reduce jury trials as an historic upheaval without addressing underlying issues like court infrastructure problems and lack of funding. She questions whether the Department has the capacity for such reforms.

Expresses concern about potential miscarriages of justice due to restrictions on jury trials, quoting the Prime Minister from 1992. She supports victims but also emphasises the importance of trial by jury.

Acknowledges the seriousness of the report but questions whether reforms will be permanent or temporary, seeks clarification on presumption for judge-only trials in certain cases, and requests focus on funding to prevent cracked trials.

Acknowledges a disastrous situation inherited from austerity measures but expresses concern that restricting jury trials may create class divisions within the justice system.

Critiques the government for failing to provide sufficient resources to courts over years. Urges the Secretary of State to increase sitting days by an order of magnitude, questioning his commitment to judicial independence.

Raises concerns about the impact on justice and fairness, especially for minority communities. Questions if sufficient funding is provided for legal aid to ensure decent representation for defendants.

Questions whether increasing sitting days will be effective given the backlog in magistrates courts, which already has 361,000 cases. Asks for additional investment to support legal advisers and grow the magistracy.

Expresses concern about putting people away in jail for up to three years without trial by jury, likening potential government actions under pressure to authoritarian regimes.

Agrees with the Lord Chancellor's diagnosis but disputes his treatment. Argues that a lack of judges, court space, infrastructure, inefficiencies, and appropriately trained defence/prosecution counsel are causing the backlog.

Welcomes additional money for criminal legal aid advocates and pupillages. Asks for greater transparency in the selection of judges, especially concerning individual case selections.

Highlights poor administration, staff shortages, crumbling buildings as causes of fewer cases processed. Questions how undermining jury trials can solve these issues.

Describes the long-standing crisis in the criminal justice system due to backlog and delay, leading defendants to plead not guilty hoping for cases dismissed. Advocates for supporting frontline workers and victims of crime.

Requests modelling on each recommendation's impact on the backlog before voting on legislation that curtails jury trial rights, as per Sir Brian Leveson’s report.

Agrees with tradition adaptability for public access to justice. Points out soaring demand due to modern advancements in forensics and law enforcement's increased arrest rate.

Asks if suspending jury trials will be temporary or permanent, especially considering the expected sentences for cases being expedited without juries.

They have stated that there is no evidence to suggest removing the right to elect a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog. They argue that underfunding and reduced sitting days are the real causes of delays.

Argues against scrapping jury trials to save them, stating it is a reframing of rights and power away from the people. Emphasises that jury trials protect vulnerable individuals and ensure fairness.

Expresses concern over the proposed changes in cases related to protest rights, urging the Lord Chancellor to commit to retaining jury trials in such cases.

Questions whether other funding and resourcing options should be considered instead of removing a civic obligation that people believe in. Highlights backlogs not only in England but also in Northern Ireland.

Welcomes investment for victims but emphasises that court backlogs are due to chronic lack of funding and not the use of juries. Argues against eroding a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years.

Raises concern about removing an automatic right to rehearing for those jailed by volunteer magistrates. Asks if this is merely easier wrongful imprisonment.

Welcomes proposals to tackle court backlogs and delays, but asks the Secretary of State to confirm that sanctity of jury trials will be preserved with changes only relating to less serious offences.

Claims policy undermines law and order in the country, risking further politicisation of judicial system. Asks Secretary of State if he believes this is true.

Highlights that victims are waiting years for their cases to go to trial and criticises the hypocrisy of the Conservative Opposition in not addressing court backlogs before the pandemic.

Raises concerns about risks involved when charges involve state or corporate victims, stressing the importance of dissent, whistleblowing and protest. Asks if there is concern about damaging attacks on judges.

Questions whether decisions made by judges alone will be influenced by inadmissible evidence and suggests a non-extendable sunset clause might be necessary.

Recalls similar proposals during Tony Blair's administration that were eventually abandoned due to opposition. Urges reconsideration of the sunset clause as a compromise.

Welcomes reforms but asks how court delays can be reduced and perpetrators brought to justice more quickly, referencing roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation.

Reiterates the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of legal heritage and public confidence in criminal justice. Criticises the government's decision to curtail jury trials without prioritising court capacity, judicial recruitment and case management reform.

Welcomes match-funding for criminal barrister pupillages and asks about additional plans to make law more accessible for young people from all backgrounds.

Questions the Justice Secretary's focus on reducing funding, suggesting that prioritising welfare over justice is undermining access to courts and jury trials.

Concerned about court backlogs and waiting times for major crimes. Asks if changes will bring down the backlog and whether trial by jury will be maintained for serious cases.

Raises a specific case of a victim waiting over six years for justice, asks for an impact assessment to be published before legislation is introduced.

Asks if the Government plans to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from non-jury trials as stated previously by a former Minister.

Concerned about delays in inquests with juries and asks for clarification on whether changes will affect these inquests.

Declares an interest as a practising criminal barrister, criticises plans to eliminate jurors and suggests that it erodes public confidence in the justice system.

Argues that judges lack the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively and questions how this will affect the credibility of verdicts and public perception of justice being seen to be done.

Critiques previous Government for institutional racism in the justice system, questions whether removing juries will lead to greater injustice and racial discrimination.