Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill - Schedule 3

I propose that we read Schedule 3 a second time. This schedule introduces significant changes to the leadership of tribunals, ensuring that they are led by highly qualified and experienced individuals. This will enhance the quality and impartiality of the tribunal system, providing better service to claimants. The schedule also includes provisions to improve the governance and accountability of tribunal leadership, which is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

Asked the Minister for an update on the reopening of Taunton Crown court, expressing concern about the delay in reopening despite earlier assurances. Emphasised the importance of court repairs and their impact on the local community and the justice system.

Expressed concern over the growing backlog in the magistrates’ court, which is increasing at a faster rate than the Crown court backlog. Questioned whether the proposed reforms are efficient given the rapid growth of the magistrates court backlog.

Mr. Mullan criticises the government for not acting in good faith with their MPs and the public. He outlines the government's retreat from clause 3, which he welcomes, but argues that the core damaging framework of the bill remains intact. He raises concerns about the erosion of rights to a jury trial and the impact on defendants and victims. He also criticises the government's use of secondary legislation to erode rights and the lack of progress in addressing court backlogs. He proposes practical alternatives to address the backlog without stripping citizens of jury trial rights.

Ms. Phillips interjects to question Mr. Mullan's stance on the right to choose a jury trial, citing her personal experience with a victim awaiting trial for a simple order breach. She argues that the current system allows defendants to use jury trials to continue abuse, and asks if Mr. Mullan believes the state should be complicit in such abuse.

Ms. Darlington interjects to clarify Ms. Phillips' question, emphasising that the right to choose a jury trial is being used by perpetrators to continue abusing victims and survivors. She asks if Mr. Mullan believes the state should be party to such abuse.

Mr. Khan interjects to support Mr. Mullan's argument that justice must be seen to be done, emphasising the importance of being tried by one's peers and the confidence it builds in the jury system.

Ms. Taylor interjects to challenge Mr. Mullan's criticism of the government's handling of magistrates courts, highlighting her father's long service as a magistrate and the importance of magistrates in providing justice. She argues that the government is investing in more magistrates and supporting them in doing their job effectively.

Mr. Malthouse interjects to support Mr. Mullan's argument, emphasising the significant implications of the erosion of jury trials for the judiciary and the public perception of justice. He argues that removing the shield between the defendant and the judge may lead to political interference in the selection of judges.

Turner welcomed the removal of clause 3 but criticised clauses 1, 2, 4, and 6, arguing they would exacerbate the backlog in magistrates courts and undermine fairness. He proposed an amendment to ensure defendants with no previous convictions can opt for Crown court trials. He emphasised the higher overturn rate in Crown courts and the importance of judicial independence.

Wright interjected to question the effect of judge-only trials on the Court of Appeal and the likelihood of increased appeals due to judges providing reasons for convictions, whereas juries do not.

Khan interjected to argue that if elected trials do not happen and cases are summarily dealt with, there is a good chance that appeals will still find their way to the Crown court, not alleviating the concerns the Government aims to address.

Phillips interjected twice, firstly to argue that just because a domestic abuser has no prior convictions does not mean they lack a criminal history, and secondly to assert that a longer sentence is a benefit, countering Turner's point about jury trials being a benefit.

Darlington interjected to inform Turner of the Rape Crisis report indicating that juries bring misconceptions and bias into the system and are less likely to convict, challenging Turner's view on the benefits of jury trials.

Mullan interjected to highlight that women's victims' rights groups are diverse in their views and many oppose the removal of jury trials, challenging Turner's stance on victims' opinions.

Jessica Brown-Fuller argues that the Government's plans are flawed and dangerous, risking the collapse of the criminal justice system. She highlights the lack of coherent modelling for the proposed Crown court bench division and the impact on magistrates courts, suggesting that the proposed changes will increase the backlog and pressure on magistrates courts. She raises concerns about the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates and the implications for legal aid, urging for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms.

Jeremy Wright interjects to point out a practical issue with the solution proposed by Jessica Brown-Fuller, highlighting that criminal lawyers often start their day much earlier than court sessions, making it difficult to resolve cases without the need for a trial if courts start at 9 am.

Ayoub Khan interjected to point out the lack of lawyers to handle the increased caseload in magistrates courts.

Jess Phillips interjected to note that there are plenty of lawyers available, responding to Ayoub Khan's intervention.

Jessica Brown-Fuller interjected to highlight the proposed removal of the automatic right of appeal, which could negatively impact defendants without legal representation.

Cox argues against the Bill's clause that removes the right to trial by jury, stating that it breaches a long-standing right respected since the 17th century. He emphasises that the system is designed to protect the innocent and that the proposed changes could lead to profound injustices. He calls for the Government to listen to the Select Committee's recommendations to ensure that magistrates can consider the defendant's character and profession before deciding on trial type.

Phillips interjected to argue that the system is not designed to consider the wishes of the innocent victim, who has no say in where the trial might go or if it should be appealed. She emphasises that the current system fails to take into account the perspective of the victim.

Yasmin Qureshi argues that restricting jury trials is not the solution to court backlogs, which are caused by a variety of issues including legal aid cuts and police delays. She is concerned about the Bill's provision that restricts unrepresented defendants' right to appeal in the magistrates court, as it could lead to unfairness.

Andrew Mitchell proposes new clause 22 to restrict immunity from civil suits for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. He argues that the Court of Appeal's ruling on police misconduct immunity risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability and could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice.

Sarah Pochin, with 20 years of experience as a magistrate, expressed deep concern about the increasing sentencing powers of magistrates to two years of custody and the presumption of suspension of all custodial sentences of up to 12 months. She stressed the need for rigorous training for magistrates and questioned the Probation Service's qualifications to supervise community orders. She argued that the policy betrays justice for victims, highlighting the overwhelming and underfunded state of the Probation Service.

Jess Phillips supported the amendment by discussing the importance of holding police and the Crown Prosecution Service accountable for their actions. She referenced cases of victims taking civil action against the CPS and police, leading to law changes such as the early victims' right to review scheme. Phillips argued that victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence should be able to take civil action, and she expressed concern over the Supreme Court judgment's impact on victims' rights. She also emphasised the support for Claire Throssell's campaign and criticised the shadow Minister for not mentioning his amendment that could endanger victims of domestic abuse.

Clauses 6 and 4 are unsustainable, moving problems to magistrates courts and undermining public engagement in criminal justice. It risks increasing the backlog and overwhelming an under-resourced system. Amendment 4 and 52 offer sensible alternatives.

Agrees with the concerns about clause 6, questioning the sustainability of expecting magistrates to sit for multiple days in a row.

Supports amendments that improve experiences for victims, ensure trauma-informed training, and address diversity in the judiciary. Calls for better implementation of special measures and remote participation in court proceedings.

Intervened to suggest standard provision of special measures, agreeing with the hon. Member for Bradford East on the importance of protecting victims from the moment they arrive at court.

Lee Barron discusses the closure of courts and suggests reopening some sites. He is not against the right to elect a court but highlights issues with the victim contact scheme, advocating for the routine sharing of sensitive information like name and appearance changes with victims. He uses examples of the Haselip and Gallacher cases to illustrate the need for transparency.

Rebecca Smith opposes clause 17, which repeals the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. She argues that the presumption should remain as it reflects the fact that most children benefit from both parents' involvement. She fears the clause will increase state power to erase one parent from a child's life, often the father, and rebalance the relationship between parents and the state. She highlights concerns about the welfare of children and the importance of parental involvement.

Mr Fenton-Glynn argues that the current presumption of parental contact allows abuse to continue through the courts and endangers children. He cites the tragic deaths of 68 children due to this presumption. He stresses the importance of prioritising victims' experiences and the need for judicial reform to address the pro-contact culture.

Ms Russell, a solicitor, supports extending legal aid in magistrates court for clause 3 but expresses concerns about the implications of increasing magistrates' sentencing powers to two years. She argues that this change could undermine the unduly lenient sentence scheme, leaving certain offences without recourse if sentences are deemed too lenient.

As the Courts Minister, Sackman argued for the need to reform, invest in and modernise the criminal justice system to address unacceptable delays in criminal courts. She highlighted the Government's investments in legal aid and court estate, and mentioned the Liverpool model and Nightingale courts. She emphasised the importance of structural reform, investment and modernisation.

The Bill aims to reform the criminal justice system to ensure fast and fair justice for victims, addressing the backlog of cases and modernising the system to handle the demands of the 21st century. It also supports victims of rape and sexual offences and prioritises child safety in family courts.

Jessica Brown-Fuller intervened during Nick Timothy's speech to ask for specific legal organisations that had expressed concerns about the perceived bias of juries.