← Back to House of Commons Debates
Criminal Court Reform 2025-12-02
02 December 2025
Lead MP
David Lammy
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Justice & Courts
Other Contributors: 41
At a Glance
David Lammy raised concerns about criminal court reform 2025-12-02 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice opened the debate by discussing the need for criminal court reform, highlighting a backlog of 78,000 cases. He mentioned the independent review chaired by Sir Brian Leveson and outlined plans to increase funding by up to £34 million per year for criminal legal aid advocates. The Minister also proposed new 'swift courts' within the Crown court system, aimed at delivering justice faster.
Robert Jenrick
Con
Newark
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.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
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.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Chichester
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.
Diane Abbott
Ind
Hackney North and Stoke Newington
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.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
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.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham
Acknowledges a disastrous situation inherited from austerity measures but expresses concern that restricting jury trials may create class divisions within the justice system.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
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.
Stella Creasy
Lab/Co-op
Walthamstow
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.
Vikki Slade
LD
Mid Dorset and North Poole
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.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
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.
Solihull West and Shirley
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.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
Welcomes additional money for criminal legal aid advocates and pupillages. Asks for greater transparency in the selection of judges, especially concerning individual case selections.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Highlights poor administration, staff shortages, crumbling buildings as causes of fewer cases processed. Questions how undermining jury trials can solve these issues.
Amber Valley
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.
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
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.
Pam Cox
Lab
Colchester
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.
Brian Mathew
LD
Melksham and Devizes
Asks if suspending jury trials will be temporary or permanent, especially considering the expected sentences for cases being expedited without juries.
Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association
Not Named
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.
Saqib Bhatti
Con
Meriden and Solihull East
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.
Sarah Russell
Lab
Congleton
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.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
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.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
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.
Gagan Mohindra
Con
South West Hertfordshire
Raises concern about removing an automatic right to rehearing for those jailed by volunteer magistrates. Asks if this is merely easier wrongful imprisonment.
Warinder Juss
Lab
Wolverhampton West
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.
Sarah Pochin
Reform
Runcorn and Helsby
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.
Derby North
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.
Siân Berry
Green
Brighton Pavilion
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.
Kim Johnson
Lab
Liverpool Riverside
Questions whether decisions made by judges alone will be influenced by inadmissible evidence and suggests a non-extendable sunset clause might be necessary.
Martin Vickers
Con
Brigg and Immingham
Recalls similar proposals during Tony Blair's administration that were eventually abandoned due to opposition. Urges reconsideration of the sunset clause as a compromise.
Harpreet Uppal
Lab
Huddersfield
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.
Adnan Hussain
Ind
Blackburn
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.
Rachel Hopkins
Lab
Luton South and South Bedfordshire
Welcomes match-funding for criminal barrister pupillages and asks about additional plans to make law more accessible for young people from all backgrounds.
Joe Robertson
Con
Isle of Wight East
Questions the Justice Secretary's focus on reducing funding, suggesting that prioritising welfare over justice is undermining access to courts and jury trials.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
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.
Will Forster
LD
Woking
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.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
Asks if the Government plans to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from non-jury trials as stated previously by a former Minister.
Mid Sussex
Concerned about delays in inquests with juries and asks for clarification on whether changes will affect these inquests.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
Declares an interest as a practising criminal barrister, criticises plans to eliminate jurors and suggests that it erodes public confidence in the justice system.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
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.
Iqbal Mohamed
Ind
Dewsbury and Batley
Critiques previous Government for institutional racism in the justice system, questions whether removing juries will lead to greater injustice and racial discrimination.
Government Response
I am grateful to Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers for their review. I highlighted the backlog in criminal courts, the need for fundamental change, and announced additional funding up to £34 million per year for legal aid advocates. Proposed reforms include new 'swift courts' within the Crown court system, limiting defendants’ right to elect jury trials, increasing magistrates court sentencing powers, and allowing judges to sit without juries in certain complex cases. Defends reforms as necessary to address demand issues, emphasises continued support for jury trials while expanding magistrates’ roles. Cites historical context on court reductions and funding constraints under austerity measures. Defends proposed changes by referring to Sir Brian’s review, emphasising financial investment alongside systemic reforms. Acknowledges that there is no single solution but suggests modernization and reform are necessary. The Lord Chancellor responds to concerns about court backlogs by emphasising ongoing reform efforts and commitments to address delays. He defends the proposed changes as necessary for a fairer and more efficient justice system, referencing support from victims' organisations.
Shadow Response
Robert Jenrick
Shadow Response
The shadow minister criticised the Lord Chancellor's inconsistency on jury trials and questioned the necessity of scrapping them. He also pointed out unused courtrooms due to lack of funding, highlighting that more funding could reduce the backlog.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.