Questions & Answers
Q1
Direct Answer
▸
Context
The Conservative government proposed changes to jury trials to address the criminal justice backlog. The question seeks an evaluation of these changes.
What assessment has been made of the potential impact of proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system?
The Conservatives left our criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, and we are taking action to clean up the mess they left behind. Our detailed impact assessment, published alongside the Courts and Tribunals Bill, shows that our package of measures will save about 27,000 sitting days per year, a saving of almost 20%. Only through reform, together with record investment and action to modernise our courts, can we finally turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Response accuracy
Q2
Direct Answer
▸
Context
The Justice Secretary's proposal to cut jury trials aims at reducing the backlog. The question seeks clarity on whether there will be a sunset clause.
If cutting jury trials is to reduce the backlog, why is there not a sunset clause that would allow for the restoration of full jury trials once the backlog is reduced?
If the hon. Gentleman had listened during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that demand in the system is up. Police arrests are 10% up. For all those reasons, alongside the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative Government, it is important that we put in place reform that is sustainable for the long term, and that is why there is not a sunset clause.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Response accuracy
Q3
Partial Answer
▸
Context
There are about 6,200 cases awaiting justice in the south-west and the question seeks alternatives to cutting jury trials.
With about 6,200 cases waiting justice in the south-west, why not focus on efficiency improvements instead of reducing the right to a jury trial?
It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.
▸
Assessment & feedback
The questioner's request for alternatives and efficiency measures.
Historical Context
Response accuracy
Q4
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The government's case for curtailing jury trials is based on an impact assessment that rests on assumptions rather than hard evidence.
Is the Government asking Parliament to weaken a fundamental safeguard based solely on hearsay, as the case for curtailment does not rest on hard evidence?
Sir Brian Leveson spent months delivering part 1 and part 2 of his reforms. We are building on that. I have set out that this is a 20% saving. If the hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary—I am not sure he ever will be, but if he were—and he was told that a 20% saving could get the waiting list down, he would take it in an instant; so am I.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Specifically addressing the hearsay concern by referring to other reforms and savings percentages without directly confirming or denying evidence quality.
Referencing Other Reforms
Response accuracy
Q5
Partial Answer
▸
Context
There are concerns that the government's current stance on jury trials is based on misleading data and that no circumstances justify curtailment.
Are there any circumstances in which he would consider reintroducing jury trials for cases currently slated to lose this right?
I know the hon. Gentleman has studied this closely, but there are two problems we have to fix. Demand is going up—I said that the police are arresting more. But he will know that because of the use of smartphones, social media, DNA evidence and forensics—for all those reasons—trials are taking longer. That is what we are seeking to fix in the Courts and Tribunals Bill and that is why we have to put the system on a sustainable footing for the next generation. That is what the Bill will deliver.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Commitment or conditions for reintroduction of jury trials.
Explaining Reforms Without Addressing Potential Reinstatement
Response accuracy
Q6
Direct Answer
▸
Context
Victims of crime have been experiencing long wait times and uncertainty due to the backlog.
Will these changes mean that victims are more likely to report crimes, get outcomes in a reasonable time, and feel less like they are on trial?
I am hugely grateful for my hon. Friend's continual advocacy in the Chamber on behalf of victims. She is absolutely right. If we do nothing, we head to a backlog of 200,000, and many, many victims sitting behind that backlog. If we do as Opposition Members suggest, we head to a backlog of 133,000. That is why we have to do these reforms and why I am very pleased to put forward a Bill that also does more, in particular for victims of sexual crime and rape.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Response accuracy
Q7
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The previous Conservative government cut criminal justice funding and closed half of the magistrates courts, leading to a significant backlog.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes being driven through by our Government will mean victims are more able to report crimes and get outcomes in reasonable time?
One hundred per cent. That is why the shadow Justice Secretary, when he stands up, should apologise. He was sat in the Home Office while that was happening.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Agreement on proposed reforms effectiveness.
Criticising Opposition
Response accuracy
Q8
Partial Answer
▸
Context
The Justice Secretary's stance on criminal trials without juries has shifted, causing confusion. Previously, he opposed such trials but now supports them, changing his justification frequently.
I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”. Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?
I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for the state that the Conservatives left the criminal justice system in, closing 40% of court buildings in England—[Interruption.]
▸
Assessment & feedback
The specific request for a sunset clause was not addressed.
Changing The Subject To Criticise The Conservatives
Response accuracy