Discussed how the current system is anachronistic, lacking transparency and costing too much. Emphasised the importance of moving towards greater transparency through the use of AI.

Commened on the need for victims to have agency within the court process and transparency following a case, regardless of the verdict. Agreed with Andrew Slaughter's points about AI potentially solving issues in court transcripts.

Mr Louch, a constituent who lost his nephew to murder in 2018, was charged £22,000 for court transcripts. HMCTS initially claimed no responsibility but later advised applying for limited sections to lower costs. However, Mr Louch's inability to pinpoint specific days required due to trauma highlights the prohibitive nature of these fees.

Discussed concerns about the patchiness of interpretation services and called for higher standards to ensure a strong supply of level 6 qualified interpreters to support access to transcripts.

She thanked all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions and highlighted the importance of transparency in the justice system, emphasizing that court transcripts are vital for victims' recovery and should be provided free of charge. She noted that her colleague's constituent was charged £7,500 for a transcript after being raped, underscoring the need for accessibility.

Asked if there were cases where justice had not been delivered due to the inability to get necessary information, focusing on the impact on victims.

Access to court and tribunal transcripts should not be denied based on a person's ability to pay. Mr Brash highlighted that the current costs of obtaining these documents are prohibitive for many constituents, noting 479 signatures from Hartlepool supporting this view. He welcomed the Government's commitment to providing sentencing remarks free of charge but argued that more needs to be done, citing Lords amendment 1 which would create a statutory entitlement for victims to receive key transcripts free of charge.

Mullan welcomed the debate on transparency in the justice system but criticised the current government's approach, suggesting a lack of engagement with challenges faced by previous governments. He highlighted concerns over the deletion of the Courtsdesk archive due to data protection issues that were later found to be low-risk. Mullan emphasised the importance of free access to court transcripts and the need for greater transparency in the justice system.

Juliana Terlizzi, a rape victim, was quoted £7,500 for her court transcript. This highlights barriers to recovery and undermines the UK's support claim for victims of sexual assault. With over 200,000 petition signatures, Olney calls for all transcripts to be free under Baroness Brinton's amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill.

Supported full transparency but suggested that certain aspects could be made more available immediately while other technical discussions are taken in parallel if the principle is accepted by the Minister. Mr Barclay emphasised the importance of cross-party agreement on transparency in court and tribunal transcripts. He cited a petition with over 200,000 signatories as evidence of public concern. Mr Barclay questioned the Minister about legislative or contractual constraints that might be slowing down progress and suggested that technological improvements could address any such issues. He urged for quicker availability of audio clips from court proceedings to ensure accuracy and transparency. Mr. Barclay expressed concerns about the high cost and delayed availability of court transcripts, questioning whether these issues undermine the duty of candour. He asked if it is possible for judges to earmark packages of documents or audio recordings that could be made more readily available as a trial progresses. Mr. Barclay also inquired about extending the appeal period beyond 28 days.