← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
14 October 2025
Lead MP
Jeremy Wright
Kenilworth and Southam
Con
Responding Minister
Sarah Sackman
Tags
Justice & CourtsEmployment
Word Count: 13911
Other Contributors: 12
At a Glance
Jeremy Wright raised concerns about criminal courts: independent review in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Sir Jeremy Wright calls for consideration of Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations, particularly focusing on encouraging earlier guilty pleas by increasing sentence discounts and providing fuller pre-trial advice to defendants. He urges the government to examine structural changes in court operations beyond resource allocation.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The criminal courts in England and Wales are under significant strain, leading to long delays from early hearings to trial dates, with some cases facing delays of up to 18 months. This delay affects victims' ability to move on after witnessing crimes and increases the risk of incorrect evidence due to memory fade. Remand prisoners make up a growing percentage of the prison population without access to rehabilitation programs, increasing reoffending rates.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
The Justice Committee chair highlights that the current open caseload for criminal cases in Crown courts is 78,329. He discusses the need to address this through Sir Brian Leveson's review, which proposes significant changes including expanding out-of-court resolutions and removing defendants' right to elect a Crown court trial.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
The proposal to create a new Crown court bench division could undermine public trust and fairness in the justice system, with concerns over changes to jury trials. Emphasised the need for proper investment in legal aid and physical infrastructure. Discussed the disparity in sentences passed by judges and highlighted concerns about potential disproportionate sentencing affecting certain communities. Inquired about the government's approach to modernisation and structural reform suggested in Sir Brian Leveson’s report. Points out the low take-up of barristers' profession due to insufficient income and loss of professionals, questioning how additional sitting days can address this issue.
Mullan
Lab
Bexhill and Battle
Introduced an opposing viewpoint, questioning the consensus on radical reforms. Asked for information regarding the report read by the minister, emphasizing that many MPs including those from her own party have read it.
Chichester
Highlighted the impact of delays on justice delivery, noting an average wait of 22 months for a verdict in Crown courts and a backlog of over 78,000 cases. Emphasised the importance of timely case hearings to maintain public confidence.
Leigh Ingham
Lab
Stafford
Brought attention to a case in her constituency highlighting the human impact of delayed justice, stressing the importance of addressing systemic issues such as underfunding and neglecting court buildings. Raised her constituent’s case to illustrate the impact of Crown court backlog delays on victims.
Amber Valley
Intervention is needed now to fix the Crown court backlog. The changing nature of crime presents an opportunity for modernisation, but careful consideration must be given to cases like domestic abuse and non-molestation orders.
Pam Cox
Lab
Colchester
Agreed with Sir Ashley Fox that the jury trial system has evolved over time but questioned the benefits of further curtailment.
Sarah Sackman
Con
Ruislip-Northwood
Rejected the suggestion that the government had sat idle, highlighting increased court sitting days and investments in legal aid.
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
Sir Ashley highlighted concerns about Sir Brian Leveson's proposals restricting access to jury trials without clear evidence of substantial time savings or system improvements. Discussed concerns about curtailing access to jury trials, arguing it would limit a fundamental freedom of the country.
Tessa Munt
LD
Wells and Mendip Hills
Ms Munt questioned whether the backlog is due to jury trials taking longer, suggesting that juries are statistically fairer for ethnic minorities and vulnerable individuals. Emphasised the importance of addressing delays caused by outstanding issues such as barristers’ fees and expert witness fees. Raises concerns about experts refusing to work at legal aid rates and delays caused by lack of timely funding for defence solicitors to access expert services.
Tony Vaughan
Lab
Folkestone and Hythe
As a former barrister, highlighted the impact of austerity on court buildings and staff, welcoming steps taken by the Government to improve resourcing but stressing more is needed to address the backlog. Asked if there was any recommendation that could be supported to reduce pressures on the system, highlighting a need for practical solutions.
Yasmin Qureshi
Lab
Bolton South and Walkden
The House should examine Sir Brian Leveson’s review before bringing forward legislation. Capacity issues are not just about buildings but people, with legal aid erosion leading to judicial shortages.
Government Response
Sarah Sackman
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice
Government Response
Agreed with the need for action on criminal justice crisis and highlighted the rising courts backlog inherited from previous government. Acknowledged the human impact of delays on victims. Rejected the suggestion of inaction, highlighting increased court sitting days and investments. Emphasised that financial investment alone is insufficient without systemic reform. Discussed strands of investment, modernisation, and structural reform, citing Sir Brian Leveson’s report and its findings on time savings. Emphasises the need for investment in criminal legal aid, court staff, prosecutors, and defence lawyers; acknowledges the complexity of the system and the importance of capacity; stresses that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis; welcomes contributions from Members and Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.