Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s constructive collaboration on this issue, but as it is my job to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, I will press amendment 17 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is absolutely right. The inboxes of all Members across the House have been filled by parents who feel passionately that they need help to be able to control their children’s use of things online. They need the Government to step in and say, “You are actually not allowed those apps.” I am a parent myself, with young children, and as parents we cannot be over their shoulder all the time watching what they are seeing online. We know that what they are being given by the algorithm is so unsafe, damaging and harmful, and they deserve to be protected from that by the Government.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Chichester high school in my constituency has introduced Yondr pouches—I imagine there are many similar pouches. Children can take their phones to school, but then they have to put them in those lockable pouches. They do not have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock the pouches when they leave school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a potential solution, especially for children who need their phones for health reasons or who, for other reasons, need their devices to make sure they can be in school?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 3 and its various parts outline how trials can take place without juries. The Liberal Democrats have always fundamentally opposed the move to remove the right to a trial in front of one’s peers and the introduction of single-judge trials. To be clear, we do not accept the status quo and neither does anyone who I have spoken to in the legal profession or courts. The backlogs are totally unacceptable and they are failing victims, defendants and the people working in the criminal justice system. But no one in that system thinks that the fault lies with the jury trial system. In fact, Sir Brian stated that in our recent evidence session. The decision is being made without any decisive modelling that would demonstrate that it would have the intended effect. There is also a timing issue with the proposal to restrict the use of a jury. Nationally, we have seen an intense displeasure with our democracy, and faith in politics and our political system is at an all-time low. It is fractured and deeply distrustful. When we have mistrust in our political system, it seeps into our justice system. Around six in 10 people express a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in juries delivering the right verdict compared with around four in 10 for courts and judges more generally. Clause 3 proposes something that will risk a great deal without the evidence that shows it will actually work. That is why it is so strongly opposed. The Government instead should be implementing evidence-based reforms to target inefficiencies, including but not limited to negotiating the failed prisoner escort contract, introducing victim-led intensive case management across the regions, and investing in rehabilitation to reduce reoffending. They could also explore reducing the court backlog by running two trials in a day in select courtrooms instead of one, making more efficient use of time by nearly doubling the hearing time per sitting day and accelerating the throughput of cases. They could also develop and implement a more ambitious strategy to reduce delays in rape and serious sexual offences cases, or implement their own manifesto pledge to introduce speciality RASSO courts, which we will no doubt debate at a later stage of the Bill. I am confident that the Minister will say, as she did in the evidence session, “Why is the backlog not coming down if we can make the system work better?” She put that question to Caroline Goodwin KC, Claire Davies KC and Samantha Hillas KC, saying, “I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits.” Caroline Goodwin came back with: “The reality is that we have not been able to do this. Because there has been a consistent cap on sitting days, judges have not been able to open up court days. They have not been able to run blitz days where they can really take hold of a case and shake it and say, ‘Right, what is going on?’ We have not had any great directives to the CPS to say, ‘When you’re charging these cases, you need to review these very thoroughly.’ Throughout this entire time, the criminal Bar and the entire justice system has been brought to its knees. So if you are saying, ‘Is there any empirical evidence that this doesn’t work on your circuit, Ms Goodwin?’, we have not been able to do it.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 48, Q94.] Why do we believe that we need to protect the safeguard of a jury trial while still reforming the criminal courts in other ways? The Lammy review in 2017 found that black and Chinese women were convicted at higher rates than white women in magistrate courts but not by juries. The Criminal Bar Association commissioned an independent study of criminal barristers; of the 2,029 who responded, 94% raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the Crown court bench division and 88% were against the introduction of a Crown court bench division altogether. If we take the figures in the impact assessment that the Government have provided at face value, the proposal will save 5,000 sitting days per annum. That is around 3.5% of the Crown court workload. That means that rape complainants or victims who are currently waiting years for their own trial to be heard might see their cases brought forward by about a week. On the Government’s own estimates, the changes will not start taking effect until after the next general election. It is not providing a solution to the current crisis. Indeed, the impact assessment was based on a premise that it compared “do nothing” with the effects of all of the Government’s measures proposed in the Bill, but nobody is proposing “do nothing”. Radical investment and reform is already taking place and is welcomed. The Government were right to introduce removing the cap on sitting days and encourage blitz courts in a number of courts in the different regions. That has cross-party support and will bring down the backlog by more direct means. I would also like to briefly highlight the perversity in the cut-off of three years. Let us take the case of a 20-year-old student charged with unlawful wounding, where someone’s face was gashed by a glass thrown in a bar. Under the sentencing guidelines, if they were of good character they would face imprisonment of between two and three years. That conviction would be life changing and that young defendant would not qualify for trial by jury under these proposals. Let us take exactly the same case, but involving a 40-year-old defendant with a long criminal record who has been to prison before. Because of their record, the likely sentence for the same offence would exceed three years and they would get trial by jury, whereas a young man with no convictions would not. I ask the Committee to reflect on the perversity created by changing the threshold. I conclude by reiterating that clause 3, which sets out how the Crown court should allocate a case for trial without a jury and the procedure, should not be included in the Bill, and I shall vote against its inclusion.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady recognise that the 2025 Criminal Bar Association study noted that one in five barristers are considering leaving the criminal Bar, not because of the ineffectiveness of jury trials but because they have to work in crumbling buildings, because there is a significant administrative burden associated with passing on information to the CPS and because of the number of ineffective cases that then do not go ahead? Does she agree that if we tackle the inefficiencies in courts, we are more likely to improve our retention of criminal barristers and encourage some of them to come back into the profession because the system will work better?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree with His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, who argued that jury trials could actually impose discipline in complex fraud cases, whereas in a judge-only trial there is no incentive to get on and hear all the evidence? He also said that in such cases, juries decide issues of dishonesty and facts that are not necessarily technical, meaning that 12 jurors are in a much better position to reach a decision based on dishonesty.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 13, which was tabled in my name, provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months, which would keep the Bill in line with Leveson’s suggestions. The Government have failed to take into account the impact that increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers will have. Magistrates’ backlogs are increasing, and magistrates courts are not set up to take on more complex cases. The Government are also making some bold assumptions about the speed at which magistrates can clear these cases. They have their own backlog to face, which stands at 379,000 cases and increasing. That is a 17% increase on the previous year, which comes alongside a major cut to the number of magistrates over the past decade or so, from 28,000 to just over 14,000. Removing the power of defendants to elect, plus the changes in sentencing powers, will increase the workload of magistrates courts, and the system will struggle to absorb that. Magistrates will be required to deal with more complex cases despite the summary nature of their jurisdiction. Either they will be unable to handle those cases and will send them to the Crown court, or they will risk delivering poor-quality justice, which would let down victims and defendants alike. The cohort affected by this change consists by definition of defendants expected to receive a prison sentence of between one and two years. The impact assessment shows that the Government assume that each of these trials in the magistrates courts will be completed within just four hours. The impact assessment also assumes that cases involving a guilty plea will take just 30 minutes. Either the impact assessment is incorrect or these cases will not receive the scrutiny they deserve. Our other amendment, amendment 21, would make changing the general limit on custodial sentences for either-way offences in the magistrates court possible by affirmative resolution only. It is very similar to amendment 34, which the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden spoke to on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. The amendment would ensure that any changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers—if amendment 13, to limit their powers, is not passed—is subject to the affirmative procedure. It would give greater parliamentary oversight, as all changes would have to pass through a Delegated Legislation Committee. Leaving that to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor is not a strong enough condition; it does not provide enough scrutiny or protection against rogue actors. The measure was also recommended by the Law Society of England and Wales. It would provide just that protection, and would ensure that Parliament would have and maintain its say in matters.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 6 expands the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power to change the general limit on the custodial sentence that a magistrates court may impose. It replaces the current list of possible maximum terms—six or 12 months—with a new list of six, 12, 18 or 24 months. That will allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to change the general limit within these set terms. The sentencing powers of the magistrates court were increased in 2022 from six months to 12 months. This clause would allow the Lord Chancellor to further increase the maximum by statutory instrument to either 18 or 24 months. The result will be more triable either-way cases being heard in the magistrates court. The practical reason we oppose the clause is that magistrates courts are facing their own increasing list—Members can decide whether they want to call it a backlog or a list. I recognise the Minister’s comments that we should not describe the 379,000 cases waiting in the magistrates courts as a backlog and I agree with her assessment that we need a certain number of cases in order for the magistrates court to function.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a really interesting point about what we perceive to be lengthy or complex, as the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden tried to do with her amendment. Amendment 29 seeks to define a lengthy trial as one going beyond the five-month point, but Geoffrey Rivlin KC collected data over six years from Southwark Crown court—the primary venue for complex financial crime trials—which showed that the vast majority of fraud cases lasted less than three months, with only one or two typically lasting more than that, and only two cases in total lasting over six months. Does the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle agree that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify what she believes “lengthy” or “complex” to be? The judiciary will also be asking that.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his point; he characterises me very well as being generous. I would also argue that the scope is expanded significantly if one of the offences that a defendant is charged with is fraud, money laundering or any of the offences that sit in that category. There can be 10 charges against a defendant, and if one of them is fraud, money laundering or terrorism funding, that entire case could be heard in a judge-alone trial. The Minister spoke very clearly about recognising the burden on jurors. She made a legitimate point, and it is certainly reflected in reality. Especially when jury trials do not run as we would expect them to run, the impact on jurors can be huge, especially for those who are self-employed or have caring responsibilities. As I mentioned earlier, I ask the Minister to go away and look at the Maxwell hours, which have been successful for longer cases. For a morning session, it means that those who are self-employed are able to commit to working in the afternoons. In some cases, it means that those with caring responsibilities know that they are going to get home at a reasonable hour. The Maxwell hours are used in lots of different areas, and could be the answer to retaining the key principle of jury trials in fraud cases, while still ensuring a better experience for jurors. Amendment 51 would prevent “the Lord Chancellor adding further offences to the list in Schedule 1 by regulations.” The concern is that it would give unconstrained power over the list of offences that may be heard without a jury on the basis that cases are considered complex or burdensome for jurors. That rationale could easily be extended to lengthy murder, rape, or drug trials. As the shadow Minister mentioned, if the wording in schedule 1 specified fraud or that particular type of case, it would be a different matter. However, it does not; it just says “complex or lengthy”. The Minister makes the point that this is a complex area, and criminal offences are added all the time, but she also referred to the specific types of fraud cases. If she can include the provision of fraud in clause 1, that would provide a reassurance that there would not be additionality of scope. That is not to suggest that the current Lord Chancellor would be inclined to increase the scope, but a future Lord Chancellor may be able to extend the provision far beyond the huge change that the Government are already proposing. Trials for things like terrorism, murder, rape and drug offences can last many months. They can be as complex as fraud cases, and they can involve multiple defendants and expert evidence. On that basis, the arguments that the Minister has made do not stand. That is why I will be voting against clause 4.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 6, page 17, line 11, at end insert— “(9) After section 15 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, insert— ‘ 15A Entitlement to Crown Court funding levels in certain proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court (1) This section applies to criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court where— (a) an individual is charged with an either-way offence; and (b) the court, having regard to the sentencing guidelines, considers it likely that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months will be imposed upon conviction. (2) Where this section applies, any relevant representation order shall provide for remuneration at the same rates and under the same conditions as would apply if the proceedings were determined in the Crown Court.’” This amendment links legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It ensures that defendants facing more than 12 months' imprisonment receive Crown Court level funding, regardless of which court the case is heard in. The amendment would link legal aid funding to the potential severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial. It would ensure that defendants facing more than 12 months’ imprisonment received Crown court-level legal aid funding, regardless of which court the case was heard in. The context of this is that the Bill’s equality statement acknowledges that “if more cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, it is likely that an increased proportion of these defendants may be ineligible for legal aid when they would otherwise have been eligible if their case had been heard at the Crown Court.” That is because the eligibility threshold for receiving representation from a publicly funded lawyer in the magistrates court is an annual income of below £22,325—significantly lower than the Crown court threshold of £37,500. As a result, individuals in full-time minimum wage employment may not qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court. Without that being addressed, it is clear that we will face an increase in the number of defendants attending court without legal representation, which undermines fairness for all those involved. Complainants, victims and witnesses may be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator of the crime; it could slow proceedings down; it risks unfairness to the accused; and it means that the outcome of the cases will depend on whether the defendant can afford expensive lawyers, not on the true justice of the case. That concern is compounded by the fact that clause 6 provides magistrates with greater sentencing powers, meaning that defendants will be facing more serious cases. It will also prolong hearings, which will reduce the savings the Government claim they will make by shifting cases into the magistrates court. Our amendment would ensure that, if the Government’s plans are implemented, which we oppose, legal aid would be linked to the sentence length, ensuring that those who face longer sentences in the magistrates court received the funding they would expect in the Crown court. There is a lower threshold for legal aid in the magistrates court because it is assumed that cases will be shorter and simpler. That will no longer be the case, with more serious cases taking place that could take days to complete. Our amendment would avoid concerns about two-tier justice and an increase in the number of defendants appearing in court without legal representation.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak against the inclusion of clause 4. It inserts part 6A in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which will allow complex or lengthy cases to be tried without a jury. My main opposition to the clause is that it is a pointless exercise by the Government that will in no way affect the backlog. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the savings will amount to just 200 sitting days per year, which is a tiny fraction—0.18% of the current sitting days. The Government argue that these cases can continue for many months, thereby wasting jurors’ time or putting additional pressure on those called for jury service. However, data from Southwark Crown court, where the majority of fraud and other such cases are heard, shows that only one or two cases per year exceed three months, and only two between 2018 and 2024 went beyond six months. His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC has argued that jury trials impose discipline, which helps to reduce the length of fraud trials. Without that incentive, judge-alone trials may be as long as or even longer than jury trials. I alluded to this earlier, but jurors decide on issues of dishonesty and fact in these cases, which are not necessarily technical. Twelve jurors are therefore in a much better position to reach a decision. I also have grave concerns about the terminology of “complex” and “lengthy”. I know the Minister has said that the meaning of complex and lengthy are well understood in the judiciary. I would argue that a lot of people in the legal profession are pushing back against that assertion, and that the Bill does not provide clarity on what they should determine to be complex or lengthy.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point that the shadow Minister is making is that the clause is a substantial expansion of what we understand the legislation to be doing in terms of a judge-only trial. Somebody could be charged with 10 offences. One of those could be related to a lengthy fraud case, but the rest of the offences would mean that they would still get a judge-only trial, which is a significant expansion of what we believe this Bill is trying to do.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Bolton South and Walkden for their contributions to the discussion on amendment 22. I recognise that thresholds exist for a reason, but people earning £22,325 are not making a different consideration from somebody earning £23,325. They are lucky if they get to the end of the month with any money left in their bank account, let alone being able to consider paying for an hour’s legal advice. Even the concept of contacting a law firm and asking for simple, early-stage advice is going to feel totally alien to these people, because they do not have the funds to be able to do that. So thresholds exist for a reason, but the Government need to do a piece of work on where those thresholds land, because with the cost of living crisis, it is really hard in this country for people to afford to exist, let alone to afford the additional pressures that a case being heard in a magistrates court would put upon them. The Minister said that access to justice is a fundamental principle. I agree entirely, and I know how strongly she feels about making sure that legal aid is fit for purpose. We have had many conversations about that, and I am confident that we will continue to do so. I know she will vote against the amendment, but that does not mean that I will not push it to a vote, because it is important to get how important legal aid provision is on the record. This conversation is not over, and I am sure the Minister will agree to carry it on.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the last couple of weeks, there have been press reports about a particular case that was charged in 2019. I will not go into that because it is going to reopen, but clause 4 would mean, for example, that somebody who has been abusing and defrauding the elderly—perhaps many different elderly people—over many years and has caused significant harm not of a sexual nature, and who is therefore charged with multiple offences, gets a judge-only trial and is not tried by a jury. If there was a sexual offence, they would get a jury, but if they had been harming multiple people and defrauding them, they would be tried by a judge alone. Does he agree that that feels quite perverse?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Ministry of Justice done any modelling on the benefits of introducing Maxwell hours for all lengthy fraud cases? Doing so would benefit jurors, as they would only be committed to sitting from 8 am until midday and could go on to fulfil their caring responsibilities and such. The same goes for judges when dealing with complex fraud cases.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point about the disparity in the guidance. If there is someone at the top of an NHS trust who is passionate about maternity care, that is more likely to trickle down, but that is not the same in every trust, and therefore we can end up with a postcode lottery. In Chichester, mothers going to give birth would have a totally different experience if they went to Chichester, Guildford or Portsmouth because they are three totally different trusts with totally different guidance and rules about when mothers should present or the sort of treatment they should get at hospital. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that introducing a maternity commissioner would give us strategic oversight across the country of the experiences that mothers should expect to have?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and she is absolutely right. We had the Bill Kirkup review, which made multiple recommendations; across all parties, the House said, “Now we need to implement those recommendations,” but that never happened. Then we had the Donna Ockenden review, which contained immediate and essential actions; we need to implement those, but the Government have not come forward and said that they will make them mandatory. Now we have Baroness Amos’s review. Does the hon. Lady agree that this must be the last review, for the sake of every single mother who has come and every single mother who is to come, so that they know that they are being well supported when they go into hospital settings?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be attending because I know that the organisers were keen to engage with her so that they can continue to see progress. I turn now to Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 6B and 6C, all of which impact the unduly lenient scheme. Again, I thank Baroness Brinton in the other place for her tireless work on these amendments with the Government, and the late Helen Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Victims’ Commissioner for London. I also want to specifically pay tribute to the bravery of Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, whose campaigns on these issues, in the light of their own families’ experiences, have no doubt played a pivotal part in the Government’s commitment to these amendments. Tracey going through the trial of the murder of her own son, Josh, with no knowledge of the unduly lenient scheme, is exactly the example that I hope these amendments will address and are testament to her tireless efforts and the memory of her son. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) so eloquently expressed, Katie’s tireless campaigning for her sister, Sasha, is an extraordinary example of someone fighting an injustice not for themselves, but for others in the future who may suffer a similar loss. In particular, amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F allow out-of-time applications to be made up to six months after sentencing. That is vital for families who are unaware of the scheme who did not submit an application prior to the 28-day limit and will benefit many who experience the same heartache and pain as Tracey. The Government’s provision in amendments 6B and 6C of a statutory duty for victims to be informed of the unduly lenient scheme is vital, and should provide victims with a clearer picture of the options that they are entitled to following sentencing. The Minister was right to say that many of the campaigners have not just asked for an extension; it is about victims knowing what is available to them and ensuring that there is a mandatory commitment that they are told that the scheme is an option available to them after sentencing. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me recently and then coming forward with these amendments, and we are pleased to support them. Finally, I turn to Lords amendments 4B and 4C regarding private prosecutions. I am sure many across the House will agree that the ability for criminal prosecutions to be brought forward outside of the regular processes of the authorities, providing an alternative method for charities and commercial organisations, is essential in delivering justice for many victims whose cases have not been taken on by the state. That is especially pertinent against the backdrop of stretched resources facing the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking Members from across both Chambers for their work in getting this legislation to where it is today. I especially thank the Government for their engagement with me and my colleagues in the Lords, in particular the Minister, who I have met multiple times to discuss various issues in the Bill. A key cornerstone of our justice system must be the support and protection of victims and survivors, ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them. That will happen only by putting their voices at the heart of the justice system, ensuring that justice is served quickly, with properly funded support, protection from perpetrators and rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending. There are countless examples of that failing to happen, which is why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the intention of and many of the measures in the Bill. We are pleased with the Government’s commitment to undertake a study into the use of AI transcription in criminal courts in order to explore whether that can reduce both the costs and time involved in the provision of transcripts to victims. My colleague Baroness Brinton in the other place and I have both tabled amendments to the Bill aimed at expanding the provision of transcripts for victims at various stages, in part inspired by the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I thank once again. It should never be the case that victims, many of whom might not have even been in the court room to hear the sentence handed down, are asked to pay thousands of pounds to access their transcript. The opposing argument to our amendments is about the costs of redaction in producing the transcripts, but it is clear that there are technological solutions in today’s age and we therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that more action is needed. We will continue to push for greater provision of free transcripts in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is currently in Committee. I thank the Government for their commitment to review the provision of service to families whose relatives have been murdered abroad. That follows an exemplary amendment first tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) due to issues faced by one of his constituents. The provision of supporting information for families going through those horrific circumstances clearly has some issues, but the commitment in the other place to a joint review into those provisions between the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is welcome. We look forward to the result of that review, at which point we will consult with victims’ groups in ensuring that the provisions work satisfactorily. I will take the opportunity to mention to the Minister again that, as she will be aware, the Murdered Abroad annual conference is on 13 June and I know that the organisers—

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We heard oral evidence from Doug Downey, who talked about the Canadian system. He also talked about how the right to elect is a protected characteristic of their justice system. The difference is that they have the right to elect a judge-alone trial. Did the Minister explore the option of maintaining the right to elect, but allowing defendants to choose whether they would like to have their case heard in a Crown court bench division with a judge alone?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an excellent point about the complexity of cases changing throughout. A legal professional recently shared with me the story of what was an assault case, but the victim passed away during the trial, so they are now dealing with hearing evidence of potential brain trauma injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that that case deserves the complexity of a full Crown court trial because the case has changed as the trail has developed?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the opportunity to come back on that. That poses another question: if judge-only trials are going to take the exact same amount of time, how will this speed up the court backlog?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of clarification, in the instance where a jury trial may begin but the case is adjourned for any reason, could it be reallocated to the Crown court bench division at a later date when it is rescheduled, or would it continue to have a jury trial?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I accept that it might be a mischaracterisation to describe it as rough justice, but does the Minister agree that in this case it will be summary justice, which by its very definition is rougher around the edges, because it is summary?