Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Oh dear! Dame Vera Baird: Kieran, you are not listening to what Claire says—she is right. The women’s movement is very disappointed with the Bill because it does not tackle the issue of criminalisation of women. They think that dealing with delays in the list is a very poor substitute, and they will not have it. They want to stand up at last for a proper defence of coercively controlled women who are put into crime—goodness knows it has been long enough coming—but that does not appear in the Bill. The women’s movement is very upset about that, and in my view that has driven this. I do not doubt—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will take you through some further questions. Sir Brian Leveson: Fine.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I guess I am focusing on the perspective of victims and victims’ right to appeal. As I mentioned, with magistrates court cases you do not have a right to say that you thought the sentence was unduly lenient. I think that is because, when the scheme was set up, the maximum sentence was six months—perhaps there are questions about the ability and meaningfulness of that. Obviously, an increased sentencing length means that someone could be sentenced for three years in a magistrates court, without a right to appeal that sentence. This question is to all three of you. Do you think it is important to ensure that, even if we increase sentence lengths in the magistrates court, victims have the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to appeal sentences that they think are unduly lenient? Charlotte Meijer: Yes. Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: Straight and to the point: yes.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to pick up on this discussion of the letter, which I think you characterised as coming from the perspective of women and girls as defendants in the system, not victims. I want to read you part of the letter: “The Government’s proposed reforms will likely create significant operational disruption and practical challenges that pull resources from more effective measures to reduce the backlog. This would prolong the uncertainty that leads many survivors to withdraw support for the prosecution of their abuser.” Do you accept that the letter does, in fact, also talk about the impact on victims of the jury trial changes? Claire Waxman: If you read the letter, it focuses on the victim coming in as a defendant, but it is also—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have made that point. Claire Waxman: Victims are complex—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  They do not—thank you. That is fine. I have finished. Claire Waxman But that is at odds with a number of the victims I speak to, just to be clear.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My next, very simple question is: do you accept that there is a diversity of opinion among those representing victims about whether it is the right step to take? Claire Waxman: That letter was actually around victims who have been criminalised, so it is a different issue; they are dealing with victims who are defendants in the system, not victims who are complainants.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the right to elect, your report—we are not talking about further work that you are not responsible for—says: “It has been assumed that disposals per day in the magistrates’ court are in line with the current average.” So if we change the system, disposals will remain at the current rate. If we are trying more complex, more serious cases, is it reasonable to assume that the disposal time will be the same as for those currently seen for less serious cases? Sir Brian Leveson: Why do you say they are more complex? They are not necessarily more complex at all.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are there any lessons that could be drawn out for the rest of the country? You have given us some that you think cannot be. Sir Brian Leveson: Yes, and I have made recommendations. It is critical that the systems join up: the police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts, the judiciary, and the prison and probation services. They all have their own budgets, their own problems and their own priorities. One of the recommendations I made in part 2 of my review—which is not considered in the Bill, obviously—was the creation of a criminal justice adviser whose only responsibility was co-ordinating the work of each of the agencies to try to make them work together. That is where it has worked in Liverpool. But doing that on its own would not be sufficient.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sorry—we have to be really tight—you think Welsh Women’s Aid does not necessarily speak for victims? Claire Waxman: In that letter, the focus is on the criminalisation of victims, which is awful. The overlap of criminalisation and victimisation needs to be dealt with way earlier on in the system.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. A whole series of stakeholders were invited by the MOJ and they potentially strongly disagree with your central conclusion of 20%. I have no further questions.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, but to correct the record: those people were not opposed. There was an MOJ-orchestrated workshop of neutral parties and judges, and they said it would be 10% to 30%. That is massively different to your estimate. Sir Brian Leveson: Judges?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Are you familiar with the letter to the Deputy Prime Minister from a coalition of more than a dozen violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, London Black Women’s Project, the Centre For Women’s Justice and Welsh Women’s Aid, who oppose the changes to jury trials? Claire Waxman : Yes, I am absolutely aware of it.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am really sorry for the experiences that you have had, and certainly for any role that we played in government in not better addressing these delays and the challenges that you faced. The consequences of that are really powerfully illustrated by the things that you have talked about, so thank you for sharing that. I really hear all the evidence that you have given.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You mentioned that you visited Liverpool. Sir Brian Leveson: Yes.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about something called the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I will start with you, Morwenna, as a person who went through the Crown court process, because it is not applicable in the magistrates court at the moment. Were you aware of the unduly lenient sentence scheme when the sentencing was given? Morwenna Loughman: I was aware of it. He is actually appealing the length of sentence at the moment, but has not yet been granted leave to do so.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The most specific element of modelling that the MOJ undertook was something called a structured elicitation workshop, which found that the time saved would be between 10% and 30%. At the lower the end, that is half of the 20% estimate that you put forward. Would you accept that? Sir Brian Leveson: No. I think that is wrong. As far as I am concerned, there will be a considerable time saving and, much more importantly, there will be a cultural shift. At the moment, if you can put your trial off until 2028, what is not to like?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister and MP for Bexhill and Battle. I want to take you back to the process of your appointment and ask whether, prior to your appointment, you had any discussions with Ministers or officials about your views on the right to elect and the use of jury trials. Sir Brian Leveson: No, although I recognise that, in 2015, I looked at efficiency in criminal proceedings. Everybody says that was a wonderful time—no, it was not. I published a report that dealt with efficiency. It was not to incorporate anything that involved legislative change, but in chapter 10, “Out of Scope”, I discussed what Sir Robin Auld said in 2001. Anybody looking at that material would have seen that I was seriously concerned about the way in which criminal justice was proceeding and progressing, notwithstanding the backlog then because of an absence of police officers. What I visualised has actually come to pass.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent. Dame Vera Baird : I see Kieran shaking his head, but there is no other way. There is a limited opportunity to give priority to cases. Obviously a very important point is whether the defendant is in custody. Most rape defendants are not in custody, because it is a “one word against the other” case, so they cannot be given any real priority for that reason. We end up very regularly with cases that took as long as Charlotte’s. That is really awful for a large number of victims. It also gives very little to the people who want this right: 64% of people who elect for trial plead guilty before they get to trial. You have to ask why they are electing for trial if they are going to plead guilty, but they have blocked up the jury list all of that time. This is about freeing up the jury list.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q People will have heard the quote and they can make up their own minds. Claire Waxman: I would urge you to read the letter that has been written and signed by 18 victims, instead of disregarding it—it is really important to read it.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think the witnesses were in the Public Gallery for the introductions, so I will skip straight to my questions. Claire, you have expressed your support of the structural reforms, including the reduction in access to jury trials. Could you take me through your policy formulation process when making such a decision to support a particular policy point? Claire Waxman: Of course. My role is very much focused on listening directly to victim survivors and families bereaved by homicide, so any changes in legislation and proposals are sense-checked with them. I have been listening to victims since 2020, when the pandemic hit, and have seen the direct impact of the long delays, with cases now going well into 2030. There is a human cost to that. We often say, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but justice is not abstract for victims. When we delay justice, what it really means for victims is a lack of security and safety, and an inability to process what has happened, to get closure and to move on with their lives; all those are denied. We trap victims in prolonged years of uncertainty, which compounds and prolongs their trauma. I have spoken at length publicly about what that looks like for victims. You will hear from victims shortly, and a letter signed by 18 victims who have actually been in the criminal justice system and sustained long waits for justice was sent last week. I have spoken to victims, and they want this to end: they want a way out, and they are desperate. They are saying that if having a judge-only trial in a case will mean that they will come out of the system more quickly, they want to see timely justice. Without that, we are seeing a reduction in access to justice, an increase in victim attrition—and not just post-charge, as we have seen an increase of more than 5% in the last five years—and a third of trials breaking down because victims have withdrawn as they cannot sustain staying in the system. We are also seeing it impact the pre-charge phase. Last year, as London’s Victims’ Commissioner, I published the London victim attrition review, finding that on average 40% of victims withdraw from the system, and that delays are playing a part in that—not just delays in investigation, but the thought of having to wait years to get into court.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If they are being given sentences of potentially up three years versus, for example, six months, you do not think that will have any impact on the time, complexity or seriousness of the cases? Sir Brian Leveson: I am not suggesting it will not have any impact; I am suggesting that the time cases take is not necessarily governed by the nature of the charge or, indeed, the eventual sentence. In the 1970s, I could conduct two trials in a day; nobody ever conducts a trial in a day these days.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, but you have made that point. I am asking you a very specific question. Do you think Welsh Women’s Aid supports the change to jury trials? Claire Waxman: We know they do not, because they have signed that letter—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q First, I am very grateful for you coming today to give evidence. We often debate things and hear from third parties but nothing is more important than hearing from people, such as yourselves, who have direct experience, even if we do not necessarily agree with the policy outcomes that might flow from that. Because it is so important, can you open with the experiences that you think are most important to get across to the Committee? Then we are clear that everybody has had an opportunity to make the points that are important to them. Farah, I know that you are representing an organisation, but perhaps you could start. Farah Nazeer: I am conscious that there are victim-survivors here as well, so I will be brief. In the Bill, we are pleased to see the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. That is absolutely critical. We know that the vast majority of survivors of domestic abuse do not go into the criminal justice system. Only one in five women will ever report to the police, so they find themselves in the family courts. The repeal will make a huge difference to them. We now need to see the culture around that change. We have had a pro-contact culture in the family courts for a very long time. We can see through our experience working with vast numbers of survivors every day that the vast majority of judges are not as aware as they should be of domestic abuse and coercive control—they are not trauma-informed. We need to see judges trained to be able to apply this effectively. We also see that, across all those other safeguarding contexts for children, such as health and safety, police and schools, there is mandatory training required, and a framework and infrastructure. Strangely, there is not the same infrastructure here, where you are actually talking about children’s lives and wellbeing. I previously heard a comment about how we cannot mandate judges to have training, but perhaps you should be mandating, because you do so in every other safeguarding context. For further context, the majority of people affected by domestic abuse are children; we have more children in our refuges across the country than we do adults. It is a huge safeguarding matter, and I would encourage the Committee to think about mandatory training for judges.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about the process of your review. Did you undertake any visits to Crown courts, and if so, which ones? Sir Brian Leveson: Well, I have been visiting Crown courts for 50 years. I personally visited Liverpool Crown court, and I am sure I went to another Crown court, but my team went a large number of Crown courts. I was assisted by three advisers: Professor David Ormerod, who is I think the foremost criminal academic lawyer in the country; Chris Mayer, a former chief executive of HM Courts Service; and Shaun McNally, a former director of crime at HMCS and a former chief executive of the Legal Aid Agency. I had plenty of expertise. I did not need to visit courts; they did. I spoke to a lot of judges, though.