Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  But aspects of a Crown court decision that are not the trial by indictment can be reviewed. Other aspects of decision making can be reviewed, so I cannot see why an allocation decision could not be reviewed.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I want to place on the record an apology to the shadow Minister. I have read some cases and, much to my surprise, I think the allocation process does come with the trial on indictment; it is not ancillary to it. Therefore, my view is that judicial review does probably come within the statutory bar, so I apologise. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Stephen Morgan .)

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

  More

  Mistakes can be made. All I am asking is why the Government are saying that when a judge or magistrates have made a mistake, there can never be an appeal—mistakes happen.

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

  More

  The point is that judges can make mistakes. That is why the Attorney General can appeal unduly lenient sentences. Why are the Government saying there cannot be a challenge in this case when a mistake has been made? Why are they not allowing an appeal when a mistake has been made as to how long the maximum sentence might be?

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

  More

  Although judicial review of a Crown court decision is limited, Crown court decisions that are not part of the trial by indictment can be reviewed. I am sure an allocation decision can be reviewed.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  And parties.

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

  More

  Q What about in the criminal context? Doug Downey: In the criminal context, it is not something that we have broached. I would have to have that conversation with my federal counterpart.

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

  More

  Q We all agree that the backlog is too great. Lord Burnett, in The Guardian this week retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses argued that we could cut the backlog by a third in six months if we employed retired judges to winnow the current backlog. Do you agree? [ Interruption. ] Richard clearly does not. Lord Burnett of Maldon: It is a very good journalistic article.

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

  More

  He is not a journalist, though; he is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. Lord Burnett of Maldon: Let me give you a sense of how we had to deal with this when we got through covid. There was by then a backlog of 60,000 cases in the Crown court—it is 80,000 now, and it is going up. Critically, the proportion of cases not dealt with within six months and a year was growing, and that continues to grow. We tried to bring to bear every possible judicial resource to sit as many days as we could, because the Government of the day removed the cap on sitting days. I authorised to sit in retirement pretty well anybody who wanted to come in and help. We changed the system so that magistrates court district judges could sit in the Crown court; we got a cohort of those in. We allowed recorders to sit in retirement, effectively, to enhance the numbers. We did enhance the numbers, but—with the greatest of respect to Sir Alan, whom of course I know extremely well—to suggest that you can solve this problem by the click of a finger is just not right. People have been trying to solve the problems of backlogs and inefficiencies in the criminal courts for pretty well as long as there have been criminal courts. I really can assure you that if there were any simple answer it would have been found long ago. I set up something called the Crown Court Improvement Group, now the Criminal Court Improvement Group, which does fantastic work in bringing together all the players in the system to improve efficiency, and they are doing so, but those looking at a system from the outside, when they do not live in it—with the greatest of respect to those elsewhere who do that—and think that there are simple answers, are just not right. I would be putting myself in that position if I tried to tell the Royal Navy how to make sure that its ships worked and got around the world. People think they know the answers, but until they live and understand the system in detail, that is not how it works.

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

  More

  Q Mr Goldstone, given the efficiencies you see in doing away with juries in this number of cases— Clement Goldstone: You are using that phrase again.

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

  More

  Q Are you familiar with the argument of the retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Alan Moses, in The Guardian this week, that a third of the backlog could be cleared if we employed retired judges to undertake a winnowing exercise to clear the cases that will never come to court, and is he correct? Claire Davies: I have not read that article, but if there is more judiciary, then there is more access for people. A lot of residents are taking the approach of looking at the outstanding cases, looking at the sorts of cases that may not go to trial, and bringing them in. As well as more judiciary to assist in that process, or to crack through the trials that there are, there would need to be the courtroom availability, and of course what has to come with more courtroom availability is staff so that the courts run efficiently. We would welcome retired judges to come back. There are many who currently sit in retirement in any event. Caroline Goodwin: It would be absolutely brilliant to have these very senior judges come back. They have an absolute wealth of knowledge that they can bring. If they are prepared to operate in that role, it is a win-win situation. If we can instantly recruit more judiciary to deal with these cases, then it is something we should be proactively looking at.

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

  More

  Q In Canada, 96% of your criminal trials are without a jury. In this country, 97% of our criminal trials are without a jury. Would you support reducing the percentage of jury trials even more in Canada? Doug Downey: It is a complicated piece in Canada, because the criminal code is governed by the federal Government. We are a provincial Government, so although I am tasked with running the Administration, I do not get to set all the rules. If I can be a politician for a second, I think that it is healthy that you are having this vigorous debate. I am certainly not comfortable telling you what you should do, but in our experience, from the perspective of running the system, it is definitely having a positive impact.

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

  More

  Q Do you think that doing away with jury trials will help that at all? Daniel Flury: Not really, no.

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

  More

  Q And you do agree that defendant non-arrival is a cause of delays and of the backlog. Daniel Flury: It is certainly a cause of delays. As I said, it causes late starts and late finishes. This is why we over-list cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court—to fill those gaps where they arise, but it is certainly a factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of the court day.

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

  More

  I would like to hear your view. Clement Goldstone: Because of the involvement of the public and the right of the person to be tried by his or her peers—but something has to give. We are in a situation where something has to change. In fact, a lot of things have to change, because the restriction on the right to jury trial will not work alone, and let nobody think that it will. Someone used the expression, “It’s not a pick and mix”; it is part of a much bigger picture. On the point that you suggested, which Sir Alan Moses had raised, not a Crown court centre in the country of any substance does not already have in existence precisely that procedure of trying to force into the list those cases that have any prospect of—for want of a better phrase—cracking, whether by way of the prosecution offering no evidence or by way of the defendant pleading guilty.

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

  More

  Q To return to something you said in answer to the shadow Minister, how effective do you think the prisoner escort and custody service is? Daniel Flury: I think we all agree that there is room for improvement. We have had lots of testimony, certainly from Crown courts, about late starts and subsequent late finishes. That obviously affects not only the hearing but our staff, who have longer working days. I think we are all seized of the importance of driving improvements—there is now a ministerial board, which HMCTS sits on, to work with the prisoner service to improve the service we get. The service itself will be retendered in the next couple of years, and we hope improvements will arise from that, but it is certainly a factor in court output, and certainly in late sittings and late starts, particularly in the London Crown courts.

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

  More

  But would you support reducing the percentage even more in Canada? Doug Downey: We have an anachronism here in Canada with civil juries, which you got rid of quite some time ago. I am supportive of dealing with those civil juries, largely for the same reason.

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

  More

  I am, because you are doing away with them in certain cases. Given the efficiencies, can you remind me why juries are a good thing in any case? Clement Goldstone: We have already dealt with that. That was the very first question.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate. I begin by warmly acknowledging the men and women who served during Operation Banner. Everyone knows—even the Tories, in their more candid moments—that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a profound mistake, granting immunity to terrorists, creating a shameful moral equivalence between paramilitaries hellbent on breaking the law and our brave veterans who risked, and in many cases lost, their lives upholding the very rule of law that the legacy Act undermined. In the Dillon case, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear: core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Yes, the new Government abandoned the appeal on that point in the Supreme Court, but with no faith in the position, they were right to do so. That is why the remedial order mattered. It was a necessary step to bring the UK back within its legal obligations, and to restore a measure of trust for those who have waited decades for truth and accountability. The Conservatives, however, treated the order as a political opportunity, rather than as a moment for sober reflection. To use the plight of our veterans to rage against the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 and to play destructive party politics is something that has not gone unnoticed among the many veterans organisations with whom I have been working— [ Interruption. ] I will give way.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I will now move on to consider the Government’s response to the more salient recommendations made by the Select Committee. Turning first to the treatment of sexual offences, the Government acknowledge that the previous Act created a de facto bar on investigating sexual offences not linked to death or serious injury, but their proposed split model raises concerns. Clause 32 limits investigations to what is deemed necessary for ECHR compliance, which will result in the commission handling some cases while others fall to the police to investigate, creating potential confusion. On the disclosure of reports, the commission is required to examine all circumstances while also considering specific family questions, but it is unclear how those duties will be balanced or the commission’s findings reported. When I visited the WAVE Trauma Centre, concerns were expressed that, by answering sometimes deeply personal questions, published reports could reveal issues and concerns that victims would not want made public. The chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, has assured me that the commission will act with sensitivity in such circumstances, but victims’ families want something more tangible than that. That leads directly to the role and powers of the commission. The proposal to grant powers through established statutory procedures rather than enshrining them in the Bill risks opacity and reduced accountability. While a “small number of cases” where current powers fall short are acknowledged, it is far from clear how or if those gaps will be addressed. Alongside the topic of powers sits the question of resources. While the Government’s commitment to a £250 million total funding envelope for legacy mechanisms is welcome, there is widespread agreement that that is not enough. The PSNI chief constable, Jon Boutcher, has given compelling testimony that he has insufficient funding to address his legacy responsibilities. The Government suggest that PSNI funding is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Executive. However, the costs of legacy, arising as they did under what occurred during direct rule, must surely be borne by the British state, not out of funds provided by the Province’s normal funding formula. The thorniest issue is, of course, the safeguards afforded to veterans. The Secretary of State has been at pains to stress the centrality of his six protections, but as he acknowledges, in their current form they “do not go far enough”. I know he has been in discussion with many veterans’ groups, and I have heard from many of them their gratitude for the time and consideration that he has given them. A date for the Bill Committee has still not been published, which I assume means that discussions within the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence are still ongoing. While I have no desire to unduly rush the Secretary of State on this issue, I respectfully remind him that the many veterans’ groups to which he has been talking are anxious to know what extra safeguards will be included in the promised Government amendments to the Bill. Closely connected to victims’ safeguards is the question of disclosure and national security. A major concern is the Government’s refusal to introduce a merits-based appeal against ministerial denials of disclosure, and the reliance instead on judicial review, which considers procedural correctness rather than the merits of a decision. While the Government cite the primacy of the Executive, that principle does not sit comfortably within a legacy process that is aimed at restoring public trust and transparency. I have consequently tabled an amendment to the Bill that would require any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would ensure proper scrutiny and accountability to Parliament. Our goal is reconciliation. Whenever I ask about reconciliation, I am directed to part 4 of the legacy Act, which is not going to be repealed. Part 4 focuses on oral history and memorialisation. Those have an important role to play, but it is striking how little attention appears to be given to restorative justice in any meaningful sense, because reconciliation cannot be addressed through reports and archives alone. My primary concern is that justice is still being mediated through the narrow lens of lawyers, with criminal or civil actions given too great a prominence in the process. I have personally participated in the restorative justice process, and I know that it begins with the questions that many victims of the troubles are asking: “Why me?” or “Why my loved ones?” Restorative justice creates a space for answers, acknowledgment, and some form of resolution. The current Bill offers no meaningful avenue for restorative justice, which is why I have tabled amendments to incorporate that formally into the process, ensuring that victims and veterans have a voluntary, structured mechanism with which to engage and seek meaningful reconciliation. Without that, reconciliation risks being misconceived and incomplete. At its core, this process will command confidence only if victims feel heard, veterans are treated fairly, and the system delivers answers that are credible and transparent. Broad commitments alone are not enough. The Government must address the gaps highlighted by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Without doing so, the process risks failing those who it is intended to serve, undermining trust and leaving decades of questions unanswered.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Criterion Capital has recently embarked on a series of mass no-fault evictions in my borough of Merton, including Emerald House in my constituency. It is a shameless attempt to do so before the practice becomes illegal under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Section 21 notices have been accompanied by ostensibly fraudulent electrical safety reports issued by a company dissolved at the date of issue, after supposed visits that do not appear to have taken place. The owner of Criterion Capital is Mr Asif Aziz, who has given tens of thousands of pounds to the Labour party and to the Conservatives. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a debate in Government time on this rogue landlord? Does he agree that the Labour and Conservative parties should immediately return his donations?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Protest Policing · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. The Prime Minister recently stated:“we will not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional.” He was talking about Epstein’s enablers, but one of my constituents, who uses the pseudonym “Isabella”, has asked me to ask the Prime Minister whether his words also apply to those who assisted Britain’s Epstein, Mohammed al-Fayed, a monster who, with others, abused her and hundreds of other women and girls in a human trafficking scandal that the Met, unlike the French authorities, is still refusing to treat as such. Will the Prime Minister ensure that sufficient resources are committed to fully investigating this multi-perpetrator, multi-jurisdictional, multi-decade trafficking outrage, and will he meet Isabella and her fellow victims, in order to understand the terrible scale of this shocking crime?