Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he makes it eloquently, as always. I really enjoyed going through the groups that do not support these proposals. Obviously, the Government like to rely heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s findings and recommendations, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East questioned him in the oral evidence session, he did not blame jury trials. Fundamentally, jury trials are not the problem. They are not creating the delays, so limiting them will not address the backlog. In fact, their curtailment will likely bring a whole host of other issues to the table that were not there before. The Bar Council believes that the changes “will produce serious adverse consequences that have not properly been considered by the Government.” In the light of such uncertain outcomes, I find it difficult to understand why the Government will not perform a pilot first to test the proposal or put in place a time limitation more generally. To plough ahead in this way, with no way back in the event of failure, is reckless by any measure. A more cautious approach might have been more positively received. As we heard from Kirsty Brimelow KC, the chair of the Bar Council, it is vital that we approach the backlog problem logically, look at where the delays are occurring and target them. For rape cases, the majority of the delay is actually at the investigation and charge point, which takes an average of two years. Although the one-year delay at court stage is too long, the lion’s share of the problem is pre-court—perhaps the CPS can help with that one—so let us deal with that. The Government should open all the courts so that they can hear cases every day. Yesterday, 11% of Crown courts were not sitting, and I am sure we will find out later what the percentage is today. Revising the contract with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services to ensure that defendants are delivered to the dock on time would also help. Giving proper consideration to specialist rape and serious sexual offences courts to deal with sexual offence cases and addressing the many inefficiencies and delays in the system through a better use of technology would no doubt greatly reduce the backlog. It is also important that we give the steps that the Government have already taken to address the backlog an adequate chance to filter through. One example is increased sitting days: in February 2026, the Justice Secretary announced that there would be no cap on sitting days for ’26-27, which will undoubtedly help. In addition, last month, powers were granted to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years, a change from the previous two years. Putting aside whether that is a sensible measure, it will undoubtedly increase the number of guilty pleas. That means fewer trials and a decrease in the backlog. The Government should properly model the impact of those significant changes on the backlog before imposing such a draconian limitation on jury trials. I would be grateful if the Minister could share any projections of the impact of those two changes on the backlog and clarify whether they have been factored into the “do nothing” option of the impact assessment. It looks as though they might not have been included, because they are not referenced. If clause 1 is accepted, there are several types of serious cases where the defendant might now lose their right to elect for trial by jury. It has been suggested by the Justice Secretary that only cases involving minor offences, such as stealing a bottle of whisky, will be impacted, but that is not the case. Let us start with causing death by careless driving. That is a serious offence—rightly so, given that a life has been lost—and it carries a maximum five-year sentence and driving disqualification. Currently, the defendant has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is especially important in such cases, where the difference between careless and unfortunate is not entirely clear. It is exactly that type of case where we see the benefit of 12 individuals, all with different experiences, using their judgment to decide whether the defendant crossed the line into “careless”. Under clause 1, that right is no longer available; the judge will decide on their own. Imagine a defendant who is innocent. Their whole life, and that of their family, is to be decided by one person—their bad day can destroy the defendant’s entire life. Their case might not even make it to a judge; it could remain in the magistrates court. Surely the intention was never for our magistrates courts to hear cases involving the loss of a life. Sexual assault is another serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offenders register. It is also completely life-changing for everyone involved. Under clause 1, the defendant’s right to choose a jury trial will be removed. Many of those cases could end up in the magistrates courts, but they are nothing like the normal cases seen in magistrates courts day to day: they are highly sensitive and complex, involving third-party disclosure, and video recorded and forensic evidence. They are not simple add-ons to what those courts already do. With the best will in the world, they do not currently have the capability or skillset to handle such specialist cases involving traumatised victims.

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

  More

  The removal of the cap on sitting days appears to be bringing the backlog down, which I think everyone in the Chamber can agree is a good thing. Why are the Government not looking at that, projecting it forward and taking that into account before making radical changes that remove rights of citizens?

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that point; I share his concerns. There is also a question regarding whether unpaid volunteers will even want to take on such a serious role that involves handing out two-year sentences—that is quite a responsibility. The outstanding caseload in magistrates courts has been increasing in recent years. In September 2025, the outstanding caseload was around 373,000, which was a 74% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels in September 2019. The shift of cases from the Crown court back into the magistrates court is simply moving the issue to a less suitable court to deal with it. It is simply moving the problem around, rather than actually addressing it. Summary trial through the magistrates court was always designed for the purpose of swift justice in low-level cases. By removing the right to elect for a jury trial, in combination with increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years’ imprisonment and removing the automatic appeal against conviction, important protections are being removed, and the groups that will be impacted most detrimentally are ethnic minorities. Magistrates are unpaid members of their local community who volunteer to act as magistrates. There is no requirement for them to be legally qualified. That may well be fine for summary-only offences, such as low-level motoring offences and minor criminal damage, but it is not appropriate for more serious offences. Many magistrates do an excellent job and give up their time selflessly for the benefit of their community. In spite of that, I do not believe that they should have the power to send someone to prison for two years. Let us all remember that magistrates can be as young as 18. In closing, I want to make one last point. This change was not in the Labour manifesto; indeed, there is no mention of any changes to trial by jury at all. Only one such commitment was made, which Government Members appear to have forgotten. To quote from the Labour manifesto: “Labour will fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.” That is on page 67, if anyone needs to refresh their memory. That is what the British people voted for. The Bill could have been so different if clause 1 had started with that, instead of jeopardising fair justice for many defendants. It is such a shame that a Government with such a historic majority have so quickly forgotten the change they promised, and whom they fight for and represent.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I of course agree. Clearly, there is not a consensus, which is why we are here today, but we can categorically state that most knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system are against what this Labour Government are trying to do.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I completely agree with him, and I remind the Committee that most people in this country are against these changes. Most people who know about the justice system are against the changes— [ Interruption. ] I know it is really hard for Labour Members to hear that they are not on the side of the people on this one. How has it all gone wrong? They have forgotten who they are and who they represent. It is a sad day.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I hope that she is comfortable having put that on the record. It is good to hear her view.

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

  More

  Would the shadow Minister also be interested to understand the impact of the three-year suspension on sentences that went live just a few weeks ago on the projections going forward and on the impact on the Crown court backlog?

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we need to always be aware of the technical definition of the words that we are using. When the Government talk constantly about victims needing justice, and it all being about victims, I am not sure it is in the right spirit. What all of us in this Committee Room agree on, however, is that the Crown court backlog is a critical problem that needs to be addressed. But limiting trial by jury is not the way to do it. We have heard that repeatedly from knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system—we have even heard it from one of the Government’s own Members, the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden. The Bar Council does not support it, the Criminal Bar Association is opposed, and the Law Society says the Government’s proposals go too far.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for her generosity in taking interventions. I think it may well be a timely point at which to deal with a quick question I raised earlier, about legal aid. Clearly, a defendant is potentially less likely to secure legal aid in the magistrates court than they are in the Crown court. I am sure the Minister will not be comfortable with that situation, so will she be looking to address that inequality that comes from the changes?

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  To build on the excellent points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chichester, does this not fundamentally come down to the fact that the CPS is made up of civil servants? They are not meant to tell the Minister that they are wrong or right. That is not their job. I feel those on the Government Benches are misunderstanding the role of civil servants.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hope she will bear with me as I try to take it on board. Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that a defendant charged with an either-way offence is no longer able to elect trial by jury. As was clearly established earlier today, that right to elect is entirely abolished by clause 1. Instead, it will be for the magistrates court alone to decide where the case should be tried; it can either remain in the magistrates court or go up to the Crown court. Clause 2 deals specifically with situations where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as inserted by section 6 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, sets out that the court can, on the material before it, without any hearing or representations, be satisfied that it is highly likely that, were the accused to plead guilty at summary trial of the offence in question and be convicted, the court would commit the accused to the Crown court for sentencing. Section 17ZB(5) then provides the accused with the opportunity to object to being sent to the Crown court for trial for the offence. Clause 2 amends that so that the accused and the prosecutor do not have the option to object and can instead only make representations as to whether the sentencing powers of the court would be adequate. I note that “Crown Court” in the original section 17ZB is replaced with “court”. I assume that that refers to either the magistrates court or the Crown court, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and explanation of that quite technical point, and of how it works with the Crown court bench division in the mix. The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest that it just means the magistrates court, but I went through the law— I should say that I am not a lawyer, but I dug it all out and read it—and, like a lot of Committee members, I am thoroughly confused. Normally, if something is logical and makes sense, I can follow it, so I am worried that it does not quite tie together. I am worried, even though I cannot quite articulate why, that the fact that the section will now just say “court” introduces some ambiguity. How is that defined? Quite often, these little bits of detail can be the speck of sand in the eye that can cause more problems than we realise. This is a very technical issue, and I appreciate that it is difficult to go into it here and that the Minister is very good on the technical side of things—we have worked together on other things with very technical points, so I know that she is very thorough—but I think it is worth going through it again and making sure that the whole thing hangs together, so that we do not end up in a situation where the wrong place is doing sentencing or the wrong estimate of a sentence is made, and there is no way to unwind it. I am just a bit worried that there is potential for some problems to come out of this. I appreciate the Minister’s helpful clarification that section 17ZB has not yet been commenced. However, if it had been, or if it were to be in future, it would, in a similar way to clause 1, remove powers and rights from defendants and give them less choice in how justice is dispensed in their case—essentially, a roll-back of rights. As I mentioned, I think we need to look at what will happen if the sentence estimate is wrong and how that will work its way through. I thank the Minister for explaining that the provision is procedural, but it still strips people of the right to object and replaces it with the much weaker right merely to make representations. The explanatory notes are really clear on that point, even if they are not clear on a lot of others. They say that the changes made in clause 2 “remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”, and instead create “a process for each to make representations about whether the magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers would be adequate.” That might have no impact if the section is never commenced, but if it ever is commenced, and we do not make sure that we have got clause 2 right, it may cause a problem and prioritise convenience over procedural protection. When someone’s liberty, livelihood and reputation are at stake, it is a serious thing indeed to say that they may no longer object and may only make representations. Once again, the defendant is being moved further from the centre of the process, and the state closer to it. That is not right. Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Minister was reminded from the Opposition Benches that the legal system is balanced in favour of the defendant. That is not the spirit in which this change is being made. Indeed, that is the common thread running through clauses 1 and 2: at every stage, the defendant’s agency is reduced and the system’s convenience is elevated. The Government call that reform and improvement, but it is not; it is a distortion of our centuries-old legal protections. There is a broader point here about confidence in the justice system. If the Government’s answer, again and again, is that defendants should simply trust the state’s estimate of seriousness, trust the allocation decision, trust the sentencing forum and trust that everything will work out in the end, that is not a strengthening of justice. It is a narrowing of the safeguards that make justice legitimate in the first place and will do nothing to address the backlog, which I recall was supposed to be the rationale for making these changes in the first place. Clauses 1 and 2 in combination are not what is required to address the Crown court backlog. It appears that the backlog may be starting to come down already, as a consequence of uncapped sitting days and other changes that have been implemented, so why are the Government not taking a more cautious approach and exhausting all the good ideas that we have heard from expert witnesses before taking a sledgehammer to jury trials? Obviously, the first problem to address is the fact that up to 24% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day, and getting the many defendants who arrive late to court there on time would be transformational. Why are we not solving those much more straightforward issues before pressing ahead with exceptional structural reform? We need to get the basics right, address inefficiencies and, most importantly, listen to those who know how to do it, such as the Bar Council and circuit leaders, and learn from the courts that are already making progress, such as Liverpool. The Government are absolutely right to take the backlog issue seriously, but it is wrong to think that limiting jury trials will improve the situation. It could make the whole situation worse by creating years of transition and uncertainty and by moving one backlog from the Crown courts over to the magistrates. Furthermore, the cases moving over will be more complex, more technical and more sensitive. The Government are about to create a massive backlog in the magistrates court, which will then start to impact on low-level cases such as speeding offences. I say that the Government should be more cautious because they have already accepted that there are other levers available. Ministers have announced that there will be no cap on Crown court sitting days next year, and that both the Crown court and magistrates courts will be funded at their highest ever operational level. That is much welcomed, but if the Government say that investment and capacity matter, why on earth would they not wait to see the full effect of those changes before pushing ahead with exceptional constitutional reform? The Opposition position on that has been perfectly clear. On Second Reading, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment did not deny that the backlog is serious, but argued that the right answer is to improve case management, encourage earlier pleas, increase sitting days, increase the hours per day that courts are able to sit through better use of technology and improve the efficiency of prisoner transport. Those are practical, common-sense reforms; they go with the grain of the system, rather than taking a sledgehammer to jury trials and then hoping for the best. The Government’s own impact assessment rather proves the point that this issue is as much about shifting pressure as solving it. It estimates that removing the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial would reduce crown Court demand by around 16,000 sitting days, but at the same time increase magistrates court demand by around 8,500 sitting days. The same document expressly recognises that reallocating cases to the magistrates courts is expected to increase the open caseload there and is likely to extend waiting times for hearing and sentencing in that jurisdiction. Even on the Government’s own figures, it is not some clean efficiency saving. It is a transfer of burden into a part of the system that is already under strain. That is why clause 2 is more important than it first appears. Clause 1 removes the right to elect. Clause 2 then narrows the ability to resist where a written guilty plea is involved. Piece by piece, the Bill is building a system in which more serious, either-way cases are kept down, defendants have less say and the magistrates courts are expected to absorb ever more complexity. Ministers may present each provision as a small adjustment in isolation, but taken together, they amount to a very significant constitutional and practical change. That change also carries transition risk. The Government are assuming that work currently taking place in the Crown court can be absorbed more quickly elsewhere. I know I am not telling the Minister anything that she does not already know, but the magistrates courts are not just a spare room in the system waiting to be filled. They will have to take more serious, more technical and more sensitive cases while continuing to deal with the huge volume of everyday criminal business that only they can process. If the Government get this wrong, they will not have solved the backlog. They will simply have displaced it and degraded the quality of justice in the process. My plea is a simple one: “Proceed with caution. Let the effect of unlimited sitting days bed in. Fix the operational failings that everybody in the system can already see. Get defendants to court on time. Keep courtrooms sitting. Use technology better. Learn from the parts of the estate that are already improving, but do not dress up the removal of long-standing protections as if it were the only grown-up response to backlog. It is not. It is simply the most drastic one.” That is why I cannot support clause 2. On its own, it may look technical, but in context it is part of a broader attempt to reduce rights, safeguards and the defendant’s role in how justice is administered. That is the wrong direction of travel.

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

  More

  I would say Thursday.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Rural areas are facing a wave of unauthorised developments on land owned by Travellers, with little or no action being taken against them. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and 30 of my colleagues have been pressing for national support to give new powers to the police and local authorities to deal with this issue. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the issue, which is causing havoc in our precious British countryside?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic. Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis. Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis. Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right. Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis. As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis. Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong. When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings. The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Statutory Menstrual Leave · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes. The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach. First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence. It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition. The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.

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

  More

  Q I thank you all for being here. I know that this must be incredibly difficult. You are incredibly brave, and it is wonderful to see you channelling something that was so negative for you in a positive way, so thank you for that. We have focused a lot on jury trials, but there is a real opportunity here to think about what we need to deliver improvements in our judicial system, because the thing we all agree on here is that it is not working as it should. We might disagree on the best way to address that, but we do agree on the fact that change is needed in some form. What would you like to see in this Bill that is not there? What is needed to address some of the issues? Any of you who want to answer, please feel free to take the question. Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: It is a very big question. It is tricky, because I do not think that we can really ask for perfection; we are very much asking for a system that is bearable and has a bit of credibility about it. That just has to be centred, with lived experience at the forefront. So often, many victims, myself included, have said that it feels like it has gone so far to the defence side that it is no longer a justice balance. It has flipped so much on that side that I really want to urge you to consider that aspect: that it feels like the balance has gone in favour of the defence, essentially. In any decisions that you make about the Bill, just consider rebalancing that and ensuring that victims’ voices are centred in the decision-making process. If increasing magistrates to the three-year limit reduces the delays by even a small percentage, that can only be a positive thing. All those smaller elements will eventually snowball into more meaningful change across the entire sector. I could ramble on, so I will let someone else have a go. Charlotte Meijer: I guess the other thing to add, which has been discussed a few times already, is the training of judges and magistrates. We have to find a way to do that—you would not let an untrained teacher into a school—because they are making decisions that mean life or death. After my not guilty verdict, I tried to kill myself, because nobody believed me, clearly. There is a huge impact. Things do need to change. As I mentioned, I was a victim of rape. The rape did not go to court, because of many mistakes. The police offered to reinvestigate and I declined, because I knew what I would be going into and I did not want to go into that again, as it stands. A lot of that is about not just the courts, but the process leading up to it: the police and the CPS, and making sure that the police, the CPS and the courts are working together, which at the moment they are not. I am going through a three-year complaints process with the police, and they just blame each other. There needs to be accountability from start to end, because, while the Government have many different institutions that you deal with as a victim, you do not always understand it. You should not have to. I should not have to know that the CPS needs to do this and the police need to do that. It should be me coming in and other people understanding that journey for me and holding them to account. There are no consequences if the victims’ rights we have at the moment are not adhered to. I was failed on at least seven points of the victims’ rights, but there is nothing that anyone can do. It has gone up to the ombudsman, and they said, “Yes, they failed”—great.

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

  More

  Q Your letter says that this will result in quicker justice for victims, and that is why you support it. My question is: if that is not the case, would you not support it? Claire Waxman: It is the case. The Crown court is overburdened. You have heard Sir Brian Leveson’s analysis; it cannot continue in the state it is in. If we do not take appropriate cases out of the Crown court, then what is the answer?

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

  More

  That is what we will be analysing over the next few weeks—whether it will or not.

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

  More

  Q That suggests to me that if it did not save time, you would not support the proposal. Claire Waxman: But I cannot imagine it. If you are taking cases out of the Crown court that cannot deal with the pressure, that will save time.

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

  More

  Q Thank you for your time, Claire. If I am interpreting your answer correctly, your basis for supporting the removal of jury trials is that it will save time and allow victims to get justice quicker. Would your position change if that is not the case and those time savings do not come through? Claire Waxman: That is impossible to answer. We need to see it happen. You need to come back to me and say if it is not going to reduce—

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

  More

  Q Today, 58 out of 516 Crown court rooms are not sitting. Do you agree that it would be better to address that issue—and how would we address it?—rather than limiting jury trials? Kirsty Brimelow: May I deal with that briefly? Absolutely, if you open the courts, then the courts can hear the cases. Also, let us look at the reason for the lack of productivity. Our courts are just not sitting as many hours as they did in 2016 or 2017. We should get the number of hours back up, and cut out the delays even in the courts that are sitting. That includes looking at the defendants being brought to court late. We are collecting data on that, and it is an astonishingly high number. Around a quarter of the data we have collected so far shows defendants being brought more than five hours late to court. You attack that, do the type of listing that is working now, bring the investment in quickly—

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

  More

  Q I am interested in your data. Do you see any differences in different groups electing for a judge-only trial? If you do see a difference—I am talking about age and various other protected characteristics—why do you think that there is one? Doug Downey: That is a great question. I do not have data on the different groups electing, but we often see high-profile matters trying to move towards a jury. We know that individuals with very technical defences or very technical legal approaches will sometimes go to a judge, so that they can have that expressed. It really depends on the facts of the case, as opposed to the kind of case. I do not have running data on that, so I hesitate to be categorical. The motivation for going to jury, or not, can change with the theory of the case, the approach of the lawyer and, ultimately, the client.