Sarah Pochin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Jury Trial Proposals · Hansard source

  More

  20. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of restricting the right to trial by jury in some circumstances on levels of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

• 19 May 2026 · Jury Trial Proposals · Hansard source

  More

  On Saturday, the Secretary of State promised extra court time for anyone arrested at the “Unite the Kingdom” march, yet there are grooming gang survivors who have waited more than 20 years for their cases to come to court. How is it that he is able to find court time to arrest protesters, yet some victims of vile sexual abuse are waiting decades to have their cases heard in court?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  While I of course welcome the statement and any attempt to reduce and tackle knife crime, does the Minister not agree that without saturation stop and search, and without immediate custody of anyone found in possession of a knife without a valid reason, the rest is just white noise?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak today in favour of the reasoned amendment standing in the names of Reform UK MPs. Although it has not been selected for debate, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the wording, particularly where it says that “the right to trial by one’s peers…has been an essential part of UK freedoms for centuries.” As a magistrate of 20 years and a chairman of the court for 17 of those years, I hope that I have something to offer this debate. During those 20 years, I was part of a judicial process in which I, together with two fellow magistrates, sent many defendants to prison. I will never forget the first time I was part of a bench that sent someone to prison. I can still see that young man’s face, and see his distraught parents at the back of the court. I had to fight back my own tears, as a mother feeling for his mother and her pain, knowing the life-changing impact that our decision would have on that young man’s life. I should say that I toughened up pretty quickly. On many occasions, I found myself chairing a trials court that would inevitably start late or end up with magistrates twiddling their thumbs when trials cracked or fell apart. That could be for a variety of reasons, but it was often due to last-minute pleas by defendants who had been presented with irrefutable evidence, or to the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare adequately for the case. The process in the magistrates court is already inefficient, and a sizeable backlog of cases exist—reportedly, over 370,000. It is worth pointing out that a magistrates bench operates as a mini-jury, with three magistrates sitting on a trial to ensure a majority verdict, so it represents trial by the people, not the state. Be in no doubt: a prison sentence of up to three years will change someone’s life forever. A prison sentence of that length will mean the loss of employment, and therefore the loss of one’s ability to pay a mortgage or rent, often resulting in the loss of one’s home, which may in turn lead to a family being made homeless. A prison sentence often means the break-up of a family, with permanent damage inflicted on the partner and children in that family, whether by becoming outcasts in their community, being bullied at school, or adopting learned behaviour and offending themselves later in life. For one individual—one judge—to have the power and to be the only perspective in administering a prison sentence is not justice. Furthermore, a single justice acting alone may come under pressure from politicians not to send defendants to prison due to a lack of prison space available, regardless of whether that defendant should in fact receive a custodial sentence. There may also be cases where a single justice is more lenient towards defendants from ethnic minorities for fear of being called racist if custodial sentences are frequently given by that judge to such defendants from ethnic minorities, regardless of the demographics of that court area. With this Bill, there is no scrutiny of a judge, no ability to question that judge’s decision and no majority vote. A life-changing prison sentence can be given on the judgment of an individual with a single perspective and prejudice, without any checks and balances. The state will be administering justice, not the people. Everyone deserves the right to trial by their peers. In this Bill, the Government are removing trial by jury for serious crimes that attract prison sentences of up to three years. These could be serious domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, theft, fraud and so on. This Bill is intended to speed up justice and cut court waiting lists, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that will be achieved by these changes. Courts need investment and to be run more efficiently to speed up justice. Solicitors need to be on time and ready for trial. So much of the delay is caused in the process before the case even comes before a jury. These proposals are the exact opposite of justice. These proposals go against the foundations of law and order in this country.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Victims of Domestic Abuse: Criminal Justice System · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire police, led by the exceptional Chief Constable Mark Roberts, on its well-executed Operation Crossbow, which I witnessed yesterday? More than 40 perpetrators of domestic violence wanted by the police and the courts were arrested and detained by a police force committed to the safety of women. Does he agree that such operations in Cheshire will be put at risk by the Government’s desire to merge 43 forces into 12, which will increase the risk to victims of domestic violence?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  This remedial order is just another step by this Government towards repealing and overriding the previous Government’s legacy Act. This Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer—who has, in the past, represented Gerry Adams—claim that the 2023 legacy Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights. There again, we have the ECHR wrongly being allowed to interfere in our justice system. The legacy Act put a stop to lawfare. Although not perfect, it was a step in the right direction as it outlawed lawfare against veterans. However, it also prevented legal action against and the prosecution of terrorists. The Government want to reopen inquiries, leading to the return of years of misery and stress for, and the persecution of, our brave veterans in their retirement years, after they served this country so loyally during the troubles. In the meantime, on-the-run letters of comfort remain in place for IRA terrorists—letters sent by Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Adviser. The return of civil suits will lead to the return of slow justice and a cost of millions more to the taxpayer This legislation will serve no purpose other than to pursue our brave veterans. This legislation is unfair and against their human rights. I will not vote in favour of the remedial order today.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Given the horrific scenes of pro-democracy protesters being attacked by the police in London over the weekend, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that peaceful protest can take place in this country?

• 5 Jan 2026 · HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments · Hansard source

  More

  What steps are being taken to ensure that prisons are adequately staffed with properly trained and equipped guards, and that IT systems receive long-overdue updates, to ensure that there are no further escapes across the whole prison network?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to acknowledge all the brave veterans here today and to thank them for their service to this country. I grew up during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland in a deeply patriotic household with a father who served in the British Army. I remember watching the news when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten in 1979 and the effect it had on my father, and again when the IRA blew up Airey Neave at the gates of Westminster, also in 1979. I remember watching the horrific footage of the 11 soldiers and seven horses blown up in Hyde Park in 1982. I remember watching the news when the IRA tried to blow up Mrs Thatcher in 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, killing five innocent people. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed the Baltic Exchange in the City of London in 1992, killing three and injuring 91, with a Semtex bomb—the biggest bomb to be detonated on mainland Britain since world war two. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed central Manchester in 1996, wreaking havoc and injuring 200 innocent civilians. I remember watching many more events, but I was only watching the news on the television. Like so many of us voting on the Bill today, I have no experience of the horrors on the ground that our brave veterans faced in this war against terrorism. Like so many of our veterans, my father did not speak of his tours in Northern Ireland. He did not speak of what he did, what he saw, or the risks he took. It was simply his job and his duty. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is watching me make this speech and speak on behalf of our brave veterans—many of whom are watching these proceedings today—about the injustice of their facing prosecution for simply following orders. These brave men served their Queen, their country and their regiments without question. They risked their lives to protect us, and now, in their retirement years, they are facing prosecution from this Labour Government and their shameful Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Good Friday agreement was undoubtedly a historic achievement, but I remember watching the television with my parents when the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness and finding that so hard to watch. Watching the prosecutions of our veterans, while IRA terrorists were given comfort letters and immunity from prosecution, has been equally hard to stomach. The existence of the public coroners’ court in this legislation to appease republicans is nothing short of the Government enabling show trials to demonise our veterans. All applications should be heard by the Legacy Commission and by the Legacy Commission alone. This legislation is wrong and unfair. Moreover, it will dissuade young men and women from considering a career in the armed forces at a time when we are already struggling to recruit. We have benefited from years of relative peace in this country, but now, more than ever, the Government need to be prepared for hostilities and to defend this country and its citizens. In a recent joint letter to the Prime Minister, nine four-star generals said that, with this legislation, British soldiers must worry not only about “the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.” How powerful are those words?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  While we Reform Members welcome the abolition of police and crime commissioners, will the Minister explain how these reforms will deliver clearer accountability for policing, particularly in areas like my constituency, where a strategic policing board is likely to be necessary, given that the PCC in Cheshire has proved to be one of the starkest examples of failure? He has achieved no meaningful improvement when it comes to crime or policing, and devotes his time to political campaigning.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coroner’s court exists to appease the republicans and that all applications should go through the legacy commission?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Justice Secretary aware of any crimes committed by wrongly released prisoners while at large?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It was in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election that I became aware of the issue of HMOs in our communities, and now I speak endlessly on this topic to highlight their impact on often deprived and forgotten communities that are bearing the brunt of the problem of housing people who are often asylum seekers. In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, there are 200 HMOs in the Halton borough council area; 127 of them are licensed, which means that they have more than five tenants. These are statistics that I can evidence. I also know, because the Home Office statistics tell me, that more than 600 asylum seekers are dispersed across the same area. It is not student accommodation in my local HMOs—that is not an issue in my constituency —it is an issue of asylum seekers. The impact on the community locally is illegal working; it is gangs; it is drugs; it is crime; it is the limiting of housing possibilities for local people; it is increases in rent prices because of the agreements that housing suppliers such as Serco have with the private landlords; it is antisocial behaviour. I have endless stories of criminal activity, sexual assaults and rape. I urge that, under article 4, no new planning consent is given or granted in my constituency for HMOs. I urge the Home Office to give local authorities full power to act under article 4. Finally, I urge the Home Office not to send any more asylum seekers to my constituency.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today I speak in favour of the eight amendments tabled by Reform UK. Simply put, the Bill is motivated by the desire to free up prison spaces, and not by what is the best way to administer justice. Its primary function is not the protection of the public, or the protection of victims of crime or abuse—in fact, it is the opposite. Clause 1 is about the presumption of suspension of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. We proposed an amendment to remove clause 1, which effectively discourages the magistrates court from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances when a custodial sentence of 12 months or less is entirely appropriate, and the clause is tying the hands of magistrates, who will be under pressure from the clerks not to impose a prison sentence. What does that mean for those found in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife—an offence that currently attracts a mandatory six-month prison sentence? With this presumption of suspension clause, is the Minister now suggesting that offenders who are found guilty of carrying a knife will now have their sentence automatically suspended? If so, what does this mean for knife crime on our streets and the protection of the public? Community sentence options are often limited due to defendants claiming anxiety and depression, meaning that unpaid work is not an option and that tagging may be limited. In addition, fines are often meaningless because so many defendants are claiming universal credit. Let me turn to clauses 18 and 19. We have tabled new clause 24, which would abolish the Sentencing Council all together. The Sentencing Council was introduced to give statutory guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe that its work has become prescriptive and politicised, as shown by clause 19. We live in an era of two-tier justice. Let us not forget that in March, the Sentencing Council proposed treating ethnic minority offenders more leniently than white offenders. The Justice Secretary had to step in and overrule the Sentencing Council in order to stop this madness. For these reasons, the Sentencing Council should be abolished and sentencing powers should lie solely at the discretion of judges.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot. Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend. Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that “this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.” In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported. Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as “Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”. Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We proposed an amendment to remove clause 20 all together. The clause proposes to reduce the time served of a custodial sentence from a half to a third in order to free up prison capacity. This means that dangerous criminals who have been locked up for some of the worst possible offences, including paedophiles, could be let back into the community after serving only a third of their sentence behind bars. Only the most serious offenders, including those convicted of rape, will serve half their sentences in jail, reduced from two thirds. [ Interruption. ]

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate. I will speak about some of my experiences as a magistrate for 20 years in Cheshire. I am sure many think of Cheshire as a sleepy county, but statistics show that knife crime increased there by 7% year on year from March 2024 to March 2025, which may surprise some. I will take time to look into that with my chief constable. Over my 20 years in court, I heard so many reasons—in fact, excuses—for why defendants might have been carrying knives at the time of the incident or when the police caught up with them. Those ranged from “I forgot it was in my pocket” to “I needed it for work”—that was always a standard one, no matter what they actually did for work. Today, there is a mandatory six-month custodial sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife in the community, but the fact is that magistrates often do not enforce it after listening to and accepting the mitigating factors put forward by the solicitor on behalf of the defendant. Sometimes, a suspended sentence might be given, but the point is that this is soft justice, and I have seen it time and again. The courts must get tougher on doing what they say they will do—doing what we ask them to do—and enforce that custodial sentence, because only by enforcing the custodial sentence will the message start to get through. I would say that the mandatory six-month sentence is not currently a deterrent, because people are not afraid of going to court. That is an issue for people like us who set policy.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  My point is that if stop and search is working, we will eventually get to a point where knives are found less often. That is the measure of success. We as politicians need to give our courts and our police the power to have a zero-tolerance approach to stop and search. The police need to have the confidence to carry out stop and search without fear of criticism. They need to be given funding to carry out thorough intelligence work on drug gangs, and they are doing an incredible job on the county lines operations that are now overtaking our society. However, they need to be given more funding for that work. The courts also need to be given the funding and resource to enact swift justice. Clearly, we also need education in schools and the community initiatives we have talked about. All of this is important, all of this is a package, but it starts at the top. It starts with us.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, at the moment, the threat of a custodial sentence is not the deterrent that it has to be, which is an important point. The Sentencing Bill, which will have its next stage on Tuesday, will take away the power of magistrates courts to hand down custodial sentences of less than 12 months. That is a big issue, but I will talk about it on Tuesday. Finally, it is important for all of us, as politicians, to remember that David Amess was brutally stabbed and killed four years ago today. What we have talked about this morning does not touch on the extremists and the nutcases who are out there in society, and from whom we are all under threat. I acknowledge that today is the four-year anniversary, and I urge everyone to take the utmost care when we are out in our communities.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress, if that is all right. My only observation about stop and search is that it has an effect, and I believe very strongly that stop and search needs to be brought back with absolutely zero tolerance. We need to support the police in putting aside any worry about being accused of being racist or of targeting particular groups in particular communities, because these policies work in taking knives off the street.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make a little progress, sorry. The other point about stop and search is that the police, and indeed politicians, should not congratulate themselves on how many knives are found through stop and search; we and the police should congratulate ourselves on how many knives are not found when stop and search is used to its maximum power, because that is the measure of success. I now come on to the point about why so many young men carry knives, and it is generally young men who carry knives. Again, over the years of my experience, I have seen the fear that young men often have—sadly, sometimes when they are going to school. People have said to me that they felt threatened at school, so they took knives into school. Of course, this also affects older men out in the community. There is a difference between these two groups, and it is a problem for magistrates. There is a difference between a young man, a youth, saying that they were frightened to go into school without a knife, and an older man going to a pub with a knife in his pocket. This is an interesting issue for magistrates, because magistrates need to have some insight into people’s lives. We have heard talk this morning about role models and that type of thing. It is a huge problem that we never see the parents when these young men are in court. The other thing is the problem of drug gangs and county lines, which we deal with all the time as magistrates. That culture on our streets is feeding this knife crime, and it is not just in cities any more. It is all over the counties, with young people—and they are often very young—carrying knives because they are drug runners.