PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Right to Trial by Jury - 27 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the Government’s reported plans to further restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases.

This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.

That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.

Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.

The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.

Or read the papers.

No more leaks just yet, please.

While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.

Jury trials are

“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.

The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.

I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?

How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.

Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:

“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”

The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.

I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.

I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.

I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.

Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, of course, I will not be commenting on a leaked document. No final decisions have been taken. What I can say is that we are giving very careful consideration to Sir Brian’s blueprint. We are giving very serious consideration to his conclusion that the current system, as my hon. Friend says, is broken and that we need structural reform. That requires that we countenance the idea of judge-only trials and a thorough review of what magistrate courts’ sentencing powers should be. It also requires that we ask the question that Sir Brian invites us to answer: when is it proportionate to have a jury trial, with all the rigour but also with all the expense and delay that can entail? Is it right that we ask somebody accused of stealing a bottle of whisky to be ahead in the queue of the rape victim waiting for her jury trial? That is the question he poses, and that is the question that when we come forward with our detailed plans, which need to be considered as a whole, it will be necessary for this House to consider.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials

“a success story of our justice system”.

Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should

“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”

in order to clear the backlog?

As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.

I look forward to the court at Chorley opening at some point.

After 14 years of the previous Government, many in Oldham feel that justice has left town. Our county court closed, our magistrates court closed, and police station after police station closed as well. Today, in a town of a quarter of a million people, not a single custody cell is in operation. We are looking to address that with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, bringing forward plans for a new police station with custody cells. But ideally we want a justice centre with courts brought back to Oldham so that magistrates can take the bench in the town and justice can be served and be seen to be served.

It is a failure for the north.

What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.

We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.

I call the Father of the House.

I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.

I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.

Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.

Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.

The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?

The hon. Member will know that I regularly engage with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and a range of other stakeholders. In fact, they agree with me that the system is broken. Indeed, whether they prosecute or defend, hard-working criminal barristers are experiencing a sapping of morale as they go into the crumbling buildings—presided over by the Conservatives—inefficient trials that crack, and trials that come three or four years after they were reported, with witnesses pulling out on the day. All that is deeply demoralising. Indeed, there is a huge degree of consensus between the Government and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association on the direction of travel. We must of course address inefficiencies; that is why Sir Brian Leveson and his independent reviewers are considering inefficiencies and productivity in the system. When part two of the review comes, we will take its recommendations equally seriously and look to implement them.

In 2014, 8% of those on trial for an either-way offence opted for a jury trial. By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, we know that the Crown court backlog is growing, that there are delays in those cases going to trial, and that more people are therefore dropping out and being denied their justice and their day in court. Is it not clear that some people are gaming the system to deny victims justice?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last week, I visited Wood Green Crown court, which has some of the deepest backlogs in the country, and met judges and barristers. They said that it was not uncommon to watch career criminals opt for a jury trial—their matter could be heard in the magistrates court, which has sufficient sentencing powers—and literally laugh in the dock. Why? Because they know that this Christmas and the one after that they will still be with their families without having faced trial, in the hope that witnesses pull out, the trial cracks and justice is not served. There are people gaming the system. That is the consequence of the delays, and we must do whatever we can to fix it.

Another day, another leak from the Government. The Minister says that no final decision has been made—we just have speculation—and suggests that we wait, so why does she not use this time to reflect on the comments from Conservative Members and bring back the courts used during covid, to speed up the process so that people continue to have the right to a trial by jury?

The right hon. Lady is right that we need to increase capacity. That is why, since we replaced her party in government, we have increased the number of sitting days by over 5,000—we have record sitting days. The fact is, however, that we must build system capacity; we need enough judges, enough prosecutors, enough court ushers, enough court translators. We need more magistrates, and we are embarking on an ambitious programme to recruit more of them. All that must happen. Unlike her party, we are investing in the system and looking to bring more courtrooms back into use, but ultimately, as Sir Brian Leveson reminds us time and again, spending our way out of trouble will not, on its own, fix the system. Former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk —one of the Conservatives’ own—said that the system would become “irrecoverable” unless we act, and, unlike the Conservatives, I am prepared to do so.

The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the racial disparities right across our criminal justice system. Sadly, there is nothing new about that issue, which runs from issues with policing to prosecutorial practices, and of course, our courts are not entirely free of that. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to public confidence in our justice system, and any differential treatment on the grounds of race or ethnicity is unacceptable. Regardless of which options we take forward to tackle the crisis, that principle—equality before the law—will run through them; I can assure her of that.

Quod erat demonstrandum. Yesterday, it was made abundantly clear that the Government’s priority is the recipient of benefits, way ahead of any consideration of victims, was it not?

I am not quite sure how to respond to that. Was it a question? Was it a statement? Was it a rant? It displays a serious lack of seriousness. We have a backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. As I said, a victim of rape reporting her case in London today is told she has a trial in 2030. Does the right hon. Member think we should just sit back? Does he think that any responsible Government would take receipt of an independent review—detailed, carefully considered, evidence-based—and simply say, “We’ll just leave it on the shelf”? Forget it; we are going to respond to it, we are going to implement it, and we are going to act, because we care about one thing: swifter justice for victims. I am sorry he cannot say the same.

As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach, and therefore we need to get on with the job of reform?

My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—

Father of the House, you are better and bigger than that.

I feel so strongly about it.

So do I. I spoke to a victim of child sexual abuse who had waited years for his day in court. A couple of weeks before his trial date, he was given the devastating news that the trial had been adjourned for another year. I regret to say that he sought to take his own life upon hearing that. Luckily, his attempt did not work, but if we ever needed a more graphic illustration of the weight that these intolerable delays place on victims —on real people’s lives—that is it. That is why we have to do whatever it takes to bring down these backlogs.

Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment? There is a fundamental point here: are the Minister and the Government aware that victims and the British people have more confidence in juries’ decisions than the decisions of judges?

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to focus on efficiencies and the use of technology, which is why the Ministry of Justice is looking at greater use of artificial intelligence for transcription tools and case summarisation—that is all to help us bring down these delays. We have to give a guarantee to everyone in this country that if they come before our criminal courts, they will have a fair trial. As I have said, 90% of people who come before our criminal courts are currently tried without a jury, and that is done fairly and with integrity. I stand by the idea that what we have to do is offer people a fair trial. Waiting four years for a trial simply is not fair, so we have to get the balance right, but the hon. Gentleman is right that efficiency, investment and structural reform are what will get the backlog down.

I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work, flip open the virtual or real ministerial red box, and think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog. I will bear those victims’ stories in mind as we approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?

Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial. There is no right in our constitution to a jury trial—it is not there—but jury trials are a fundamental and important part of our legal tradition, and they will remain so after any reforms are brought forward. That simply does not change. However, 90% of people are tried without a jury, and that is done fairly. What we need to guarantee is a fair trial, and I have been mindful of our legal traditions, descending from Magna Carta and many constitutional documents since, as we approach these reforms.

I recently met the local Crown Prosecution Service in Exeter, which informed me that, as has been discussed, defendants who have the choice often choose a jury trial to delay their case and game the system. Because of that, 10% of adult rape cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged, as the victim no longer supports prosecution due to the long delays in their case. With the backlog at 78,000 and rising, victims are waiting years. Does the Minister agree that we need this bold action to get the court system back on its feet?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rape and serious sexual offences are one of the most poignant and difficult areas, and it is in our minds in these 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Rape Crisis published a report last week in which it reported that one in three rape victims faced delay to their trial. I am told that 60% of rape victims are pulling out of the process because they simply cannot live with the spectre of the trial hanging over them, and they doubt that justice will ever be done. What is the consequence of that? It is not just heartbreaking for the victim; it means that justice is not served. That is something that no one in this House can abide.

With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?

I am afraid that I utterly reject the premise of that question. First, the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will other Members, for the Government’s detailed response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and to see which cases will be affected by the reforms. I utterly reject the suggestion that this is somehow an authoritarian gambit—far from it. I cannot think of anything more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee fair trial, which is currently being undermined as a result of under-investment by the last Government and by the backlogs. I am ensuring that we work towards guaranteeing a fair trial for every victim of crime in this country, and I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than that.

Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?

Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. That does not mean that they always get it right or that they are beyond reproach, but they are all subject to the principle of acting without fear or favour. They undergo comprehensive judicial training, which rightly includes rigorous training in bias, including racial bias. In our magistracy, which is so reflective of the principles of local and democratic justice, we are moving towards a more diverse magistracy, so that in London, one of our most diverse cities, over 30% of magistrates are currently black, Asian or minority ethnic. We need to go further, but I assure my hon. Friend that whether it is our judges, our magistracy or the involvement of juries for our most serious cases, that democratic element will always be retained.

The Minister rightly calls out the issues for rape victims, and she might want to have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is closing down police stations so that there is nowhere for people to report. I recently visited Harrow Crown court, which is temporarily placed in Hendon magistrates court while the building in Harrow is rebuilt. I asked the judge, “Why are the courts all empty?”, as only one court was operational. He said to me, “The biggest problem is finding lawyers for defendants to enable the trials to take place.” While the Minister is considering this issue, will she look at the investment that needs to take place to encourage lawyers to take on criminal justice cases?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow. I would push back on the suggestion that the Mayor of London has not led on tackling violence against women and girls in our city, because there are greater policing numbers and there has been a real drive on that.

On supporting the sustainability of lawyers to both prosecute and defend these cases, the Government have announced an injection of £92 million for criminal legal aid solicitors who defend such cases. We are making that investment and looking to see whether we can go further, particularly in relation to advocates. We are making that investment, and it is a shame the hon. Gentleman’s Government did not do it a little earlier, as we might have been in a rather different position today.

Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not going to comment on leaks or the circumstances of leaks. I can say, however, that no one was more irritated by the timing of this leak than I was. The issue of our Crown court backlog and the impact it is having on victims has rightly been well ventilated in debate in this House. It is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his expert review to engage with and consult a wide range of stakeholders. We have been very open about the issues and the need to have that debate, but I am simply not going to comment on leaks.

This is, I think, the third attempt by successive Governments to reduce the right to trial by jury. It is a fundamental right in our system that should not be undermined, and particularly not because the Government have a current and, hopefully, temporary problem with capacity. In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister recognised that the Lammy inquiry of 2017 found that jury trials are more objective than judge-only trials, less likely to be racially biased and likely to give a fairer outcome. Is the Minister really content that we should be walking away from the jury trial system because of the current problems? Instead, is the answer not, as other hon. Members have suggested, to invest more in the system to deal with the appalling backlog, which she rightly says we have?

We are putting record investment into sitting days, our lawyers and legal aid, and we are investing in technology. However, as Sir Brian Leveson’s review concludes, investment alone is not going to fix the problem that is undermining the fairness of those trials. In many cases, by the time jury trials are being heard, the evidence is years old, witnesses’ minds are no longer fresh in their recollection of the events and people are pulling out of the process. That is fundamentally unfair and not at all progressive, because we cannot guarantee the fundamental right to a fair trial. It is right that we look, as Sir Brian Leveson has indicated, at both structural reform and investment to ensure that we can guarantee a fair trial and, rightly, equality before the law for all.

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. I have taken note of what she has said and, if I may, I will quote it back to her:

“a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness”,

a three to four year delay is “deeply demoralising”, and “justice delayed is justice denied”. How does she square that position with her support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?

The hon. Gentleman is right to quote back to me the headlines of the arguments that I am making in response to the urgent question about the backlogs in our criminal courts in England and Wales. On his question about my support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, it is a fair piece of legislation and one that I stand by.

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. At the end of December 2024, there were 11,850 outstanding cases at our magistrates courts and 2,663 outstanding cases at Crown courts in Wales. Of course, some 23 Crown and magistrates courts have been closed across Wales since 2010. Does the Minister agree that fewer courts and their distance from communities are significant factors in reduced and delayed access to justice, and that that must be addressed as a priority?

I pay particular attention to the regional disparities in the Crown court crisis and in the delays. We have to look at different regions and see what the right solutions are for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a particular issue in Wales is the distance that we ask magistrates to travel to perform what is, frankly, an amazing public service. The fact that we have an army of local volunteers who both reflect and serve their community is really important, and I have engaged closely with Welsh magistrates on this subject. She is right that to bring down the backlogs we need—I will not grow sick of saying it—investment, structural reform and modernisation. If we get all three, then regardless of where people live in England and Wales, we will bring down the backlogs and get swifter justice for victims.

Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cases and appeals of asylum seekers are heard in the immigration and asylum tribunal, not in our criminal courts. We are not only making investment in immigration legal aid so that those cases can be heard at a swifter rate, but sitting at close to maximum capacity sitting days to process those cases. When we talk about swifter justice for victims in our criminal courts, that must be our real focus and the real focus of the debate today.

The Minister has spoken about the importance of swift and fair justice, but I feel this decision will set a very dangerous precedent that the state will become addicted to. I sincerely hope the Government do not go down this path, but if they do, I urge the Minister to ensure that this measure is in place only for the duration required to clear the backlog and is then abandoned. It must not become a central tenet of the justice system.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this decision has been prompted by a crisis, and the crisis we inherited from the previous Government is acute indeed. As we speak, day on day and month on month, that backlog heads in the wrong direction. As I have said, we need to do whatever it takes to bring it down to a sustainable level; the way we will do that is by investing in the system and through structural reform and modernisation, but we have a very long way to go. There is no doubt that we have a mountain to climb, and it is only when we are in a sustainable position and can say we are delivering swift justice for victims that we can revisit whether this measure is right for our country.

Trial by jury may be more expensive than trial by judge and magistrates, but does the Minister agree that, as we have heard today, this decision goes beyond just finances? The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is fundamental and essential to safeguarding justice, and it must be protected for all cases.

The constitutional right that British people have is the right to a fair trial. People are waiting years for their day in court and seeing some defendants whose trial could be heard gaming the system. I believe that the Justice Committee paper says that there were more than 4,000 cases last year alone in which magistrates had sufficient sentencing powers to address the case swiftly. People opted for a jury trial, in some cases deliberately, because they wanted to drag it out, put their victim through that, see witnesses pull out and perhaps get away with it all. That is simply not fair.

We have to guarantee jury trial, especially for the most serious cases—rape, murder and serious drug trafficking—but I am not prepared to ask a victim of rape who has been waiting years for her day in court to get behind someone in the queue who has perhaps stolen a Mars bar but elected to have a jury trial to drag the matter out. That is simply not fair, and that is simply not British justice.

This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?

No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.

Jim Shannon has got the answer.

I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.

The hon. Gentleman puts his question very well, as is typical of him. I agree that the British public have confidence in jury trials, and rightly so—they are a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so, whatever the exact nature of the plans we put before this House.

However, as I have said, it is not fair to ask victims to wait years for their day in court, undermining the fairness of the trial in so doing. We have to be mindful of the confidence that British people have in the outcomes of this process, which is why we asked an independent expert to look at this matter and looked at international comparisons. In Canada, for example—a common-law jurisdiction and society not so distinct from our own—where I met judges and visited courts, they use types of judge-only trial, and do not see any difference in the quality of justice that is delivered or in the outcomes. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and it is why we are considering this matter as carefully as we are.

The Minister is quite right to be angry and frustrated at this leak. I gently say to her that, to put confidence back into the system, the answer might be a leak inquiry.