This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of 80,000 criminal cases in the Crown court. That is why we are investing over £2.5 billion in our courts to fund unlimited sitting days, boost legal aid and, ultimately, speed up justice for victims. Let me be clear: jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system, but justice delayed is justice denied.
Imagine a scenario in which two individuals are both charged with the same offence and the factual matrix of each case is identical. However, the first defendant has a string of previous convictions, whereas the second has none. Under the Government’s proposal, the first defendant would be able to elect for a jury trial, depending on the length of the potential sentence, whereas the second would not. How does that align with the Solicitor General’s assessment of the rule of law?
Access to a jury trial is determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending, not by who the defendant is. As the hon. Gentleman will know, likely sentence is already used to determine court allocation and is a feature of our system. Every defendant in the Crown court will receive a fair trial, and that is not affected by the mode of trial decision.
There is considerable scepticism across the House, and among experts outside this place, including in the Criminal Bar Association, about whether restricting jury trials will have any impact on the backlog. Does the Solicitor General understand the confusion of many Members about why we simply do not make the change temporary, and then have a review to find out if it actually works?
The impact assessment, taken with the investment in the system, suggests that around 27,000 Crown court sitting days a year will be saved from 2028-29, speeding up justice for victims. The Institute for Government has agreed that the modelling is sound. That is likely to save about 20%, in terms of time.
I call the shadow Solicitor General.
Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a jury trial in cases involving offences that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years. Cases would be heard by a judge, sitting alongside two magistrates, in a Crown court bench division. The Government’s proposals go much further. They seek to remove the right to jury trial for offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone. Why have the Government departed from Sir Brian’s recommendations in two important respects, both of which make serious inroads into the right to be heard by a jury?
As I set out, we inherited a courts system in crisis, with victims waiting years for their cases to get to court. We have all heard the stories of rape victims waiting three or four years for their cases to get to court. That is unacceptable, and it is why inaction is not an option, and why we have invested over £2.5 billion in our courts system. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system. It is right, however—given the backlog that we face, and given that Sir Brian said that investment alone will not shift the dial—that we look at the jury system, which has not been looked at since the 1970s, to see what more we can do to make sure that cases get to court quicker and are heard, giving justice to both victims and defendants.
Given the Justice Minister’s conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, and given the Solicitor General’s responsibility for upholding the rule of law, will she confirm whether a decision that a defendant on trial will face a judge, sitting alone, will be subject to judicial review?
I will take away the hon. Lady’s comments, discuss them with Justice Ministers and confirm the position to her in writing.