The Courts and Tribunals Bill would make major changes to criminal justice in England and Wales. It would remove the right of defendants in either-way cases to choose Crown Court jury trial, create new rules allowing some Crown Court trials to be heard by a judge without a jury, and allow complex or lengthy fraud, tax, bribery, money-laundering and terrorist-funding cases to be tried without a…
During Solicitor General questions, MPs challenged the Government over proposals connected with restricting the right to jury trial. The Solicitor General said jury trials would remain a cornerstone of the justice system, but argued that action was needed to reduce Crown court delays.
MPs questioned Sir Brian Leveson on the court backlog, judge-only trials and the modelling behind the Bill. He argued that investment and efficiency alone would not be enough, and said the system needed structural reform to change the way cases move through the criminal courts.
The committee heard evidence from the Victims’ Commissioner, Professor Katrin Hohl and former Victims’ Commissioner Vera Baird. They focused on the harm caused by long court delays, the need to protect complainants in sexual offence cases, and the argument that faster justice is itself part of fairness.
MPs heard from Women’s Aid and survivors of rape, domestic abuse and coercive control. The evidence covered repeated adjournments, floating trial dates, the need to record magistrates’ court proceedings, judicial training, and the Bill’s plan to remove the presumption of parental involvement in family court cases.
MPs heard from the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association, who accepted that court delays are serious but opposed removing jury trial for some cases. They argued that the Bill wrongly focuses on juries, that the time savings are uncertain, and that delays should be tackled through capacity, legal aid, listing, court buildings and case management.
Circuit leaders told MPs that the Government had not proved the expected time savings from judge-only trials. They argued that more sitting days, better use of courtrooms, improved listing and fixing prisoner transport problems could reduce delays without limiting jury trial.
The afternoon evidence continued with witnesses on family court safety, policing, HMCTS operations, appeals, court modelling, Ontario’s judge-alone system, protest cases, former senior judges and the Ministry of Justice. The evidence widened the debate from jury trial to how the whole court system would actually absorb the Bill’s reforms.
MPs debated major changes to the criminal courts, including judge-only trials for some Crown court cases, limits on defendants choosing jury trial for either-way offences, expanded magistrates’ sentencing powers, changes to appeals, protections for victims in sexual offence cases, and reforms to family court parental involvement rules. Supporters said the Bill would reduce delays and help victims get justice sooner; critics said it would weaken jury trial and public participation in justice. The Bill passed Second Reading by 304 votes to 203.
Ayes 304·Noes 203
The Courts and Tribunals Bill was formally introduced in the House of Commons. This was the first step in its passage through Parliament.