The Courts and Tribunals Bill has so far escaped largely unscathed on its journey through the Commons. Opponents of jury trial curbs have so far been repelled, but the jousting isn’t over
Anyone glued to Parliament TV over the last three weeks to watch members of the House of Commons public bill committee scrutinise the Courts and Tribunals Bill will have noticed a pattern. The committee would debate each clause, including suggested amendments tabled by mostly opposition MPs. The amendment would either be withdrawn or defeated by nine votes to six. Current clauses would succeed in remaining part of the legislation, also by nine votes to six.
Amendments that would have significantly watered down government plans to restrict the right to a jury trial fell. One amendment tabled by the Conservatives would have allowed defendants to appeal the decision to have a judge-only trial in certain circumstances. Another, tabled by the Lib Dems, would have seen cases in the new Crown Court Bench Division heard by a judge and two magistrates – in keeping with the Leveson review’s recommendation.
Amendments to magistrates’ sentencing powers would have prevented the lord chancellor from increasing these powers beyond 12 months via secondary legislation. Had opposition MPs succeeded, cases currently awaiting trial would have been exempt from the reforms.
The most significant amendment was debated on Tuesday – when the committee had to conclude its work. Tabled by Labour MPs Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasy, this sought to establish dedicated courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with those cases heard by a jury and a specialist judge.
Specialist rape courts were a 2024 Labour manifesto pledge. Rebel MPs believe specialist courts and efficiency measures would render the curbs on jury trials unnecessary. The amendment was defeated by nine votes to six.
The legislation therefore remains much as it was before it endured 12 sessions of the public bill committee. A pointless exercise, then? Not necessarily.
On the first day, MPs heard directly from Sir Brian Leveson, victims’ commissioners, victims, the bar, legal thinktank Justice, miscarriage of justice group APPEAL and the Institute for Government, whose own modelling cast doubt on the government’s projections.
Subsequent sessions delved deeper into the issues and concerns raised by the bill’s many critics within the profession.
'What I will take away is the fact that some deep thinking needs to be done about having good baseline data'
Sarah Sackman, courts minister
The committee heard that the reforms could price defendants earning below £37,500 out of legal aid due to different thresholds in the Crown and magistrates’ court. The Lib Dems’ amendment linking legal aid to the potential severity of a sentence rather than trial venue prompted a lengthy debate with courts minister Sarah Sackman, who promised to keep the rules governing financial eligibility under review and assess the impact of the bill in its final form.
The Lib Dems also proposed a new clause that would have enabled two trials to be heard per day in select courtrooms. The morning trial session would run from 9am-1pm, the afternoon from 2pm-6pm. Sackman pointed out that the lord chancellor already has the power to determine when the Crown court sits.
Amid concerns about the impact of judge-only trials on people from ethnic minority backgrounds and white British people living in lower-income households, Labour’s Paulette Hamilton tabled an amendment for a statutory duty on the lord chancellor to review the impact of restricting the right to a jury trial after 12 and 36 months.
The lord chancellor has already committed to an independent review, Sackman told the committee. But after hearing MPs’ submissions, she recognised the need to ensure parliament has ‘good baseline data’, ‘datasets that tell us something meaningful’ and an ‘appropriate feedback mechanism’ for parliament.
With the public bill committee stage now over, the legislation will return to the Commons chamber for the ‘report stage’ when parliament returns on 13 May. Report stage gives MPs an opportunity on the floor of the house to consider further proposals for change and suggest new amendments or clauses.
Report stage is usually followed immediately by a third reading. How many MPs will vote ‘aye’ this time? The bill passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203 – a majority of 101. However, no votes were recorded for 88 Labour MPs.
If the bill survives the third reading, it moves to the House of Lords – where the jousting will begin again.
No comments yet