Westminster update: criminal courts review tackles cases backlog

Post Office Inquiry

We urge swift justice and a fair, transparent compensation process following the Post Office Inquiry’s final report.

Read our response to the inquiry report.

Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: new court alone won't solve cases backlog

The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, was published on 9 July.

It puts forward root and branch reform to address the cases backlog in the Crown Court.

The review states that the criminal justice system is in crisis, highlighting the current backlog of over 76,000 cases.

It also addresses the serious problems that delayed justice causes, from the “devastating” impact on victims and witnesses to defendants in limbo and increasing prisoners on remand.

The review calls for solutions of an “equal magnitude”.

Among its largest recommendations is the creation of a new intermediate court.

This would remove jury trials for some offences by creating a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle less serious offences.

Serious complex fraud cases would be heard by a judge alone.

The review also recommends greater use of out-of-court disposals.

If carried out, the reforms would save up to 9,000 sitting days a year.

We believe the new court division on its own won't solve the Crown Court backlog.

We call for investment in the whole system to reduce the backlog, from the police station to all stages before a Crown Court case.

We have also called for robust data collection on the impact of the reforms to make sure that removing jury trials works and public trust in the justice system remains.

Finally, we are pleased to see the review recognise the central role of solicitors in providing early legal advice and diverting the right cases from the courts.

The government will respond to Leveson’s recommendations in due course.

The second part of the review is expected later in the year.

Legal Aid Agency (LAA): minister recognises need for IT investment

At justice questions on Tuesday 8 July, minister for courts and legal services Sarah Sackman committed to “build back better with additional investment” after the LAA crisis.

James Naish MP (Labour) asked what steps the Ministry of Justice is taking to restore the LAA’s digital services.

Sackman responded that the LAA has “kept the show on the road with a series of emergency contingency measures”.

She recognised that the LAA’s IT systems were left in a fragile state by the lack of investment and explained that additional investment would be on the way.

She said that the government will turn the systems back on only when they can be sure that they are secure.

Victoria Collins (Liberal Democrat) asked about support for people accessing legal aid in rural areas.

Collins explained people in her constituency had reported “56 fly-tipping incidents in five years, with the injustice that the most recent incident is costing the farmer around £40,000”.

She asked how the government will ensure face-to-face legal aid support.

Sackman responded that the “Legal Aid Agency was satisfied that legal aid services across all categories are adequate in her constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

"Digital technology is transforming access to justice through remote consultations and government-funded websites, such as Advicenow.”

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) commitment

In an oral evidence session before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 8 July, home secretary Yvette Cooper addressed the UK's ECHR commitment.

She stressed the government’s support for the UK's international obligations, but noted issues with interpreting the ECHR's family route clause.

Lord Dubs (Labour) noted that, as stated in the Immigration White Paper, the government makes sure parliament sets boundaries for use of article 8 obligations.

Lord Dubs asked the home secretary why article 8 protections are no longer needed.

Cooper explained that although there is a framework for family routes, a growing proportion of cases are deemed “exceptions”.

She argued for a rebalancing so individuals can bring their families where appropriate, while the government can also control the border effectively.

The chair of the committee Lord Foster (Liberal Democrat) addressed targets to reduce Home Office spending by 1.7% per year.

He asked whether further cuts were likely in light of recent U-turns.

The home secretary responded that she believed significant savings could be made by reducing the asylum backlog and ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers.

She added the department was prioritising key areas, including national security, ensuring safer streets and securing borders.

Baroness Prashar (Crossbench) raised the proposal to extend the period needed to qualify for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years.

She asked about the arrangement for transition after consultation, as the proposed changes create uncertainty for individuals nearing the five-year limit.

The home secretary only committed to the consultation coming forward by the end of the year.

Border Bill: peers push for protection of modern slavery victims

Former prime minister Baroness May of Maidenhead pressed the government to introduce a reasonable excuse for exploited individuals coerced into immigration crime, as the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill continued its committee stage.

Baroness May and Lord German (Liberal Democrat) both put forward amendments to make sure the new clause 14, which would prosecute individuals for handling articles used in illegal crossing, does not also target modern slavery victims.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) tabled a similar amendment to clause 13 to protect individuals forced to supply articles while being smuggled across the channel.

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative) opposed the amendment, arguing this would weaken the ability to prosecute smugglers and disrupt criminal networks.

He stressed the importance of a broad legal framework to effectively target and break up smuggling operations.

The minister representing the government, Lord Hanson of Flint, responded to these amendments similarly.

He argued the existing legislation already provides protections for victims of modern slavery.

He noted the bill has a non-exhaustive list of defences to be considered before an individual can be prosecuted.

Lord Hanson concluded that the proposed amendments would risk limiting the bill's effectiveness in combating organised crime.

All amendments on these clauses were withdrawn.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before parliament:

• Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will continue its committee stage in the Lords, which began on 26 June
• Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will continue its committee stage in the Lords, which began on 20 May
• Crime and Policing Bill will have its second reading in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Employment Rights Bill will have its report stage in the Lords on 14 July
• Mental Health Bill will have its report stage in the Commons on a date to be confirmed
• Planning and Infrastructure Bill will begin its committee stage in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Renters' Rights Bill continues its report stage in the Lords, which began on 1 July
• Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed third reading in the Commons on 20 June. It will move to the Lords on a date to be confirmed