Court reforms vital to tackle ‘scandalous disgrace' of backlog, says Ken Clarke
Last week, plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where cases are heard by judges were unveiled by Sir Brian Leveson.
The review commissioned by the Government seeks to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse' amid a record-high backlog where some cases are listed for 2029.
It comes after the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March.
Sir Brian's recommendations are expected to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year from some of the main changes, such as by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges.
Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases.
Ministers are now considering the recommendations and will respond in the early autumn with a view to legislation.
The Government has already accepted a raft of reforms proposed in a separate independent sentencing review by former justice secretary David Gauke to tackle jail overcrowding.
Speaking in Parliament, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who also previously served as justice secretary, said: 'Does the minister accept that it is a scandalous disgrace that in this country some victims and people charged with offences have to wait months and sometimes years before a trial can take place?
'Does he therefore agree that, in those circumstances, the Government have no choice but to accept as quickly as possible the excellent recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, because I hear of no alternatives?
'Will he undertake that they will not take too long reviewing and considering these matters?
'This should proceed as rapidly as possible with the full support of everybody who has the interests of the rule of law and justice in this country at heart.'
Welcoming his support, justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who is also a sitting magistrate, said: 'Data published last month showed the backlog stood at nearly 77,000 cases. That is an increase of 2,300 cases over the previous quarter.
'If we were not to take any action, it is projected that the outstanding caseload would be 100,000 in 2028. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and I absolutely take the point he made.'
Leading lawyer and independent crossbencher Lord Pannick said: 'Does the minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily – not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so – and they are heard effectively and with justice.'
Lord Ponsonby said: 'Of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases.
'There is no right to a jury trial. However, there is a right to a fair trial.
'For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing.
'We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people – both victims and defendants – can get a fair trial in a timely way.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Labour rushed to help Lindsey oil refinery. So why not Grangemouth?
Here, Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP for Falkirk East – which includes Grangemouth, writes on the Labour Government's differing approaches. LIKE many, I was alarmed to hear of the potential closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire at the end of last month. On June 30, Prax Group, the owners of the refinery, announced they were going into administration, and therefore the future of the site was at risk. The very same day, the UK Government sprang into action. Energy Minister Michael Shanks gave a statement to the House of Commons confirming the [[UK Government]] is funding the continued operation of the refinery, adding: 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.' Energy Minister Michael ShanksNow, I welcome this, and any action to save jobs is commendable. All options should be considered to keep Lindsey operating. But as the constituency MSP for Grangemouth, I cannot help but think – while the [[UK Government]] sprang into action for the Lindsey refinery the day the news broke, where was that sense of urgency and action for [[Grangemouth]]? Yes, the circumstances are different – but over a period of months, there was nothing even close to what took place for Lindsey in a day – no urgent statement, and little to no meaningful Government intervention. READ MORE: Labour admit 'not a penny' of £200m Grangemouth rescue fund spent This isn't the first time either. Many Scots were quite rightly astounded that the UK Government very quickly spent billions to save British Steel in Scunthorpe but came nowhere close for Grangemouth. It's worth repeating that Scotland generates well over 90% of the UK's crude oil in any given year – but now has no capacity to refine it. It's also worth repeating that Labour promised to save [[Grangemouth]] before the election and failed. Indeed, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland said: "We would step in to save the jobs at the refinery." This is the second refinery to face closure on Labour's watch, with thousands of related jobs being lost elsewhere in the supply chain. It would appear that, when it comes to industry elsewhere in the UK, Westminster can immediately pull out all the stops – but when it's in Scotland, the [[UK Government]] simply isn't interested. READ MORE: 'Unacceptable': SNP hit out as Labour 'keep Tory-era veto on Scottish laws' Some may argue that these issues are for the Scottish Government to respond to. This is correct – but any response must include the power to take financial action in the form of significant borrowing powers. These are powers that the [[Scottish Government]] lacks. The truth is, Grangemouth is just as important to Scotland's industrial output as Lindsey is to England's. It's no wonder that a growing number in Scotland quite rightly feel that Scotland is an afterthought to this – or any – UK government. It begs the question: if the UK Government can immediately step in to save major industrial sites in England – on more than one occasion – then why not in Scotland? My view is, as it always has been, that the only way to ensure Scotland's massive natural wealth is utilised for the benefit of Scotland's people is with independence for Scotland.
ITV News
33 minutes ago
- ITV News
Joint mayor would 'discriminate' against Cornish people, says Labour MP
A Cornish Labour MP has warned he will vote against his Government's devolution plans if it means the Duchy has to merge with Devon to form a combined authority and elect a joint mayor. Perran Moon, the MP for Camborne and Redruth, has said Labour's current proposal"discriminates against the people of Cornwall" because a change in local governance would conflict with their National Minority Status. "I have had enough of talk about Cornwall joining a Mayoral Combined Authority with Devon or anywhere else to the east of the Tamar, for that matter," Mr Moon said. "The currently proposed English Devolution Bill discriminates against the people of Cornwall, as a change in our governance structure directly conflicts with our National Minority Status." Cornwall 'cannot and will not' join a mayoral combined authority, Perran Moon tells Government. As they currently stand, Labour's plans would see all-remaining areas with two tiers of local authority eventually restructured into single-tier unitary bodies. In Devon for example, a combined county authority has already been given the green light, which includes the merger of Devon County Council with Torbay Council, and Devon's district, city and borough councils. The plans would also see unitary authorities join up with those in neighbouring areas to form so-called 'super councils', run by elected mayors with control over policy areas such as transport, housing and skills budgets. The idea is that these combined authorities would represent a population size of around 1.5million or above. Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire have submitted plans for a "Wessex" authority, while it's thought North Somerset may attempt to join the already-existing West of England Combined Authority. It all sounds quite complicated, but it effectively means that elected mayors will be given greater control of their local areas and, in theory, things should get done quickly and successfully. However, in Devon and Cornwall, it's not that straightforward. Labour is realising that different parts of the country have very different idea about what successful devolution looks like. To a number of MPs in Cornwall, that doesn't mean joining with Devon. It means a bespoke 'deal' for the Duchy that comes with its own promises of local power and investment. Angela Rayner previously told ITV West Country that she's "enticing" them to embrace the mayoral model, but not forcing, though it's still not clear what that really means. This week, the Camborne and Redruth MP asked one of Ms Rayner's deputies for clarity. Cornwall is "desperate to access the highest level of devolution," Mr Moon said, before adding: "Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority." Jim McMahon, the minister responsible for devolution, said: "We absolutely understand and respect, and are invested in, the Cornish identity. "But we also need to make sure the devolution agenda moves on at pace and that every part of England can realise their full potential." The rhetoric from Cornish MPs on devolution has stepped up a gear, and will no doubt continue to do so. "A Cornwall-only devolution deal is the right deal for Cornwall and I will be significantly increasing the profile of this issue in national media over the summer until we get the devolution deal that respects our unique status," Mr Moon told constituents in a post on Facebook. "If changes aren't made to the English Devolution Bill or we cannot agree a Cornwall-only deal before we are asked to vote on the Bill, I WILL vote against it."
North Wales Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
PM wants fewer jobless foreign nationals on benefits as first-time data released
The number has risen by almost a fifth (17%) in a year, from 514,961 in May 2024 to 604,914 in May this year. The figures, published by the Department for Work and Pensions on Tuesday, show the number of British and Irish nationals not in work and claiming universal credit (UC) has also risen over the same 12-month period. There were 4.3 million people in the Common Travel Area category – made up of people who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions – on UC in May. This rose from 3.5 million in May last year and was almost double the 2.8 million such claimants in May 2022, which is the earliest month for which data is available. In total there were 7.9 million people on UC – a payment to help with living costs and available for people on low incomes or those who are out of work or cannot work – in June. The vast majority – 6.6 million or (83.6%) – were British and Irish nationals and those who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions. Just over a third (34% or 2.7 million) of all those on UC were in work as of May. The figures showed that the total number of UC claimants who are refugees, have EU settled status, arrived under a humanitarian route or have either limited or indefinite leave to remain in the UK has risen year-on-year, from 1.1 million in June 2024 to 1.2 million last month. The numbers in these categories on UC and out of work have also risen steadily over the past three years, with the Conservatives saying they have a 'clear, common-sense position' that the benefit 'should be reserved for UK citizens only'. The Government said it had 'inherited a broken welfare system and spiralling, unsustainable benefits bill' and was working on reforms including tightening rules on who can claim. The Prime Minister's spokesman said they will double the amount of time it takes to apply for settled status from five years to 10, limiting eligibility for the benefit. Asked whether Sir Keir wants to see the number of foreign nationals claiming benefits while unemployed reduced, his official spokesman said: 'Absolutely, we both want to see the overall numbers of immigration reduced and we've set out plans for that through the Immigration White Paper. 'Within that, we also want to see people making a contribution to the UK, and that's why in the White Paper we set out that we will be doubling the amount of time it takes to apply for settled status. 'That actually means that typically you can only access universal credit after you've lived here currently for five years, and we're doubling that to a starting point of 10 years, so that will obviously reduce those numbers.' The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said it had published the statistics 'following a public commitment to investigate and develop breakdowns of the UC caseload by the immigration status of foreign nationals in receipt of UC'. People with EU Settlement Scheme settled status who have a right to reside in the UK were the second largest group on UC, accounting for 9.7% (770,379), while 2.7% (211,090) of the total had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Refugees accounted for 1.5% (118,749) of people on UC, while 0.7% (54,156) were people who had come by safe and legal humanitarian routes including under the Ukraine and Afghan resettlement schemes. A total of 75,267 people, making up 1% of the total on UC, had limited leave to remain in the UK, covering those with temporary immigration status. The rest – some 65,346 people – were either no longer receiving UC payments or had no immigration status recorded on digital systems, the DWP said. People can access UC only if they have an immigration status that provides recourse to public funds. Those with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) cannot claim most benefits, tax credits or housing assistance that are paid by the state. Asylum seekers do not have access to UC as they have NRPF but those granted refugee status – deemed to have been forced to flee their country because of a well-founded fear of persecution, war or violence – can claim the benefit. While refugees on UC had the lowest rate of employment at 22%, the department said those who have only recently been granted refugee status cannot be in employment at that point as asylum seekers are not permitted to work. Independent MP Rupert Lowe, an ex-member of Reform UK, had welcomed the pledge to publish the data, describing it as a 'huge win' for those who had 'relentlessly pushed for this'. He described the numbers as 'absolute insanity', posting on X: 'We cannot afford it. The country is BROKE.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp branded the figures 'staggering' and claimed they are 'clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system'. He said: 'Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. Universal credit should be reserved for UK citizens only. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country.' But the Government said the proportion of UC payments 'to foreign nationals has already fallen since last July'. While the numbers of claimants who are refugees, have EU settled status, arrived under a humanitarian route or have either limited or indefinite leave to remain in the UK have risen year-on-year, the proportion has fallen. These categories account for 15.6% of the total UC claimants in June, down from 16.5% a year earlier when the Conservatives were still in government. The number of British and Irish nationals and those who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions – covering those in the Common Travel Area (CTA) – rose by almost a million from 5.6 million in June last year to 6.6 million last month. The proportion also rose slightly from 82.5% to 83.6%.
