UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Jess Brown-Fuller – 2025 Comments on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    Jess Brown-Fuller – 2025 Comments on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    The comments made by Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Justice, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2025.

    The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials

    “a success story of our justice system”.

    Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should

    “pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”

    in order to clear the backlog?

    Sarah Sackman

    As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.

  • Sarah Sackman – 2025 Statement on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    Sarah Sackman – 2025 Statement on Limiting Right to Jury Trials

    The statement made by Sarah Sackman, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2025.

    This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.

    That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.

    Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.

    The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.

    Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

    Or read the papers.

    Mr Speaker

    No more leaks just yet, please.

    Robert Jenrick 

    While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.

    Jury trials are

    “fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

    Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.

    The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.

    I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?

    Sarah Sackman 

    How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.

    Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:

    “to no one will we…delay right or justice.”

    The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.

    I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.

    I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.

    I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.

    Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Government’s Asylum Policy

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

    This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

    The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

    I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

    Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.Toggle showing location ofColumn 510

    My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

    Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

    In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

    I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

    Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.Toggle showing location ofColumn 511

    We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

    The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

    We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

    Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

    Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

    While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

    Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

    We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

    It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

    We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

    I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Parole Board – 2025 Decision on Colin Pitchfork

    Parole Board – 2025 Decision on Colin Pitchfork

    The document released by the Parole Board on 13 November 2025.

    Colin_Pitchfork_-_Redacted_Parole_Board_decision_letterDownload
  • David Lammy – 2025 Speech at Lord Chancellor Swearing In

    David Lammy – 2025 Speech at Lord Chancellor Swearing In

    The speech made by David Lammy at the Royal Courts of Justice on 1 October 2025.

    My Lords, Ladies, friends, colleagues,

    Lady Chief Justice, thank you for that generous welcome, and your kind words.

    I am deeply grateful for your leadership…

    And look forward to working alongside you…

    In the months and years ahead.

    I congratulate my colleague and friend, Ellie Reeves…

    On her appointment as Solicitor General.

    Madam Solicitor, your dedication…

    Your expertise…

    And your energy…

    Will be of enormous value to this Government…

    And to this country…

    And I know you will serve the law with distinction.

    I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Shabana Mahmood…

    Who achieved so much in her time in this office…

    Steering the system back onto a steadier path…

    After such difficult years.

    It is the honour of my life to be sworn in as Lord Chancellor.

    The boy from Tottenham…

    Son of parents who came to this country from Guyana…

    Part of the great Windrush generation,

    Answering the call of a country…

    That needed rebuilding after the war.

    They came here with little, but gave so much…

    Because they believed in the values of this nation:

    In fairness, freedom, and equality.

    The boy whose Mum brought up five children alone…

    Working every hour god sent…

    Just to put food on the table…

    Teaching us the meaning of service, and sacrifice.

    The boy who fried chicken in KFC…

    But who carried aspirations far bigger than his uniform…

    Though not, perhaps, quite as big as this day…

    Nor indeed, quite as big as this uniform…!

    That boy could never have imagined…

    That he would be standing here, before you today.

    It has been a long journey…

    But in many ways, it feels like coming home.

    My whole life has been about justice.

    Growing up in the shadow of the Broadwater Farm Estate…

    Justice was not abstract.

    It was real.

    Ever-present.

    Often harsh.

    Too many boys who looked like me were written off.

    Too many were told to set their sights low.

    Too many found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

    But I was fortunate.

    Education gave me a way out…

    A gift that lifted my sights,

    … when others told me to lower them.

    Even then, though, I recall one teacher saying to me:

    “A barrister, David? Really?

    I think you should become a fireman.”

    But justice is what called me to the Bar….

    To advocacy…

    To giving a voice to those who had none…

    To defending the principle that all are equal before the law.

    It led me into public service…

    Into politics…

    And my work on the Lammy Review…

    Into racial inequality in our criminal justice system.

    From student, to barrister, to practice in California…

    Justice has been my compass.

    Justice has been my cause.

    And now, as Lord Chancellor…

    Justice is my charge.

    So I stand here humbled,

    I stand here honoured,

    And believe me when I say –

    I stand here feeling the full weight of this ancient office…

    More than a thousand years old.

    The names of its holders echo through history:

    Becket… Bacon… More… Wolsey.

    Some of them noble,

    Some… notorious.

    And I wonder what they would think about our nation’s first black Lord Chancellor.

    I think of those who came before me,

    Who gave new life to the ancient promise of Magna Carta:

    That no one is above the law…

    And that the law must protect the liberties of us all.

    I think of Lord Elwyn-Jones…

    Who, before he wore these robes, stood at Nuremberg…

    To face down the architects of racial hatred and war…

    Ensuring that even the most powerful can be held to account before the law.

    And who later passionately defended legal aid…

    So that fairness would not be the preserve of the wealthy.

    And I think of Lord Irvine of Lairg…

    Who brought the Human Rights Act into being…

    Weaving equality into the fabric of our common law.

    And so my task is threefold.

    First, to respect the rule of law.

    As Thomas Fuller once said – and Lord Denning often quoted –

    “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

    That is the essence of our inheritance.

    No one is above the law, and all are equal beneath it.

    Woman or man.

    Rich or poor.

    Black or white.

    This is Britain’s greatest gift to the world.

    But we take these principles for granted…

    At our peril.

    As rights are eroded abroad…

    As democracy retreats in too many places…

    I will do everything in my power to defend those values…

    At home, and overseas.

    Second, I am to defend the independence of the judiciary.

    That independence is part of our prestige…

    It is why our justice system is trusted the world over…

    And why international businesses choose our courts…

    And our laws…

    To settle their disputes.

    And I promise you –

    I will defend that independence to the hilt.

    In recent years we have seen troubling signs…

    Of judges denounced for doing no more than interpreting the law…

    And even attacked in their own courtrooms.

    And we have seen, at the darkest extreme…

    Where this road ends.

    We see it in Putin’s Russia…

    Where the courts no longer speak for justice…

    But for power…

    To crush, silence and oppress critics.

    I am clear:

    In Britain there will always be space for dissent.

    There will always be space for debate –

    The freedom to disagree is part of who we are.

    But debate must never become intimidation.

    Disagreement must never become violence.

    You must be free to do your work…

    To make decisions on the most difficult and contested questions…

    Without interference…

    Without influence…

    And without fear for your safety.

    Because when those who uphold the law are threatened…

    The rule of law itself is threatened.

    That is something no free society can ever allow.

    And on my watch, it will not be.

    Finally,

    I am charged with the efficient and effective support of the courts…

    Ensuring they are fit for the people they serve.

    I inherit a system that has been under too much pressure…

    For far too long.

    The past few years have tested the justice system like never before.

    From the pandemic…

    To the pressures now facing our courts, prisons and probation services.

    I know you, our judiciary…

    And so many others across our courts and tribunals…

    Have carried that weight.

    You have kept the machinery of justice turning…

    Never letting it falter.

    I am profoundly grateful.

    Thanks to my predecessor, the justice system is now stabilising…

    And we are on the road to recovery.

    It will be a long journey…

    But we walk it with determination.

    Those efforts have, necessarily, focused in on criminal justice…

    On prisons, and probation…

    On driving down the backlog in the Crown Courts.

    And I will carry on that transformative work,

    Through the Sentencing Bill…

    Delivering punishment that cuts crime…

    And Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review…

    So our criminal courts are not just fit for today’s demands…

    But resilient for tomorrow’s…

    And so justice is no longer delayed, and denied…

    To so many.

    At the same time, our justice system is far broader…

    Touching every single part of our lives.

    Workers, seeking redress against unfair treatment…

    Small businesses, fighting for payment owed…

    Separating families, securing their child’s future…

    All of them rely on our civil and family courts…

    And our tribunals.

    So I will strive to protect and advance every part of that system…

    From legal aid, that protects the most vulnerable…

    To support for victims of crime.

    And I will champion our world class legal services…

    Which power growth…

    Generating over £42 billion for our economy each year.

    That is something we shouldn’t whisper about, but shout with pride.

    As Foreign Secretary, I once found myself in a skyscraper…

    In the heart of Abu Dhabi…

    Some 4000 miles away…

    Yet in that glittering tower…

    Billions of dollars in transactions…

    Were carried out under English law…

    Just one illustration…

    Of the phenomenal reach of our greatest export.

    English law is now used in around 40 percent of all cross-border business and financial transactions…

    But – we can go even further…

    And, supported by our new English Law Panel…

    We will…                                              

    To reinforce our position as a global legal leader…

    For the prosperity of this nation.

    I’ll come to a close with this.

    I pledge that this office will stand, as it has at its best moments in history…

    For fairness…

    For dignity…

    And for the belief that every citizen is equal under the law.

    To my wife, Nicola, and to my children: thank you.

    None of this would be possible without your love and support…

    Your patience…

    And dare I say it, your tolerance.

    I am proud – incredibly proud – to be the first Lord Chancellor of African-Carribean heritage…

    And to swear this oath today is the greatest honour of my life.

    I will work with determination.

    I will serve with devotion.

    And I will defend…

    With every fibre of my being…

    The rule of law.

    The boy from Tottenham is now Lord Chancellor…

    And he remains, above all, a servant of justice.

    Thank you.

  • PPE Medpro vs Government – Legal Case Documents on PPE

    PPE Medpro vs Government – Legal Case Documents on PPE

    The details of the legal case between PPE Medpro and the Government, published by the court on 1 October 2025.

    ppemedproDownload
  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Police Bravery Awards

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Police Bravery Awards

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, at the Royal Lancaster Hotel on 11 July 2025.

    Thank you very much, good evening everyone, and thank you as ever to the Police Federation and of course Police Mutual for organising the event this year, and thank you for the invitation to speak and to present this inspirational award.

    I’m very conscious as well of being asked to speak before everyone gets to eat as well.

    I’ve actually been an MP now for 28 years, of which 15 of them I have had the honour to be able to come here to this event.

    It was an early mistake that I tried to learn from in my first years as an MP, where I had been invited to the annual dinner from a local community organisation. I had all of the briefing notes from my new office, and they said, they wanted to speak for three quarters of an hour.

    Three quarters of an hour? And then they asked me to speak before dinner as well – seriously? And I got to 25 minutes into this speech, and I could see everybody just getting really, you know, picking up the glasses, getting increasingly irritable.

    We’ve got a chair next to me, obviously rustling bits of paper, and I’m thinking, and it still says speak for three quarters of an hour. And I kept going. I had said literally everything I could think of about this community organisation. And finally I sat down and the chair said to me, said “right, well, we’ve cancelled the first course. We’re going to move on.”

    I said – what have I done? He said “so we did ask your office if you could speak for four to five minutes.”

    So I will learn from that experience and try not to speak for too long. But I did want to just have a chance to pay some tributes and to say a huge thank you, because it’s many times I have been here in shadow roles, in different roles, and to see a huge amount of work that policing does, the bravery that policing shows.

    But this is my second time here and at the end of just my first year as a Home Secretary, and it has been a huge honour to see every single day this year the incredible work that policing does in so many different parts of the country, so many different ways.

    But I actually wanted to start by paying tribute not to the officers who’ve been nominated, not even to all of the officers and staff that support them, but to all the family members who are here and who do so much to support all of the officers, all of our police family in the work that they do.

    The policing family includes all of those family members who are here, who have to put up with, who have to get the kids to school, who have to sort out everything, and also deal with the stress and the worry and provide the support so that every one of you can do your job. So please join with me in saying a huge thank you and paying tribute to all of the family members.

    I want to say thank you as well to not just all of you, but everyone within policing and the the officers, the officers who’ve had to face the most difficult situations, but also all of the colleagues, all of the PCSOs, the staff, from the forensics officers to the family liaison support officers, everybody within policing who holds policing together, that in turn holds our communities together and keeps all of us safe.

    And we often talk about the way in which you have to run towards danger when the rest of us get to walk away, but you also have to run towards the trickiest, the most difficult situations that the rest of us can’t solve. And when everybody else has given up, it’s you that have to pick up the pieces. And as one officer that I spoke to this evening said, he was saying “well, it’s just the job we do.” He said “who else are you going to call?”

    And it’s true, when everything else goes belly up, you are the ones that we call. So I just wanted to say a huge thank you, because we owe you a huge debt of gratitude for being the ones we call when everything else has gone wrong, and for being the ones who are there to pick up the pieces too.

    So I want to thank you too to recognise the impact and the consequences that that can have for all of you, because I know too that this really isn’t an easy job, and it’s a special job, and you do it with the most incredible dedication, but it also has consequences, and there’s a price to be paid for doing such a difficult job as well.

    And so I wanted to just also say we’re drawing up now, and Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister, is here today as well. We’re drawing up now a policing reform white paper that recognises many of the challenges that are faced across policing. And we’re trying to do this in a different way, working with police forces, working with policing in a way that I don’t think governments previously have done.

    But we will also make sure that respect for the workforce and the support the workforce needs is also a part of that white paper.

    And I wanted to particularly to thank everyone for the work that has been done to roll out, based on some of the pilots that’s been done, the first police specific mental health crisis line, to be able to provide that added support that we will need to build on to make sure that we recognise the impact that this has, this incredible job also has on those who do this.

    I want to say a huge thank you to all of them, the award nominees here tonight, and to pay tribute and to honour the huge bravery shown. You will hear the stories later on. And some of those who I’ve spoken to have said, well, I’ve heard everybody else’s stories, but really, you know, I shouldn’t have been nominated, because look at the bravery that everybody else has shown. And I think everybody has, I’ve heard say something similar, and would really just say to all of you, please do, let us pay tribute to you, because the bravery you’ve shown in those split second moments has been truly incredible and has helped save lives and has helped change lives, and has been the crucial things that we depend on you to do. And we are saying thank you, both to you and also to all of your colleagues, through you as well.

    Those stories of total selflessness, where we’ve had people trapped in burning buildings or freezing waters with no hope of survival, until our police officers from Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Essex, Manchester and Sussex came running to their rescue.

    The stories of the sheer instinctive courage, where dangerous men were stopped from doing huge harm to others only because officers from Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Dorset, Durham, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Leyton, Suffolk, Surrey, Thames Valley, Tower Hamlets and Wiltshire were willing to put their own lives on the line to keep everybody else safe.

    And the stories of the incredible compassion where people who were ready to end their own lives were pulled back from the brink by the interventions from officers from Kent, from Humberside, from Norfolk, South Wales, West Yorkshire.

    And stories of officers from Cambridge and North Wales, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, dealing with apparently routine cases, issues that they were responding to, suddenly found themselves dealing with the most serious and deadly situations that they had to respond to with the utmost calm as well.

    And if the stories tell us anything, it’s the way in which all of you need to respond and be ready to respond to anything that you face, whether it’s the off duty officers in Lancashire or Southall breaking up fights in the street. Or in Cleveland, Cumbria, West Mercia, West Midlands, dealing with the mobs or gas explosions or speeding vehicles or dangerous dogs. Or in Northumbria, responding to the disgraceful disorder that broke out on the streets last summer.

    I am so sorry that so many of you who had to deal with frankly that disgraceful way, you should never have had to face the attacks on police officers by mobs, by missiles, and I will always back you in the job that you do to keep people safe.

    I think what the awards also show us is the fine line, the close margins between the miracles and the tragedies, and between the lives that you were able to save and the lives that no one could have saved.

    But you were still there, and you still did your best to help them, and the stories that we have this evening from Avon and Somerset, from Dyfed-Powys, from Gwent, from Northamptonshire and Warwickshire of officers trying to rescue individuals trapped in the most terrible of situations.

    So as we celebrate the lives that were saved, we also mourn the lives that were lost, and think of the victims too, and thank every officer for the incredible, incredible courage that was shown.

    And the same is true, perhaps most of all for our colleagues here this evening from Merseyside police, and I know they would give anything not to be in the room tonight and not to have their story be one of those that we once again, remember or be forced to relive that awful day once again.

    But we all know, and we’re all so grateful, because it was if it was not for you, and if it was not for your courage or the instinct that told you and your colleagues to run towards danger that day, there would be many more mums and dads in Southport today without their little girls to hold.

    So it’s a reminder, it’s a recognition of what something Sir Robert Peel said in a speech in Parliament 180 years ago when he talked about recognising the very best of public service, but also recognising you and through you, all of those that you work with too, because the service you have given, in his words, was “remembered, marked and honoured by a grateful country.”

    So I’m hugely grateful, but I say this on behalf of people right across the country. We’re hugely grateful for the bravery that you’ve shown, not just to face the really difficult things, but also then to get back up the following morning and to face it all again.

    So thank you for doing that. Thank you for caring so much for the job that you do, and thank you so much for being part of the amazing thing that is British policing. Thank you for keeping us safe.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Speech at the Council of Europe

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Speech at the Council of Europe

    The speech made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, at the Council of Europe meeting on 18 June 2025.

    It is a privilege to be here in Strasbourg – the living symbol of Europe’s post-war promise: that freedom, dignity and the rule of law would never again be aspirations, but guarantees.

    It was here we took our first steps together, to create from the ashes of war a Europe bound not only by treaties and peace, but by shared principles.

    The United Kingdom is proud of the role it has played in keeping that promise.

    We helped found this council. We helped draft the Convention. And I can confirm that we remain firmly committed to both.

    But commitment is not the same as complacency.

    And across the continent, trust is being tested. Rules are increasingly being broken and undermined.

    And the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – once widely assumed – now face distortion, doubt, even hostility.

    In this context, the recent letter from nine European leaders demonstrates a desire for open conversation about the future of the Convention.

    And I welcome that dialogue.

    But as the Secretary General has said, that discussion needs to happen amongst us as member States.

    He went on to say that we must ensure that the Convention holds liberty and security, and justice and responsibility, in balance.

    I agree and I want to reflect today on what that means.

    Because our Convention was never meant to be frozen in time.

    It has been amended, extended and interpreted over decades – responding to new threats, new rights, and new realities.

    And we must consider doing so again. That is why the UK is not only open to this conversation, we are already actively pursuing it in how we implement the convention domestically – not to weaken rights, but to update and strengthen them.

    This is not a retreat from principle. It is the very essence of the rule of law.

    In these increasingly turbulent times, that phrase is often repeated, sometimes diluted.

    But the rule of law is not a vague ideal.

    It means simply that laws are clear and apply to all; that power is exercised within limits; and that everyone – government included – is bound by the rules.

    That principle runs through the United Kingdom’s legal tradition.

    It’s why my parents chose to make their lives there – because they believed in a country where institutions were independent, where power was accountable, and where justice didn’t depend on who you were, but on what was right.

    And it is not only our tradition.

    Every nation in this Council shares the practice of using written rules to underpin our democratic societies – we pay our taxes, respect others’ property and uphold due process.

    These rules bind not just people within a state, but the behaviour of states towards one another – as was made clear at the Luxembourg Ministerial.

    I commend strongly the speed with which the Council expelled Russia following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the extensive work to set up the Register of Damage and towards creating a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.

    These are not symbolic acts. They are proud declarations that the rule of law still matters.

    To support this, I can today announce our contribution of €100,000 to the Council of Europe Ukraine Action Plan.

    This will support Council of Europe activities that are strengthening democratic governance and the rule of law in Ukraine.

    When I came in this morning, the Ukrainian and Council of Europe flags were at half-mast, and it is a sobering reminder of the daily horrors that the Ukrainian people are suffering.

    But the successes of our Convention cannot be taken for granted. Because when rules are broken with impunity, trust collapses – not just in states, but in the idea of democracy itself.

    And across Europe, public confidence in the rule of law is fraying.

    There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.

    That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them.

    This tension is not new. The Convention was written to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state.

    But in today’s world, the threats to justice and liberty are more complex.

    They can come from technology, transnational crime, uncontrolled migration, or legal systems that drift away from public consent.

    Again, I commend the good work that is going on.

    We must work together with the Secretary General to ensure that the Democratic Pact helps meet these challenges and builds on existing work such as the Reykjavik Principles on Democracy, the Venice Commission, and GRECO.

    But when the application of rights begins to feel out of step with common sense – when it conflicts with fairness or disrupts legitimate government action – trust begins to erode.

    We have seen this in the UK in two particularly sensitive areas: immigration and criminal justice.

    If a foreign national commits a serious crime, they should expect to be removed from the country.

    But we see cases where individuals invoke the right to family life – even after neglecting or harming those very family ties.

    Or take prison discipline. Being in custody is a punishment. It means some privileges are lost.

    But dangerous prisoners have been invoking Article 8 to try to block prison staff from putting them in separation centres to manage the risk they pose.

    It is not right that dangerous prisoners’ rights are given priority over others’ safety and security.

    That is not what the Convention was ever intended to protect.

    To be clear, this is not a critique of the Court of Human Rights.

    It was my pleasure yesterday to meet the new President of the Court, and he and his colleagues have my full support in their role of interpreting and applying the Convention.

    But when legal outcomes feel disconnected from public reasonableness, it is our job to respond.

    Because when people come to believe that rights only exist to protect the rule-breaker – not the rule-follower – those who would undermine the entire idea of universal human rights – the populists – will seize the space we leave behind.

    So, what should we do?

    We cannot leave these questions to the courts alone.

    If judges are being asked to solve political problems that parliaments avoid, we weaken both institutions.

    That is why reform must be a shared political endeavour amongst us as member States – to preserve our Convention by renewing its moral and democratic foundation.

    None of us can walk away from that discussion.

    In the UK, we are restoring the balance we pledged at the birth of our Convention: liberty with responsibility, individual rights with the public interest.

    There must be consequences for breaking the rules.

    Which is why we are clarifying how Convention rights – particularly Article 8 – operate in relation to our immigration rules. The right to family life is fundamental. But it has too often been used in ways that frustrate deportation, even where there are serious concerns about credibility, fairness, and risk to the public.

    We’re bringing clarity back to the distinction between what the law protects and what policy permits.

    Prisoners claiming a right to socialise – under Article 8 – is not just a legal stretch. It damages the public perception of human rights altogether.

    These are the reforms we are pursuing at home. The question for all of us now is whether the Convention system, as it stands, has the tools to resolve these tensions in a way that keeps the public with us.

    As I have said, our Convention has evolved before, through new protocols, new rights, and new interpretations. Always to reflect changing times, while staying true to its purpose.

    The rule of law and human rights are part of one system of thought.

    But when rights feel remote from fairness, or we appear to protect the rule-breaker over the rule-follower, trust disintegrates – and with it, the foundations of democracy.

    That is why this dialogue matters. Because the Convention matters so much.

    We can preserve rights by restoring public confidence in them rather than give ground to populism.

    The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the great achievements of post-war politics.

    It has endured because it has evolved.

    Now, it must do so again – as the Secretary General said, so it is strong and relevant

    And as it is our convention, it is our responsibility. It will not always be easy. But this is a conversation we need to have.

    I look forward to that conversation, today and in the months to come.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.

    Robert Jenrick

    Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.

    Robert Jenrick

    What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

    What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

    If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.

    Robert Jenrick

    Of course, Mr Speaker.

    The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

    I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

    “a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

    two thirds of them in fact, he said—

    “and they are there for far too long”.

    The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

    Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

    If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

    Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

    Robert Jenrick indicated assent.

    Shabana Mahmood

    Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

    The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

    First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

    Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

    Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

    At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

    Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

    Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

    David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

    In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

    The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

    The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

    The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

    We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

    However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

    I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

    I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

    I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

    When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

    I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

    This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

    While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.