UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Sarah Sackman – 2026 Speech on Jury Trials

    Sarah Sackman – 2026 Speech on Jury Trials

    The speech made by Sarah Sackman, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2026.

    I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

    “believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”

    “Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.

    Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.

    What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”

    Dr Murrison

    I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?

    Sarah Sackman

    The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.

    Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.

    No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.

    James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)

    The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?

    Sarah Sackman

    My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.

    We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.

    Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)

    On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?

    Sarah Sackman

    My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.

    Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)

    The Opposition are keen to rely on Magna Carta to defend jury trials, but Magna Carta also states that justice should not be delayed. Sir Brian Leveson reported that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in 2000 because criminal cases are now much more complex and can involve thousands of pages of electronic evidence. We are putting more pressure—financial and otherwise—on jurors, and it is now much more difficult to support and guide them. There is clearly a case for reform. I understand that one recommendation made by Sir Brian Leveson was to have jury trials replaced by a judge and two magistrates, so could that be a possible compromise to reduce the delays?

    Sarah Sackman

    My hon. Friend is right to say that the nature of crime and of the evidence presented is altering the way our criminal justice system works, but let me provide this reassurance to the House: as well as modernising and rebuilding our justice system, these measures are designed to protect jury trials for the most serious cases. As I have said, many of those trials are becoming compromised, with many victims of the most serious crimes waiting years for justice. It is right that when we ask jurors to do the most important civic duty, we use their time wisely. Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky and who could be dealt with by a lay magistrate who, by the way, introduces the lay and democratic element into our courts?

    Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)

    The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation:

    “We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.”

    The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.

    Sarah Sackman

    The hon. Gentleman is right that listing is a judicial function, but the fact remains—this is CPS data—that some 4,000 cases last year could have been heard four times faster. We know that cases are heard four times faster in the magistrates court than in the Crown court, and although magistrates had the sentencing powers to deal with such matters, the defendants elected for a jury trial, which they have the right to do under the current system. Why did they elect for a jury trial? They did so because it would drag the process out longer. If a case can be dealt with four times faster in the magistrates court, then removing the right to elect, which is what we propose to do, is a far more efficient way to free up Crown court capacity so that very serious cases—not just rape, but robbery, homicide and serious drug offences—can be dealt with more swiftly.

    Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)

    What has been missing from this debate is the word “victims.” We inherited a system in which there are criminals who will have chosen to spend Christmas at home with their children. They will still be at home with their children next year, and the year after that, because we have a system that allows them to kick justice down the road. Meanwhile, women will have been raped this Christmas, and they will have to wait half a decade for justice. How can Members defend that system?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)

    Order. Interventions should be short and colleagues should have been here at the beginning if they wish to intervene—[Interruption.] I was not here at the beginning, but I do not need any help. Members must have been here at the beginning of the speech of the Member on whom they wish to intervene. Please keep interventions short.

    Sarah Sackman

    As so often, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) is a powerful advocate for women and for victims. As I have said, the reforms that the Government are bringing forward are laser focused on swift justice for victims. I wish to address the point about investment—

    Karl Turner

    Will the Minister give way?

    Sarah Sackman

    I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.

    Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.

    We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.

    We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.

    We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.

    There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?

    Sarah Sackman

    The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.

    People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.

    What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.

    I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.

    David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)

    Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was

    “as frustrating as it was foreseeable”

    and that

    “it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”

    Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.

    Sarah Sackman

    I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    My first job after graduating was in a magistrates court, which was just making the transition from writing court records in a huge ledger by hand to computerisation; I appreciate that it has modernised an awful lot since then. Let me pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about the impact of persistent drug dealing on local communities. One of the things being piloted in Bristol is an intensive supervision court. We know that a huge number of crimes are committed by people with persistent drug addictions, so if we can divert them from the criminal justice system it will help to free up our courts. Can the Minister say a little about what we are doing to roll out that programme?

    Sarah Sackman

    My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and we will lay out our plans on just that point. How do we prevent that revolving door of reoffending? It is there in the work that we are doing on sentencing and early intervention, because prevention is so much better than cure.

    One of the most depressing features that has arisen as a result of the rising waiting lists in our Crown court is that the number of early guilty pleas—those pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity—has gone down precipitously. That means that very often, offenders are pleading guilty at the door of the court, and that wastes huge amounts of resource. I want to ensure that jury trials are there for the most serious cases and that we are using jurors’ time effectively and efficiently, because we owe it to them to deliver swifter justice, just as we owe it to victims.

    As I have said, I have heard the concerns of the Opposition and those who head up the professions. There are those in the professions who support what we are doing, but we have our detractors. I am not putting my fingers in my ears; I have engaged with them throughout this process, just as the independent review of the criminal courts has done.

    People have questioned whether swift courts will work. The independent review of the criminal courts has recommended the swift court model, which was championed by Lord Justice Auld and The Times Crime and Justice Commission. As I said, it exists in other countries, such as Canada, and it works there. Sir Brian estimates that trials without a jury could reduce hearing time by at least 20%, which he says is a conservative estimate. It stands to reason that jury trials are important, but hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, for judges to explain legal concepts to jurors and for jury deliberation. Those all add to the time that it takes to hear a case in the Crown court.

    Karl Turner

    The Minister talks about Sir Brian’s presumption—which is what it is—that there will be a 20% reduction in time with a single judge, as opposed to a jury. I think that presumption is probably right, and I think he is probably right to say that it is conservative, but what about the writing up? When does the judge write the judgment and give the reasons? Are they doing that while putting the kids to bed in the evening, or are they doing it the following day, the day after and the day after that? Reasons will be necessary when a single judge is deciding the innocence or guilt of a defendant. What is the answer?

    Sarah Sackman

    My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.

    Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)

    On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)

    Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

    Sarah Sackman

    My hon. Friend speaks with ample experience from two decades spent working for the Crown Prosecution Service. She knows exactly how the system works, warts and all. The realism and pragmatism she brings to this debate speaks to the really important point that operating a jury system is expensive and takes a lot of time, which is why we have to deploy it in a timely and proportionate way for the most important cases. At the moment, it is available for 3% of cases, but so many of those cases are running in such a delayed fashion that they are collapsing at the 11th hour and justice is not being served. We are actually undermining the jury system by allowing it to run out of control. It is because we want to preserve that feature of our legal system that it is so important that we heed the recommendations of the independent review, make the necessary investment and modernise.

    Robert Jenrick

    Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

    Sarah Sackman

    I will give way for the final time, and then I will wrap up.

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon. and learned Lady is being very generous with her time. The nub of her argument is that reducing the number of jury trials will make a material difference in cutting the backlog. She has quoted some conversations she has had with judges in Canada and so on, and I do not doubt her sincerity and the work she has done. Why will she not commit today to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for the assertions she is making, not in the months to come, but this week or next week—as soon as practicable? I will happily return to this Dispatch Box if she proves me wrong on the basis of the evidence she presents. Will she make that commitment to all of us today?

    Sarah Sackman

    I will make a commitment to publish an impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, and the evidence of the independent review in the usual way when we bring forward our formal Government response and the necessary legislation. Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise that legislation, to interrogate it, and to express its opposition if that is the conclusion that is reached.

    Let me be absolutely clear, though. When I was in practice, when I used to appear in court and I made a proposition, the judge would say, “Where’s the evidence for your proposition?”, as I am being asked now. There is authority behind the proposition I am making—that, if vital institutions are not working for the British public, we should be open to changing them in three ways. Those are by making investment, which we are beginning to do; through structural reform, which is what is on the table; and through modernisation. The evidence base for that structural reform is as follows: the international comparisons; Sir Brian Leveson’s independent expert review; and—this is critical—the fact that we know from Ministry of Justice data that triable either way cases, which could be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court, are heard four times faster in the magistrates court. If we take cases that are not suitable for the Crown court and hear them in the magistrates court, we free up capacity for the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, so it stands to reason that they will be heard faster. However, we will of course publish the detail at the appropriate time for all to scrutinise.

    To conclude, everyone in the Chamber today has agreed that we are in a state of crisis. The difference between His Majesty’s Opposition and the Government is that I reject the learned helplessness that festered under the previous Government. This Government have a choice to make, and we are making it. We are making the decision to use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity—to bring down the waiting lists and modernise the system in the process. People ask me, “Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?” I say yes, because we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases. We need a system that makes better use of jurors’ time and ensures that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as a victim of another crime. No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale, but this Government have the guts. The Conservatives had 14 years to fix the system, but they ran it into the ground. We make a different choice; we are bringing forward change.

  • Chris Philp – 2026 Comments on Shamima Begum

    Chris Philp – 2026 Comments on Shamima Begum

    The comments made by Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 5 January 2026.

    Shamima Begum chose to go and support the violent Islamist extremists of Daesh, who murdered opponents, raped thousands of women and girls and threw people off buildings for being gay

    She has no place in the UK.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on West Midlands Police and Football Policing Decision

    Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on West Midlands Police and Football Policing Decision

    The comments made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 January 2026.

    West Midlands Police capitulated to Islamists and then collaborated with them to cover it up.

    They knew extremists were planning to attack Jews for going to a football match, and their response was to blame and remove Jewish people instead. They presented an inversion of reality and misled a Parliamentary Committee.

    We have had enough of this in Britain.

    The Chief Constable’s position is untenable.

    The British Police serve the British public, not local sectarian interests.

  • Jess Brown-Fuller – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Jess Brown-Fuller – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The speech made by Jess Brown-Fuller, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Criminal Justice, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    The news that offenders absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day is yet another example of the glaring incompetence of the MOJ when it comes to maintaining control of the prison population. This situation has yet again placed the public at risk and lets down victims. It also raises serious questions about why some of these prisoners were placed in a category D prison. Matthew Armstrong, a convicted murderer, has a history of violent incidents in custody, including leading a riot and attacking prison guards. Given that record, why did the MOJ feel able to approve his transfer to an open prison? What steps are the Government taking to review the criteria for violent offenders being assessed for transfer to category D prisons when they could pose a risk to the public again? What additional resources are being provided to the victims of these individuals, including the prison officer assaulted by Armstrong who is no longer serving? I hope that lessons are being learned from the case of Lenny Scott.

    Does the Minister believe that poor transfer decisions are being made based on a lack of capacity in our closed prisons, or is she satisfied that the processes of the Parole Board and the Department are strong enough? Can she reassure the House now that we will not be coming back to have this same conversation again in 2027?

    Alex Davies-Jones

    I welcome the questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. To reassure the House, offenders who are serving a life sentence or an IPP sentence for public protection will be approved for a transfer to open conditions only in response to a recommendation by the Parole Board. Before making that recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough risk assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding, taking into account all those assessments provided by qualified HM Prison and Probation Service staff and other agencies. The Secretary of State does have the ability to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but to do so they would need evidence to dispute the board’s assessment of risk. Officials, on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that there were no grounds under the published policy to reject the board’s recommendations for any of these three individuals.

    On absconding more generally, it is important that I state categorically to the House that there were 57 absconds in the year ending March 2025, which is a 2% decrease from 58 the previous year. The number of absconds is falling year on year, and has fallen from 143 in the 12 months to March 2020. It is coming down substantially due to a sustained focus on this area. Open prisons work; they are a key part of the programme of rehabilitation and of reintegrating offenders into society. However, sometimes prisoners abscond and it is important that all steps are taken to bring them back into custody when that occurs.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Andy Slaughter – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The speech made by Andy Slaughter, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    In the light of these escapes from a class D prison, will the Government look again at the policy and process for moving prisoners to open prisons earlier in their sentence as a consequence of prison overcrowding? Does the legacy of the previous Government mean that prisoners may be located in prisons because of the space available, rather than their suitability for the type of offender?

    Alex Davies-Jones

    I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his probing. He will be aware that to deal with the crisis in prison capacity that the Tories left us, this is what we had to do. The policy of moving prisoners to open prisons began under the Conservatives. Typically, they tried to keep quiet about it when they were in government. We have been open and transparent. We have looked at exactly how we have done this as part of our strategy to deal with overcrowding and, thankfully, through our Sentencing Bill—which the Tories are trying to wreck, by the way—we will ensure that our prisons never ever reach breaking point again. However, open prisons are part of the course to rehabilitation and part of ensuring that we make better citizens rather than better criminals, and they have worked and operated effectively under successive Governments.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Robert Jenrick – 2026 Speech on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    So a murderer is on the loose—a murderer and a violent offender. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s strongest ever checks have been a resounding failure, and once again there is a manhunt under way. Precious police resources are being wasted to fix Calamity’s latest cock-up. And where is the Justice Secretary? The Ministry of Justice seems to lose its Secretary of State as much as it does its prisoners. Has his aunt taken him to the January sales to find him a new suit, just in case he gets let loose on Prime Minister’s questions again?

    Let me ask the Minister instead: why was someone who robbed and brutally killed a man by bashing him on the head with a brick—a man who led a prison riot and attacked prison officers repeatedly—deemed safe for open prison? Why, as we have just learned, did it take 48 hours for the police to raise the alarm? How many other murderers are there in open prisons? How many more mistaken releases have there been since the Justice Secretary last came clean? Once again, the safety of the public is being compromised by the breathtaking incompetence of his Department.

    What a Christmas it has been for the Justice Secretary. On Boxing day, he said he was delighted to welcome into Britain an extremist who hates our country. The following day, it was revealed that he had invited a disgraced ex-Labour politician convicted of spreading homophobic smears to his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor. Days later, he paid an Islamist double murderer thousands in compensation, alongside hundreds of thousands in legal fees, much of it to the Justice Secretary’s own colleague’s spouse. Then the Prime Minister’s mentor, a leading KC who clapped him into Downing Street, slammed his shameful plan to slash jury trials. To top it all off, on new year’s day we learned that these prisoners had been let loose. Well, happy new year from the Justice Secretary. It is little wonder that in his first interview of 2026, he said that he was seeking divine retribution—sorry, he meant to say divine intervention. Well, with more of this, God help us all.

    Alex Davies-Jones

    I am afraid that it is a new year but the same sad, old Jenrick. The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not done his homework. He does not seem to know the difference between releases in error and absconds. This is a Member who wants to be the Lord Chancellor and the next Leader of the Opposition, and he is deliberately muddying the waters here to suit his own agenda.

    We are seeing the deep-rooted issues caused by years of chronic underfunding and mismanagement by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government play out. The crisis that our prisons face today was built up over 14 years and the Tories are the chief architects. This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. It was the choice of the Conservatives, made again and again for 14 years. They abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing our prisons to reach bursting point. He talks about public safety, but they left our prisons at breaking point with not enough room to lock up any dangerous criminals. If it were not for the decisive action that this Government took, the police would have been unable to make any arrests, courts would have ceased to function, and there would have been a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times.

    Those who abscond face serious consequences. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and that is one of the reasons why there has been a dramatic fall in the number of absconds over the last 20 years. It is one of the success stories that the Tories actually had in government, and the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that because elsewhere their record is much less rosy.

    As the Tories were packing their bags to leave office, temporary release failures hit a 13-year high on their watch. The prison system was in chaos, and they presided over 17 releases in error a month in their last six months in office. They said that they were the Government of security and safety, yet they oversaw violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. To cover up for their failures, they covertly let out 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic early release scheme. The Tories claim to be the party of law and order; instead, their legacy was lawless disorder. Now they have the barefaced audacity to come to this House and make demands as if they had never been in government, as if they had never ever overseen a crisis in our criminal justice system.

    What is the right hon. Gentleman’s solution to this crisis? To do nothing—to ignore the evidence that places people in open conditions to help them prepare for life outside and reduce their risk of reoffending, and to turf people out of prison with no support and just hope that everything turns out okay. The Tories are not serious people. They are not serious or ready for Government. They have no solutions to the problems that they created.

  • Alex Davies-Jones – 2026 Statement on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    Alex Davies-Jones – 2026 Statement on Offender Abscondments from HMP Leyhill

    The statement made by Alex Davies-Jones, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    A happy new year to you and to all in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    On 1 January 2026, three prisoners absconded from HMP Leyhill, an open prison: Mr Thomas, Mr Washbourne and Mr Armstrong. This was discovered during routine roll checks, and their absence was followed up immediately. On 3 January, the police issued a public appeal to assist with their recapture. As you have stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the prisoners, Aaron Thomas, has since been arrested and is scheduled to appear before magistrates today. He will then be returned to closed conditions. The other individuals remain unlawfully at large, and police are actively pursuing them. The Government take every abscond seriously. In line with the prevention of abscond policy framework, the prison group director for HMP Leyhill has commissioned a review, which will be completed within 20 days.

    These individuals had been moved to open conditions at different points in 2025 after recommendations made by the independent Parole Board. There was no recent intelligence regarding a potential abscond by these prisoners. When it comes to an offender serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence for public protection, as these prisoners are, a transfer to open conditions will be approved only following a recommendation by the Parole Board, other than in exceptional circumstances. Before making a recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding. At the time these risk assessments were completed, the prisoners were deemed suitable for open conditions. We are continuing to work and engage with the victims and the victims’ families, either through the victim contact scheme or via the police where relevant. Currently, we have made contact with two victims through the victim contact scheme.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1987 Statement on Wapping Disturbances

    Douglas Hurd – 1987 Statement on Wapping Disturbances

    The statement made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 January 1987.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the disorder at Wapping on Saturday evening.

    I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the disorder followed a march from central London marking the anniversary of the News International dispute. The police estimate that 12,500 people took part. When the march reached Wapping at 7.15 pm disorder broke out almost immediately. Cordons of police officers in ordinary uniform came under attack with missiles. At about 7.40 pm, a lorry being used by the demonstrators was overturned, and an attempt was made to set it on fire. Disorder then continued for some hours. Missiles were thrown at the police, including rocks, bottles, ball bearings, darts, railings, scaffolding poles and pieces of paving stone. The police used mounted officers, and foot officers in protective equipment, to restore order. I understand that calm was restored by about midnight.
    In all, 162 police officers were injured. The injuries included a broken bone in the hand, injuries to the face and legs and concussion. Two officers were detained in hospital overnight. I am glad to say that they have now both been discharged. The police know of 40 members of the public who were injured; there will have been others whose injuries did not come to police attention. I understand that 67 people were arrested, of whom 65 have now been charged with public order and other offences. Fifteen of those 67 people arrested are print workers.
    This is the latest in a series of disturbances connected with demonstrations at Wapping. Over the past year, including last Saturday, 572 police officers have been injured, 1,462 people have been arrested, and over 1·2 million police man-hours have been spent. The total additional policing cost up to the end of 1986 is estimated at £5·3 million.

    It is clear that some of those attending Saturday’s demonstration armed themselves with ferocious weapons intent on violent attacks against the police. No serious attempt was made to stop the lorries leaving the plant, and they were able to do so without significant difficulty.
    It also seems clear that the organisers of these demonstrations are unable to prevent violence or to control the activities of all their supporters. They must now, in my view, find some other way of making their point without providing occasions for violence and disorder.

    I have conveyed to the Commissioner my full support for the action taken by the Metropolitan police to deal with this disgraceful incident, and my sympathy for the police officers who have been injured. The vicious attack on Saturday evening had nothing to do with peaceful protest or the peaceful furtherance of a dispute within the law. I trust that it will be condemned unreservedly by both sides of the House.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, the appointment of its Chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.

    I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.

    In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who’s here with us today, to conduct a National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

    With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we too call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.

    Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them.

    But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us.

    There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.

    Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, even covered it up.

    Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas, where data was available, and I quote:

    “Disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds” were “amongst the suspects”.

    Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts.

    We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men – as well as those in positions of authority, who looked the other way – must not be allowed to marginalise – or demonise – entire communities of law-abiding citizens.

    What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness.

    In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry.

    In June, the government accepted that recommendation.

    Today, I can announce the Chair of the inquiry and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the Inquiry’s terms of reference.

    The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield.

    As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties.

    In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year.

    At that point, she took the Labour whip, which, on taking up this appointment, she will now resign.

    Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists.

    The first is Zoë Billingham CBE.

    Zoë is a former Inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, and currently serves as Chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

    She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account.

    The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE.

    Eleanor is the former Chief Executive of Southwark Council.

    In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year.

    Together, the Chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account.

    Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey.

    And her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims.

    The first thing the Chair and Panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet with victims later this week.

    Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference which I will place in the library of the House.

    Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long.

    For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget.

    The inquiry will be a series of local investigations overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers.

    Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation.

    The Chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course.

    And no location will be able to resist a local investigation.

    These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues:

    The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs.

    It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders – including their ethnicity and religion – and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.

    The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership.

    It will also work hand in hand with the police.

    Where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes…

    The Inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions, and put more of these evil men behind bars.

    The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work.

    As I have said already, the terms are in draft form.

    The Chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders.

    They will be confirmed no later than March, when the Inquiry can begin its work in earnest.

    Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey’s audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the government accepted in full.

    As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs.

    I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion.

    My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does not currently have the power to mandate that this is collected, I will rectify this by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

    The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data, identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis.

    My Rt Honourable Friend the Education Secretary will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of this data conducted by her department.

    Across government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk.

    As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners.

    We are creating a unique identifier for each child, linking all data across government.

    And we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.

    The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system that saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes.

    As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have committed.

    While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day.

    We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure they are resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.

    The National Audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licencing.

    Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax, to circumvent protection put in place by local councils to tackle abuse.

    My Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close this dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.

    The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested that a new national police investigation was required to bring offenders to justice.

    Last month the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport, reviewing previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation.

    It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape.

    The evil men who committed these crimes – and thought they got away with it – will find they have nowhere to hide.

    The audit finally called on the government to fund the delivery of its recommendations.

    Alongside investment in the Inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.

    This work, Madam Deputy Speaker, is essential.

    But without truth, there can be no justice.

    Today, I have announced the Chair and panel of an Inquiry which will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history.

    They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done.

    This inquiry is theirs, not ours.

    So I call on all those present to put politics aside, for a moment, and to support this Chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • 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.