Karl Turner
MP for Kingston upon Hull East · Independent · United Kingdom
“Well, I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of this particular juncture of the debate. There is an easy fix for the scenario that I have described.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am hearing comments from a sedentary position. I have an awful lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I truly have—she is a mate of mine, as it happens—but there is a benefit to a jury trial.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point—of course it will. When a judge is required to give reasons, counsel for the by-then appellant is poring over the judge’s statement, looking at every single line. Clever people such as the very eminent King’s counsel, the right hon.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I begin by welcoming the Justice Secretary to his place, and thank him for his engagement with me over recent weeks? More particularly, may I thank him for appointing Holly Lynch, the former Member of Parliament for Halifax, who apparently—goodness knows why—is still a big fan of me, despite the fact that I have opposed these policies…”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As currently drafted, it presents a fairly obvious problem: a defendant of good character, with no previous convictions and who has never been arrested, interviewed, charged, prosecuted or convicted of a criminal offence is likely, by virtue of the sentencing guidelines on an either-way offence, to be tried in front of a magistrates court…”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Because only 0.4% of all convictions in the magistrates court are appealed. However, in 41% of that 0.4% of cases—it is a tiny number—the conviction is overturned in the Crown court, because there has been a wrong decision. The Bar Council has produced more up-to-date data, which suggests that that 41% has now gone up to 56%.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,445 lines on record for Karl Turner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. As there is a lot of interest and lots of people want to speak, I am going to impose an informal time limit of four minutes. I call Jim Shannon.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But that is why we need to be very cautious about what category of case is heard before a bench of lay magistrates in the magistrates courts. That matters, because the rights and liberty of the accused are at stake. That is why we limit magistrates’ power on sentencing in the system in England and Wales. I cannot support clauses 1 and 2.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government estimate that 25,000 fewer cases will be heard in the Crown court, and 5,500 trials will be moved from the Crown court to be heard at summary trial in the magistrates court. Well, that just removes a problem from the Crown court and transfers it to the magistrates court. I do not care what we call it, be it a backlog or something different; however the Government want to describe it, there are 380,000 cases and rising in the magistrates court. That is 380,000 criminal cases, in which complainants are waiting for an outcome—for their trial to be concluded. I agree that a trial in the magistrates court is a lot quicker than a trial in the Crown court. Of course it is—it is swift, summary justice.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reality is that the CCBD was completely, unbelievably unworkable, as Members from across the House warned the Government. It would not—could not—have worked. It will never work. I welcome the fact that the Government have done the right thing—they have listened to those of us who were bitterly opposed to the idea of the CCBD—but I regret to say that I cannot support the Bill today, in its current form. The backlog in the magistrates court is 380,000 cases and rising. The backlog in the Crown court, as I understand it, is 80,000, and it is fairly static; the number is probably falling. If we do away with the right to elect, the backlog will be transferred from the Crown court.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I begin by welcoming the Justice Secretary to his place, and thank him for his engagement with me over recent weeks? More particularly, may I thank him for appointing Holly Lynch, the former Member of Parliament for Halifax, who apparently—goodness knows why—is still a big fan of me, despite the fact that I have opposed these policies in previous months? Goodness me, a lot has changed since I last addressed the House on the Bill, and not just in the Bill itself. I welcome the removal of clause 3, which introduced the idea of the Crown court bench division, but let us not pretend that its removal is because of rebels, or opposition from across the House, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—or indeed, I am told, from the Lady Chief Justice herself.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point—of course it will. When a judge is required to give reasons, counsel for the by-then appellant is poring over the judge’s statement, looking at every single line. Clever people such as the very eminent King’s counsel, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), will be instructed to pore over the judgments in those cases, and the likelihood of an appeal will increase. The beauty of a jury trial is that the men and women—the ordinary citizens who are picked at random and summoned to court to hear a trial as a member of a jury—go home at the end of the case and very rarely, and certainly not publicly, speak about the case again. There is no requirement to give reasons in that scenario.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As currently drafted, it presents a fairly obvious problem: a defendant of good character, with no previous convictions and who has never been arrested, interviewed, charged, prosecuted or convicted of a criminal offence is likely, by virtue of the sentencing guidelines on an either-way offence, to be tried in front of a magistrates court, whereas a defendant with numerous previous convictions, by virtue of the fact that under the guidelines that offending behaviour exceeds the three-year threshold, gets the benefit of a Crown court trial. Let us picture the scenario: a section 47 offence of actual bodily harm is triable either way. This is a serious assault in a domestic scenario. Defendant A has no previous convictions and has never been convicted by a criminal court—”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree completely, and the hon. Gentleman makes the point very strongly indeed. Clause 6 is on magistrates’ sentencing powers. I cannot support the idea of magistrates having powers to give sentences of between 18 and 24 months without a credible plan to address the dire, desperate need to recruit magistrates, legal advisers, court staff and lawyers. That risks just transferring the pressure rather than solving the backlog. That is the reality of what this Bill will do. That brings me to the anomaly in the Bill.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right, of course. In my experience, offenders who appear in incredibly serious cases of violence in domestic scenarios have often never had previous convictions. Let us think about the fairness of this scenario. Defendant A, who has never been convicted of a criminal offence, is charged with a section 47 ABH and appears in a summary trial. It is a very serious assault, an ABH. Defendant B, who has had numerous convictions over his adult life—let us be honest, it is mainly men who commit domestic assaults; that is the truth of it—gets the benefit of a trial in front of a jury. How is that possibly— [ Interruption. ] Well, it is a benefit. I am hearing “Why is it a benefit?””
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the reality of the scenario, and I cannot believe that this consequence is intended by this Labour Government. That is why I say that I cannot possibly support clause 6.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am hearing comments from a sedentary position. I have an awful lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I truly have—she is a mate of mine, as it happens—but there is a benefit to a jury trial. The reality is that when a defendant appears in a summary trial before a bench of lay magistrates or a district judge, it is swift, summary justice. The evidence is heard, but it is not heard and presented in the same way as it is in a Crown court. That is just the truth. A Crown court trial in that scenario would last four or five days, and potentially into a second week. There is an opportunity to call defence evidence. Legal aid is available for experts. There is the potential for reports by the defence and the prosecution. It is about equality before the law.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her bravery in standing up, waiving her anonymity and explaining her personal situation in the criminal justice system, in the face of all the pressure that was being exerted on Members who had the audacity to say that these measures were not suitable for a Labour Government to be implementing. We suffered the pressure exerted on us, and my hon. Friend showed real bravery and determination. For that, I will forever respect her.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They could improve co-ordination between the police, the CPS and the courts to progress and identify unnecessary prosecutions earlier. It happens to be a fact that prosecutions sometimes end because the CPS—the Crown—throws in the towel. There is lots to welcome in the Bill, and I do welcome it, but there is too much in it for me to support it at this time. Finally, I want to say a few words of gratitude. I thank the Prime Minister, because from the very outset of my opposition to the worst excesses of the Bill, he was supporting me in the background. Similarly, Lord Sadiq Khan was there texting me, encouraging me and supporting me when it mattered. My biggest thank you of all is reserved for my hon.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Because only 0.4% of all convictions in the magistrates court are appealed. However, in 41% of that 0.4% of cases—it is a tiny number—the conviction is overturned in the Crown court, because there has been a wrong decision. The Bar Council has produced more up-to-date data, which suggests that that 41% has now gone up to 56%. More than half the cases that are appealed from the magistrates to the Crown court for a rehearing end up with a defendant who was convicted in the magistrates court being acquitted in the Crown court. Why do I say that there is a benefit to a Crown court hearing? It speaks for itself. What could the Government do instead? There is plenty that they could do. They could implement the relevant recommendations of the Leveson review.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of this particular juncture of the debate. There is an easy fix for the scenario that I have described. My amendment 47 states that where a defendant has no previous convictions and the court decides that the case is suitable for summary trial, that defendant should be entitled to elect to have their trial in the Crown court. I do not think that the numbers will be very big. It is probably impossible for the Ministry of Justice to do modelling. In the 16 years that I have been a Member of this House and have been involved in debating criminal justice issues, I have rarely seen MOJ modelling that has been anywhere near accurate. However, even if it could do the modelling—I suspect it cannot, because that data is not kept—the numbers would be tiny. Why?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think I am right in saying that a lay magistrate is required to sit 15 days a year. Very often, magistrates sit for a day at a time; they may do a day every other week. The scenario that the Government are presenting expects a lay magistrate to sit for two or three days in a row, and potentially into a second week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unsustainable?”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a housekeeping matter, I should say that it is terribly hot in Parliament today, so Members and officials are very welcome to remove their jackets.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Order. Before I move on to the next speaker, can I just say something about housekeeping? If a right hon. or hon. Member intends to mention another Member of this House—specifically, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—they should inform that Member. I am sure it was done inadvertently, but I say that just in case other Members wish to make mention of it.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will call Tom Hayes to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Given the number of Members wanting to take part, I have to impose a formal time limit of one minute and 30 seconds—90 seconds. I call Olly Glover.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Order. There has been a lot of chuntering while the shadow Minister has been on his feet. If you wish to try to intervene on the shadow Minister, please do—he may give way. However, do not chunter constantly when people are trying to make a speech.”
House of Commons24 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From 1997, the Prime Minister campaigned to scrap single-judge trials in Northern Ireland, yet when I opposed his Government’s plan to bring in single-judge trials in England and Wales, I received hostile briefings and smears about my mental health from the lads in No. 10 Downing Street. The Chief Whip is shaking his head, but he knows about it. The Prime Minister knows that my nephew Matty took his own life as a result of work-related stress as a young criminal lawyer. During Mental Health Awareness Week, when Ministers spoke with compassion about health and wellbeing, did the Prime Minister reflect on those hostile, discriminatory briefings, which he knew about and allowed to happen?”
House of Commons20 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea. The leader of Scottish Labour was opposed to this idea—and it does not even involve Scotland. The former Welsh First Minister was apparently opposed to it. When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Sir Jeremy. The debate has also been very instructive to me. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Richard Foord will move the motion. I will then call the Minster to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So I do think that there is a prima facie case for this matter to be investigated and for an inquiry to be conducted by the appropriate Committee of this House. I suspect that is not going to happen, because this debate is being whipped. I do not blame the Government for that—I find it unfortunate, to be honest, but they are not setting any new precedent; there is precedent for whipped scenarios in these situations in the past. But I do think that the Prime Minister would be vindicated.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my honest opinion, there is no way that the Prime Minister would come here and deliberately mislead the House. However, there was a very significant difference, in my view, between what the Prime Minister said in answer to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition in last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, and Olly Robbins’ evidence the previous day. I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister said there was “no pressure whatsoever”, intimating that that was the evidence that Olly Robbins had given to the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I watched every minute of it and that is definitely not the case. I have looked back, and I have checked Hansard and the evidence that was given by Olly Robbins.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He and I rarely agree politically, but we do work together constructively in our constituencies for the betterment of the region. I start by way of an apology, because last week —I think this was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—I accidentally published correspondence between me and you, Mr Speaker. That was my mistake. I respect you, Mr Speaker, and I respect your office, so I apologise sincerely for that mistake, but it was my mistake. Do I believe that the Prime Minister deliberately misled this House? No, frankly. I have known him a long time, and I think I know him very well. It is fair to say that I describe him as a friend, and I think he has described me as a friend as well. Both him and I are lawyers by trade.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is spot on. She leads me to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I made a statement on social media that this motion is a stunt. A stunt is defined as an action designed to capture attention, but it is worse than that, actually. If I was to be cynical, I think the problem is that the motion is designed to capture Labour MPs. That is my concern. If it is said by our political opponents that Labour MPs came here today to block an inquiry of this House into the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, every single one of us will be accused by the electorate of trying to help the Prime Minister when he needed to face the music.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a reasonable process; this is not the shenanigans that the Government have suggested in relation to jury trials. This does not involve a single judge, but a jury of peers—impartial, and made up of more Labour MPs than Tory MPs. The Prime Minister has nothing to fear. He ought to do the right thing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has suggested, he should have referred himself. That would have saved us all this messing around—debating the point and trying to justify why the referral is a bad idea or having two Committees running alongside each other. Utter nonsense! Get on with it, let it be dealt with and let us move on.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where I think the Prime Minister went wrong was in the shenanigans between those two points: looking around for an excuse for why it had gone wrong. “Just take it on the chin—deal with it!” That is the advice I would have given him, and that is why I am particularly disappointed. Colleagues who came in at the last general election might be disappointed in me for having the audacity to stand up and say what I happen to believe is the truth. I am sorry if they are not happy with me, but I am here to represent not my interests but the interests of those who elected me. That is what I will always do; whether it is against the policy of a Tory Government or my own Government, I will do what I think is in the interests of my electorate. Let me warn colleagues about what will happen if we are seen to go through the Lobby to defeat this process.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was about to say that my hon. Friend is a good man—he used to be my boss in the shadow Transport team, Mr Speaker, and he always tries to help me. I do not want to get into the stuff about Mandelson, as my hon. Friend hopes I will. But while I am speaking about the appointment of Mandelson, I will say this: I think that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in the national interest. I think he thought Mandelson would go to Washington, do a job in the national interest and deliver for the country. I think that is why he made the appointment. When it became clear, following the Bloomberg emails, that the appointment was politically difficult for the Government, the Prime Minister again did the right thing by dismissing Mandelson, very properly.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think I said on Twitter that he rarely gets things wrong—I was accused of being wrong for agreeing with what he said. In the time I have known him, my right hon. Friend has rarely, in my opinion, got it wrong. I think he is absolutely spot on. I am confident and convinced. I know the Prime Minister and know that he is not a liar. I know for a fact that he would not deliberately mislead. I think he would be exonerated. The trouble we now face is accusations from the electorate that we stopped the inquiry from happening in the first place and that the Prime Minister is guilty through the fact that we avoided it. Once we are in that position, we have a big problem, because you cannot prove something that never happened.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whistleblowers have raised serious concerns with me about the governance of academy trusts in my constituency. I have raised this matter privately with the Secretary of State, but I wonder whether she might arrange for a Minister to meet those whistleblowers so that they can have those concerns taken seriously, as I am seriously concerned myself.”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House, but the reality is this: ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment is political. The trouble that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues. In the 17 days we have leading up to those very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the Justice Secretary talks about juries, is it not right to point out that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed against, and that of that 0.4%, which is about 5,000, 41% are successful on appeal? What does he say about that?”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friends to let the Bill pass its Second Reading, so that we can make progress on getting rid of the bits of this Bill that are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me put it in this way: I will abstain today because I think there is a possibility of making progress, and because I trust my right hon. Friend to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who are opposed to the Bill. What I do not appreciate is MOJ officials spinning the line that “even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this Bill.” That is not right, it is unfair and, frankly, it is unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any Department. None the less, I abstain today and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well. I am more confident now than ever before that the worst parts of the Bill will be defeated by amendments. I sincerely ask my right hon. and hon.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yesterday evening, I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest and robust, but constructive, discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it is absolutely imperative that one of our number—one of those of us who are opposed to these changes for principled reasons—has a seat on the Public Bill Committee. Colleagues told me that this was impossible. They said, “It’s never going to happen.” They said that the Chief Whip would never concede to allowing one of the so-called rebels on to the Bill Committee. But, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s representations to the Chief Whip, that guarantee was made. For that reason and for that reason alone, I will abstain from voting on the Bill today.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not pretend to be a terribly eminent lawyer—I was prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected to this House in May 2010—but never did I see a situation in the magistrates court in which a defendant was advised to elect for a trial when they had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. That scenario is for the birds, to be perfectly honest. It is on the same level as the Justice Secretary, in his MOJ video, referring to a scraped knee in an A&E triage situation—it is unfortunate and disappointing, and he could do much better. The Institute for Government report, published today, states that the MOJ modelling is sound, but that it relies on several uncertain assumptions. That is a very grave concern. I am not going to detain the House terribly long.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are parts of this Bill, though, that are unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary, including jury trial curtailment, the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates courts, and the removal of the right to elect jury trial for offences with less than three years’ tariff. It is concerning that the Government are doing away with the automatic right of appeal in the magistrates courts—that is essentially what is happening—because, as I said in an intervention, about 0.4%, or around 5,000 cases, go to appeal and 41% of those appeals are successful. I am afraid to say that the analogy used by the Justice Secretary, of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky, is an unfortunate one.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I commend my dear friend for that work, which I know will have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true that much of this Bill is absolutely critical, including the actions to reduce the backlog. No Member of this House wants to see victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour Government’s policy on reducing violence against women and girls is crucial as well. It is also right to say that the previous Government savaged the criminal justice system, underfunding it during the austerity years. But I have to be honest: it was not just the previous Tory Government who did that. The criminal justice system has been badly treated and badly funded for decades.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015. Soon after that, your talents were recognised and you were quickly given a ministerial brief. You know my politics, as we have crossed swords many a time, so you know it pains me to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the shadow Justice Secretary, on his outstanding contribution; there was really nothing in it that I could disagree with. None the less, I do welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, because it is true that since he has been in post, he has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was telling when Jo Hamilton OBE wrote to the Justice Secretary—I think it was yesterday—to respectfully remind him that, as a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal, under the legislation proposed, not one of the 900 sub-postmasters who were convicted would have been entitled to a trial before their peers. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to that?”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What does my hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that judges will have to give detailed reasons for their judgments and for why they have decided on a case in a particular way? I declare an interest: my wife is a judge and it takes her days, and often more than a week, to come up with the reasons for the decisions that she has taken.”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have just looked at the recent stats. In 2025 there were 67 ethnic minority circuit judges and 42 judges of unknown ethnicity, while there were 637 white judges, the vast majority of whom were men. What does my hon. Friend say about that?”
House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, there is no sitting in 56 of the 516 Crown courtrooms. That is because he and his Department cap the number of sitting days in those courts. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty to plan to do away with some jury trials when courts are not sitting. The Institute for Government says that Sir Brian’s 20% estimate, which was pulled from thin air, is more like 2%. What on earth are this Government doing? Why do we not get a grip of what is really happening in the system?”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It pains me to say that I agree with the vast majority of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying at the Dispatch Box. He referred to Sir Brian Leveson. Of course, none of us would suggest that Sir Brian does not know what he is doing—he is very eminent and skilful, and has taken a great deal of time to come up with his suggestions—but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any situation before when the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, circuit leaders and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system have been as one in their opposition to an utterly ludicrous, unworkable policy?”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know of an example recently when a Crown court judge—I will not identify the court or, indeed, the judge—asked an officer to come into court to explain why they had arrived at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and the answer given was that they had had to stop for a cheese sandwich. That is what is happening in the real world, and those are the issues the Minister needs to address. What happens if a case is determined as suitable for a bench trial, with a sentence of less than three years, but the judge, after conviction, gives one of more than three years? This is a terrible error. My final question is this: if charged with, say, a fraud or false accounting case, would the Minister want to be tried by a jury of 12 or a single judge sitting alone?”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗