Dr Kieran Mullan
MP for Bexhill and Battle · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I welcome the opportunity to give my personal views on this Bill, as colleagues in health have taken over responsibility for it. I have spent most of my life as someone who was highly sympathetic to the cause of assisted dying and imagined that I would support it if I ever was an MP, but that changed in 2018 when I read the Gosport War Me…”
“I will not; there is not time. While I do not seek to say that the Bill will be used in that way—to deliberately bring about an end to the lives of confused or elderly patients—my worry is about how it will insert itself into that battle in our country between the best and worst of our natures, in families, conversations and settings wher…”
“The report describes what happened to some of them. One patient was admitted for respite care but deteriorated and became confused during his stay. Staff asked permission to give him diamorphine, but his daughter refused as he was not in pain. However, his wife later agreed, and he was started on diamorphine via syringe driver.”
“It happened because the staff in that hospital and on that ward had developed a culture of prioritising convenience in looking after patients over the value of their lives.”
“I remain deeply sympathetic to the scenarios and circumstances that people have described, and I can personally foresee a situation where I would want to make use of this Bill and feel that it would benefit me, but we should not legislate for what we might want.”
“Then there is something that perhaps seems benign but is sometimes very challenging: the patients who continually call out for help again and again and again, perhaps asking for a medicine or a meal that they have already been given, and refuse to be consoled.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dr Kieran Mullan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“Friend the Member for Bridgwater said: “Minister, if you have been committed to trial in the Crown court at the moment, you are expecting to have a jury trial, and what you are telling me is that once these changes take effect, you will divert those people committed but whose trial has not started into the swift court.” The Minister agreed, saying: “Yes”. My hon. Friend said to her: “That is not what the Lord Chancellor said before Christmas.” The exchange concluded with the Minister making this point: “It is a change in relation to the procedure that applies to those cases. They are still getting a Crown court trial under the new proposals.” We are back to an argument that we have revisited a number of times.”
“Friend replied: “No, he said the changes would not be retrospective, and now you are giving me a slightly different answer. If someone elects to go to the Crown court at the moment, it is on the assumption that there will be a trial by jury. What you are saying is that it might not be; they might be diverted to the swift court.” The Minister agreed with that, saying: “That is right, yes.” That can be interpreted only as a suggestion that there was no difference with or without a jury as they are still in the Crown court—an extraordinary response. My hon.”
“Of course, the Minister herself has already been asked about this in the Justice Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out that a defendant committed to trial in the Crown court will expect a jury trial. He said, “you will relook at cases that have been committed for trial at the Crown court and push some of them through the swift court—that is what you are telling me.” The Minister replied: “I think that is something we have to look at.” My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said to her: “So when the Lord Chancellor said it will not be retrospective, that was not a wholly accurate answer.” The Minister replied: “I think the answer he was giving was in the context of a question around the impact on remand hearings; I think that was the context in which he may have addressed that.” My hon.”
“That is a direct quote from our Prime Minister. He said they were usually a very bad idea, yet here is his own Government enacting one. Of course, we know what the Deputy Prime Minister thought about this issue. He appeared before the Justice Committee on Tuesday 16 December last year. He was asked about this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who said: “There are currently in the region of 17,500 prisoners on remand in this country. Will these reforms apply retrospectively?” What did the Deputy Prime Minister say? He said: “No.” The Committee must have to assume that that was his view of the right thing to do at the time. Why else would he have said no? It is reasonable for us to ask the Minister to explain why the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind.”
“How do we know whether many of those affected might decide that they should challenge the decision in the courts? JUSTICE suggests that it could happen with each and every case in the backlog that is allocated to trial without jury. This would require additional hearings and the preparation of representatives for every affected case already in the backlog, creating further delays and placing unnecessary burdens on the defendants and the prosecution who, as we have all accepted, are already under significant pressure. What did the Prime Minister say about retrospective measures? We have already covered what the Prime Minister previously thought about the importance of jury trials, which he seems to have forgotten, but what did he say about retrospective measures? He said that “they are usually a very bad idea”.”
“JUSTICE says that, given that the curtailment of jury trials will have a marginal effect on the backlog, it cannot see how retrospective applications can be justified, and I agree. It argues that it is deeply unfair for defendants who elected for a Crown court trial in expectation of a jury to have their cases heard by a judge alone under a process that did not even exist when they made that choice. Defendants who have opted for a jury trial may be incarcerated on remand awaiting trial by jury. Had they known that this would never materialise, they may well have opted for a magistrates trial and already been released. There is, then, a risk that the reallocation of cases that are already in the Crown court caseload to the bench division will be subjected to judicial review. There is clearly no ouster clause in the provisions.”
“On the principle that laws should not retrospectively interfere with obligations when the liberty or criminal liability of the citizen is at stake, it is clear that that liberty is absolutely at stake in these matters. On necessity, we have repeated throughout the debate that the Government, in our eyes, have completely failed to make the case successfully that the measures in the Bill are the only way to drive down the backlogs. This morning, we debated the fall in backlogs in some areas seen in the latest published data; that happened without the measures in the Bill, and without other measures that we all think are necessary to help to drive down the backlogs. To our eyes, the retrospective element clearly does not meet the test of exceptional circumstances or necessity.”
“Fourthly, laws should not retrospectively interfere with obligations when the liberty or criminal liability of the citizen is at stake. Fifthly, laws should not deprive someone of the benefit of a judgment already obtained. Sixthly, laws should not prevent a court from deciding pending litigation according to its merits on the basis of the law in force at the time when proceedings were commenced. Seventhly, retrospective legislation should be used only when there is a compelling reason to do so. Eighthly, a legislative power to make a provision that has retrospective effect should be justified on the basis of necessity and not desirability. Having heard those points, we can immediately see the issues.”
“In written evidence, JUSTICE shared our concerns, saying: “The retrospective application of the provisions is contrary to the rule of law.” It pointed to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s legislative standards, which state: “Retrospective legislation is unacceptable other than in very exceptional circumstances” and “must have the strongest possible justification”. It is worth considering that legislative guidance, which states, first, that enacting legislation with retrospective effect should be avoided. Secondly, provisions that have retrospective effect should be drafted as narrowly as possible. Thirdly, individuals should not be punished or penalised for contravening what was, at the time, a valid legal requirement.”
“In other words, cases that are already in the system, in which defendants may have made decisions on the basis that they expect a jury trial, could be reallocated to a judge-only trial. Our amendment 43 would prevent that by ensuring that the new regime applies only to cases in which the first magistrates court hearing takes place after the change, and not to cases already in the pipeline. The Government say the change is merely procedural and can therefore be applied to ongoing cases, but that understates what is happening. To change the allocation part-way through proceedings would not simply be technical; it would alter the ground beneath the defendant’s feet.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak in support of amendment 43, tabled in my name, and to amendments 25 and 12. Again, on this issue the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden have alighted on the same challenge or issue—the same thing we think is unfair. We have gone about our amendments in different ways, but we recognise the same issue. As we heard, the amendments address the retrospectivity built into the Government’s approach. The Bill makes it clear that the new allocation regime will apply not only to future cases, but to existing Crown court cases that are due to begin on or after the specified day on which the measures are implemented.”
“Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, it might be helpful to remind the Committee of the letter written by dozens of organisations representing women and girls. I was very clear that that letter actually represented women and girls as victims, but it absolutely makes the hon. Lady’s point about the criminalisation that is sometimes attached to women and girls as a result of coercion and other circumstances that they might go through, so they have an interest in ensuring that they have access to a fair trial. As she said, the division between the two is not as black and white as some Government Members seem to want to make it.”
“I absolutely think that we should leave the ECHR, because I do not like the mechanism that it operates under, but I absolutely support some of the rights and protections in principle that it advocates. I am struggling to see why there is a contradiction. There are lots of times when we might support elements of proposals without supporting the manner in which they are handed down.”
“As I pointed out, at some point in these proceedings, even the Justice Secretary did not think it necessary. When he was considering these matters, the Justice Secretary agreed that it was perfectly reasonable for it not to be retrospective. We are actually making an argument with which, at one point, the Justice Secretary agreed.”
“I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert— “(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may appeal that decision if he can demonstrate that the circumstances of their case are such that trial without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice. (8) An appeal made under subsection (7), must not be heard by the same judge who made the original determination.” This amendment would allow a defendant to appeal the decision to have a judge-only trial on the basis that it is in the interests of natural justice for the trial to be with a jury.”
“Will the Government respect the will of Parliament in relation to considering those cases to be more serious, as the Government accept for those cases that retain a jury trial, and that they should therefore remain with a jury trial? It is important that we have clarity on this issue specifically because, as I said, it is something that would almost certainly be subject to appeal if clarity is not provided. I finish by reiterating the point that, if the Government refuse to accept our amendment, they will be actively legislating away a right to appeal allocation decisions that currently exists in our system. They will be actively choosing to do that if they are unable to insert a similar right through other means, such as through our amendment or an amendment at a future stage.”
“In a number of cases, however, the offence is triable either way, but provisions that this House has introduced mean that in particular circumstances it can be tried only on indictment. Some examples of that are three-strikes class-A drug trafficking offences, three-strikes dwelling burglary offences, dwelling burglaries involving violence or threats of violence, and the minimum mandatory sentences for firearms offences. Those were decisions taken by Parliament to say that, while the offence more generally could be tried either way, these cases in those circumstances are too serious to be heard by a magistrates court; they must be heard by a judge and a jury. What are the consequences of the Bill on those scenarios?”
“A separate initial safeguard—an appeal against allocation at the stage that it happens—is not only the right thing to do to ensure that an existing right is not eroded, but the more efficient way to approach these things. The amendment is sensible, rational and will provide greater confidence in the new court that the Minister is insisting on creating, and its processes. I ask the Minister to clarify an important matter of law in relation to the allocation decisions in the first place—just the sort of thing that might be appealed if it is not clarified by the Minister during the passage of the Bill or through amendments to the legislation. We are clear about the idea of summary offences that go to the magistrates court. Indictable-only offences will have a trial with a judge and jury.”
“That would then be heard by a court, and then that court of appeal will make a ruling as to whether the circumstances under which that person was allocated were unlawful and a retrial with a jury is required. If any other case has been allocated under those same circumstances that the appeal court determines are unlawful, every single one of those who had been convicted would have the right to say that the precedent has been set that the way they were allocated was unlawful and has to be retried. That could happen six months, a year or two years in. We are talking about a huge potential reallocation and retrial of all cases if the Minister insists that there should not be an appeal on the right of the allocation decision.”
“Therefore, we create the exact opposite effect of what we are seeking to do—to make the best possible use of Crown court time—particularly in relation to barristers and other people working across the courts, by not allowing an earlier appeal. That is with regard to both appeals that take place and, more importantly, where a whole new trial may have to be ordered before a jury because it is found that the initial allocation decision was wrong. Consider the scale on which that may happen—hundreds of cases may suddenly have to be retried. If, for example, the measures are in place for seven, eight or nine months, there is no onus or expectation regarding at what point a defendant—a convicted criminal at that point—might seek legal advice and then successfully choose to challenge an allocation decision.”
“We might find examples where a judge in the Crown court has completely incorrectly and legally unjustifiably allocated a case, and when that is brought up as part of the appeal at the point of conviction, be told that that is not a matter on which the court can have an opinion. I think that would be extraordinary. Does the Minister think it would be right, if it forms the basis of an appeal against allocation happening after conviction, for the Court of Appeal to be constrained from having the power to return the case for trial by jury if it agrees the allocation decision was unlawful? I cannot believe that she would think that was right.”
“At conviction, the defendant can apply for leave to appeal in the Crown court. At that stage, is the proposal that the defendant will be prevented from appealing the allocation by the judge, so a defendant might argue that a judge could act unlawfully on allocation with no appeal safeguard? I have not had my attention drawn to an ouster clause. More generally, there is the provision that there is no specific appeal to the decision in isolation, but not an ouster clause in terms of the appeals that are allowed in the Crown court. I am confident that there will be legal arguments about that, at least to start with, until common law settles the matter. It would be extraordinary for the Government to introduce such a clause.”
“Under sections 28 and 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, no appeal by way of case stated or judicial review is possible in respect of matters relating to trial on indictment, so it will not be available with regard to any decision relating to the conduct of a Crown court trial on indictment. These measures, in this important way, are specifically taking away an existing legal right: the right to challenge an allocation decision. That cannot be right, fair or reasonable, and I am not even confident, as it is not mentioned, that I have seen in any of the Government publications related to this that it is something the Government have recognised they are doing. It is also potentially a mistake in another way: in relation to the efficiency and smooth running of the courts that the Minister is seeking to achieve.”
“Importantly, as I pointed out at the start, this will be taken in the Crown court, not some new or different court, so we should read across the rights and procedures that already exist in the Crown court. As I understand it, triable either-way offences, if heard in the Crown court, are then in legal terms considered to be a trial on indictment. If a triable either-way offence is tried in the Crown court, it becomes a trial on indictment as if it were an indictable offence as per the other offences that are always indictable. Again, I am happy for the Minister to say whether that is the case, but that is my understanding of it. Why is it important? Because there are constraints on the use of judicial review in relation to a Crown court trial on indictment.”
“The consequences for defendants are entirely new territory for criminal defendants for the offences concerned. Of course, defendants may disagree with allocation decisions at present, and may want to stay in the magistrates court, but the court may decide that they must be heard in the Crown court. However, importantly, as I understand it, a defendant cannot actually legally challenge that decision through judicial review. I am not a legal expert, and if the Minister receives advice that that is wrong, I would welcome that clarification, but as I said, my understanding is that judicial review would not be possible in that scenario. I also understand that it would not be the case in relation to the Crown court where the allocation would take place.”
“There are some elements of allocation decisions at present that we would all agree are not subjective, but based on offence classifications. I may be wrong, but I do not imagine there remains much debate about allocation decisions in those scenarios. Summary and indictable-only offences will be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court based on that classification, though there are some exceptions that I will ask the Minister to clarify later. Under the Government’s proposed reforms, there are similar black and white scenarios, with summary-only remaining with the magistrates and indictable-only going before a judge and jury. However, we will continue to have decisions on either-way offences, which consider the subjective—the not black and white—consideration of what the likely sentence length is.”
“The Bill will not create a separate jurisdiction or intermediate court. The usual Crown court procedures will apply in the bench division, including the appeal route from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. Judges sitting in the bench division will also retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown court and may impose sentences of more than three years where appropriate, even if the allocation was initially based on the likelihood that they would not do that. The Bill and explanatory notes are clear that no new appeal route is created for decisions to allocate a case to the bench division. It is important to set out the distinctions between different types of allocation decisions both now and in the future, if these proposals are passed.”
“To determine whether a triable either-way case should be allocated for trial in a Crown court bench division, a Crown court judge will assess whether the offence or offences to be tried are likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. That decision will be taken at the first opportunity for the defendant to enter a plea in the Crown court using a plea and trial preparation hearing. If cases involve multiple defendants, judges must assess eligibility based on the highest likely sentence of any one defendant. Offences to which defendants have pled guilty are not included in the assessment of a likely sentence, and youth defendants are not exempt from the bench division. The bench division will operate as a lower tier in the existing Crown court—that is important.”
“I rise to speak in support of amendment 40 in my name and to consider other related amendments. At this point, we are considering in more detail the allocation decisions, how they work in practice and the likely legal risks and pitfalls inherent in the new process. I will begin by laying out the process that will exist. The Bill will introduce a Crown court bench division where cases are tried by a judge alone. To ensure that jury trials remain in place for certain crimes, only triable either-way cases that are assessed as likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less will be allocated for trial in a bench division. Indictable-only offences cannot be tried there.”
“At the moment with magistrates that person could go straight to judicial review and the case does not proceed as was intended. However, we would now lose that right.”
“As I said at the outset, there is a fundamental safeguard of people being able to have a judicial review of the allocation decision. It is all well and good for the hon. Member for Amber Valley to talk about the scenarios where it sails plainly, everyone is in agreement and it is all good. However, if it did not, at the moment, a defendant has a right to a judicial review of the decision to allocate. If these proposals go through, they will lose that right and have no ability to question legally the decision to allocate—even if it was a factual error of the law. We are not even talking about a subjective element. Let us say that the judge just gets it completely wrong, misunderstands the facts presented to them and allocates incorrectly.”
“I think the Minister would accept that it is a high bar, but also that it is sometimes successfully crossed. Allocations are sometimes successfully challenged, which demonstrates just how important this provision is. If it is there and is used when things have gone so significantly wrong as to meet that high bar, it is vital that the same test is available in extreme scenarios, but it will not be available in relation to allocation by the Crown court.”
“This is very important. I have read the legislation to the Minister, and highlighted the point that a non-conviction element of the Crown court proceedings cannot be taken to judicial review. The Minister should either say that I am wrong about that and that something like an allocation decision in the Crown court can be judicially reviewed, or that I am right and that what she has just said means there should be something that is not there. The whole Committee needs to know whether I am correct in saying—I believe I am—that that sort of hearing from a Crown court cannot be judicially reviewed.”
“Just so we are really clear, I have met Supreme Court judges and they tell me that they go back through discussions and debates about legislation to understand the intent or will of Parliament. The Minister said there will not be a separate route of appeal and referred to existing and ordinary rights to appeal. Does she therefore think that it is the will of Parliament that people at the point of conviction should be able to raise questions of allocation, or that judges at the point of conviction should not consider questions of incorrect allocation?”
“That, again, has important consequences, not just for the rights of the person who may be subject to that kind of egregious mistake in a legal proceeding without any route of recourse; it will also undermine the whole system if people are appealing and challenging these decisions and there is all this uncertainty.”
“Secondly, similarly, the Minister did not clearly answer whether, as a consequence of that, people would be able to pick the issue up in an ordinary court of appeal. To another point raised by Opposition Members, the Minister said that we are not talking about errors in the law or where judges have clearly strayed outside of legislation. How does she know that? How does she know what future mistakes a judge might make? A judge may do exactly that, and allocate a decision completely and utterly incorrectly, outside of the law and what Parliament intended, and the Minister will not tell us whether that could be picked up in a court of appeal.”
“The Minister has given a view that there will be a right of appeal through judicial review to an allocation decision in the Crown court, and that is a fundamentally different scenario to one where someone does not have that right. However, we will be asked to vote on that today, without having absolute certainty, and we will perhaps be told afterwards, “Oh no, you don’t actually have that right.” I am not sure how Labour Members are comfortable or confident voting against a right that we are seeking to give people, without having absolute clarity about what the Minister has said and whether she is correct. It is extremely unsatisfactory for this Committee to be asked to vote on that matter without absolute clarity.”
“We are now being asked to vote in a totally unsatisfactory situation when it comes to the facts of how this legislation will operate in two very important regards. I put it to the Committee that there will be an erosion of the right to judicially appeal an allocation decision that currently exists in respect of magistrates. The Minister said she thinks that that is wrong, but we will have to vote one way or the other on the basis that either the Minister is correct or I am correct. A Member said from a sedentary position—this is not a criticism of him—that the Minister will come and correct the record, but we will have already voted when the record is corrected.”
“As I said, our preference is for an appeal. The Government could say, “We are not going to add additional rights that do not exist; you do not get a right of appeal on allocation by a magistrate, but you do have a right to judicial review.” But the Minister cannot say with confidence that we do or do not have that. That is extraordinary.”
“I am not criticising the officials, but why have we not had a direct note so that the Minister can get up and say, clearly and confidently, with absolute certainty, that there is a right of appeal to a Crown court allocation decision?”
“Sorry—with confidence. The Minister says she is happy to go away and double-check. She should know for certain whether people have a right to a judicial review of an allocation decision in the Crown court, as in the magistrates court. She should be able to tell us that with absolute certainty. I have been the Parliamentary Private Secretary for a Minister, passing notes between officials and the Minister. That is why debates are structured in the way they are: earlier in the debate, someone raises a point of importance in their opening remarks, and that gives time to the Minister, working with their officials. I absolutely accept that the Minister will not always have things at the tips of their fingers, but that is why the officials are there, to liaise with the Department.”
“I absolutely agree. We will go on to discuss reallocation, and the hon. Member anticipates the points I was going to make. The reallocation decision is even more of a minefield, with all sorts of subjectivity and challengeable elements. I look forward to discussing that. The PPS muttered earlier that I am patronising the Minister, but I think the Opposition are being patronised. We are being asked to vote on something where we have not had absolute clarity.”
“But if the Minister is saying that people are going to lose the high bar of challenge that exists at the magistrates court, that is incredibly important. We need to understand that because, as I have said, it is a high bar, but it exists for a reason.”
“Does the PPS want to intervene? No, I did not think so. As we have agreed, judicial review exists for an allocation decision by the magistrates. The Minister has quite rightly set out that that is a very high bar and is not a right of appeal. In that regard, the Minister is fair to say that our amendment is not directly comparable. I put it to the Minister, and I made this point earlier, that it would be the Crown court making an allocation decision. It is not allowed, as it is in a magistrates court, to use judicial review to challenge a decision made, like at the PTPH, on allocation. That is an incredibly important point that all Members must understand. If the Minister is going to say that people are not allowed a general right of appeal—we do not agree with that, but it is a legitimate argument—that is one thing.”
“We went through this at the start. A triable either-way decision becomes a trial on indictment, but I have been told by a leading KC that in pre-trial hearings—the sort of matters we are considering today—people will not have that same right.”
“Again, this is why the Minister needs to clearly articulate whether or not we can— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Amber Valley is saying that the Minister said that we can. But what will the Minister do if we all vote tonight on the basis that the allocation decision can be judicially reviewed? The Minister is asking us not to have a view on it, not to consider it, but to vote on the question of appeal in relation to allocation decisions on the basis that she has told us that they can be judicially reviewed. Will the Minister think that that is in any way satisfactory if what she has told us proves wrong? I do not see how she could possibly think that that would be satisfactory.”
“I think that wanting defendants to have the ability to challenge allocation decisions as they stand under a new court is pretty intellectually coherent. I am arguing that these are potentially significant, consequential decisions for defendants, and at the moment, as the Minister has explained, we all agree that there is a high bar for judicial review. I am not confident, and the Minister has not given me confidence, that the judicial review element absolutely exists. The Minister has talked about appeal; she is right that there is no right of appeal for the allocation decision at the magistrates court, but there is a right to judicial review and I am not sure that there is in this clause. It is unsatisfactory that we may have to vote on it.”
“If the Minister wants to intervene on me and say, “I am absolutely certain that there would be a right to judicially review the allocation decision by a Crown court,” I will be satisfied. I am asking for the Minister to stand up and say that she is absolutely certain.”
“I welcome that clarity; it will be interesting to see what happens as a result of that. I take what the Minister has said in good faith, and assume that she would not say that unless she was certain. That point is about the question of judicial review. The Opposition believe that there should be a right of appeal separate to that, for two reasons. First, it is fair to the individual, and, secondly, if we do not have an initial right to appeal, and these matters are then considered in appeal at point of conviction, we will create more issues, backlogs and legal uncertainty and defeat the point. Our amendment would make the system more, not less, streamlined. It would help the Government meet their objective, not hamper them. On that basis, I will push it to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“More importantly, there are strict limits on the sentence length if a case stays in the magistrates court. It cannot go beyond what the initial judgment was. If the court decides, during or at the conclusion of the trial, that the sentence should be higher, it is up to someone else to pass that sentence. It goes to the Crown court for sentencing.”