4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

8. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

In December, the Deputy Prime Minister set out the measures that this Government are taking to tackle the crisis in our courts. As I have stated in the House previously, jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our justice system, but reform and investment are needed to cut through the backlog, which is approaching 80,000 cases. Some 90% of criminal prosecutions are already dealt with by magistrates rather than juries, and juries will remain for the most serious cases.

The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as “an extreme measure that goes too far”. The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as “a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”. He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”, “a ludicrous proposal that will not work”, and “a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates”, which “goes too far” and the consequence of which would be “to destroy justice as we know it.” Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?

In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that introducing these reforms would lead to a 20% time saving. At the moment, we have a situation in which victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. Investment in the system is also important, which is why we have the maximum number of sitting days that we have ever seen, investment in criminal defence lawyers, and investment in our courtrooms. Leveson made it clear that investment alone will not tackle the huge backlogs.

Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—

Order. I understand that this involves sub judice. Can we be very careful about what we are about to say?

Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?

Order. The idea was not to talk about the particular court case. I think we will leave it at that. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is struggling with my ruling. The hon. Member was talking about a court case and asking what is going to happen with it. We should not be questioning the position. We are crossing a line that we do not cross—that is what it is. I can reassure the hon. Member that I did not want to pull him up. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Now we have Sir Brian Leveson’s full review, it is clear that very few of the 180 recommendations relate to jury trials. The most controversial is really the use of a single judge in the new Crown court bench division. Given that that provision will likely not contribute very much to reducing the backlog, does the Solicitor General think that we should look again at that—maybe at the length of sentence that is dealt with by that particular provision?

I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for his insightful comments. In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that the reforms would speed up cases by 20%. The Deputy Prime Minister recently visited Canada, where he was informed that the change could speed up cases by as much as 50%. Any reform must go hand in hand with investment, which is why we have seen an increase in sitting days—now at their highest ever—as well as investment into criminal defence lawyers and the crumbling courtrooms that were left behind by 14 years of Conservative Government.

I know from my experience serving as a magistrate the crucial role that magistrates play in our criminal justice system. They are more representative of our country as a whole and the communities that they serve. We all know the pressures on the courts system, so can the Solicitor General set out the role that magistrates can play in bringing down the backlog and victim attrition rates?

Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her service as a magistrate? Magistrates have a huge role to play in our criminal justice system. Cases in magistrates courts continue to be dealt with swiftly, despite increased demand. Magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases per year, which normally ensures that there is around six months of work ready for magistrates to hear at any time. We are accelerating our programme to recruit more new and diverse magistrates and are committed to supporting magistrates. They are the backbone of local justice and keep the entire system turning.

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services says that she would scrap jury trials even if there was not a crisis in the courts. The Lord Chancellor says that he is open to a conversation about alternatives and wants the backlog to come down. Which is it? Is it about the backlog, in which case what alternatives to scrapping jury trials are actually being considered, or is this just an unworkable attack on our civil liberties wrapped up in ideology?

I would remind the hon. Lady that 90% of cases in this country are already heard without a jury, but I do not think it can be denied that 14 years of Conservative Government left a crisis in our courts. It cannot be right that victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. As I have said before, reform on its own is not enough. That is why we have a record number of sitting days, and it is why we are putting £550 million into support for victims and have increased solicitor fees. We have to look across the system at how we can do better, because justice delayed is justice denied.

That was a very disappointing answer. There is another contradiction too, this time on retro- spectivity. The Courts Minister says that cases already committed for trial at Crown court could be pushed back to swift courts. The Lord Chancellor suggests that the changes would only apply to new cases. That is not a minor discrepancy; it is about people’s lives. The Government cannot champion legal certainty on the one hand and flirt with retrospective decision making on the other. It is absurd. Which version are we meant to believe: the Lord Chancellor’s or the Minister’s?

Any changes will need to go through legislation in this House in the normal way and I am sure that the Conservatives will want to scrutinise any proposals that we put forward. I am happy to take away those questions to the Ministry of Justice and ensure that the hon. Lady receives an answer.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms? Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?

The proposed changes would apply to less than 2% of all criminal trial cases. Under the reforms, almost three quarters of trial cases coming to the Crown court would still be heard by a jury, and that includes offences such as rape. There are transparency measures built in to safeguard justice, with judges setting out reasons for their verdicts and introducing recording in the magistrates courts.