Speeches by Sackman.

“I have visited lots and lots of courts.”

“I have to make a little progress. Let me turn to the detail of clause 1. Part of its function is to ensure consistency across the statute book. To ensure consistency in that way, the clause makes a series of consequential amendments to remove references to a defendant electing for a Crown court trial. That includes ame…”

“No, it has a total air of unreality. If we look at the current system, I think we all agree that it is not working for any participant in the system. It cannot be when there is a backlog of 80,000 and above and we hear the stories we are all familiar with, which hon. Members have put to me, whether they are supportive …”

“We do think that jury trials are a cornerstone of British justice. It is not inconsistent to say that the most serious cases—all cases in which the likely sentence is above three years—should be heard at a jury trial. If we turn the hon. Gentleman’s argument on its head, everybody should get a jury trial, because other…”

“We know that people would rather be in the Crown court because, when they have a right to elect, some opt for that. I have acknowledged that fact, but this is not a debating contest. There is an air of unreality about the way the hon. Member put his arguments. He says that if he could choose, everyone would get a jury …”

“Let me finish my point. I find it incongruous and arguably inconsistent when I hear Members say that the ideal form of the system is citizen participation in the form of a jury, only to then, all of a sudden, describe lay magistrates hearing summary-only trials—which they do fairly, day in, day out—as somehow inferior,…”

“No, I will not accept that it is inferior. I maintain the position that it is proportionate to the severity of the cases currently dealt with in the magistrates court. When asked why they want to retain jury trials, and timely jury trials for the most serious crimes, the Opposition seem to be arguing that one of the vi…”

“Yes, you do provide services to victims. Emma Torr: We provide services to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and unfairly sentenced. You could classify people like Andrew Malkinson and Peter Sullivan as victims, because they have suffered horrendous miscarriages of justice, so in that sense we do.”

“I would not disagree with that for one second.”

“Q I want to be clear about the scope of this argument. Obviously, the least serious cases that take place in the context of public order would never get to the Crown anyway, because they could be heard within the magistrates—is that right? Tim Crosland: Increasingly they are getting to the Crown court, because of this …”

“Q One of the examples you gave was the Elbit case. The indictment there was an indictable-only offence. There were multiple charges, but the case contained an indictable-only offence, so it would have received a jury trial under our reformed system anyway. I took the liberty to check: in the case that you cited, there …”

“In the one that you cited. Tim Crosland: In the Ponting case?”

“No, not in the Ponting case. In the recent Elbit case. Tim Crosland: No, these were criminal damage cases.”

“Q It was not purely criminal damage. There were indictable-only offences. That particular case would have still received a jury trial. Tim Crosland: There have been a number of these cases. Mainly, they are either way, because they are usually criminal damage cases. The case now—as it remains, because there is a retria…”

“Q But the point is that low-level damage would receive a magistrates trial anyway. What I am talking about is the scope between us. We are talking about a threshold change applicable to a relatively narrow group of cases, which is intended in part to address the backlogs. Those are not just backlogs in terms of delays …”

“Q On your point about challenge, I do not think anyone in this room would dispute the importance of the right to protest. There is a difference where that breaks the law. The Government are fierce defenders of the independence of our judiciary, which often finds against the Government. That may be uncomfortable and we …”

“Q Sir Brian, I would be grateful if you would elaborate for the Committee on the point you made about cultural change. Your view, expressed in the report, is that you think that a judge-only or Crown court bench division would save 20% at least—at a conservative estimate. You refer to a cultural change; can you elabora…”

“It is a good question. Can you answer it? Tim Crosland: I want to talk particularly about cases where people are saying—like Clive Ponting and many activists did—that the motivation for taking the action is that what the state is doing is insufficient to protect the public. That is a fundamentally different situation. …”

“Q You made the point across both parts of your comprehensive review that what is needed to address the crisis in the system is a holistic package of reforms, rather than a pick and mix of reforms. Do you believe that we can turn the tide on the backlog without structural reform? Sir Brian Leveson: No, I do not. I have …”

“Q The Government are seeking to take forward your proposal, in the independent review of the criminal courts, on the introduction of a permission test for appeals from the magistrates courts, rather than what is currently the case, which is an automatic right of appeal. What was the rationale behind your recommendation…”