Yasmin Qureshi

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I thank the Minister for her response. I have made my points—throughout the Committee’s proceedings, I have been making points about the issue of jury trials—and I will not add anything further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 Remote Court Participation: Strategy “(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (‘the strate

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Specialists courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases “(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations establish specialist courts for cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse. (2) Any case heard in a court established under subsection (1) must be conducted with a jury and specialist judge. (3) Additional guidance or directions may be formulated by the judiciary in relation to— (a) the nature a

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is, in some respects, fairly self-explanatory, in that it provides that cases should not go to the Crown court without being trial-ready. In essence, it is a safeguard —we could call it an oversight amendment—that is linked to the jury trial reforms in the Bill. The rationale behind the new clause is to reflect concern that the Government are making significant changes by removing or restricting jury trials without strong evide

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I take your ruling and guidance, Dr Huq. I was trying to explain it because the disparities are important and the issue does affect people. I ask the Government to think about new clauses 32 and 33, because they will hopefully have an impact on joint enterprise. I will not press them to a vote.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. New clauses 32 and 33 can be considered almost part and parcel of each other. Our earlier discussion of new clause 29 involved a similar issue, but these new clauses are much more specific. New clause 32 would introduce a duty to commission an independent review of racial disproportionality arising from the changes to jurisdiction powers and procedures in the magistrates court, and from the operation of the new trial-allocation provisions i

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

I will withdraw new clause 2, because I know that the Minister is addressing the issue and I accept her commitment. She is an honourable lady and I accept her word, and I look forward to the specialist courts being implemented very soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). On Second Reading, my hon. Friend made one of the most powerful contributions the House has heard in recent memory. She spoke from her own experience as a victim of rape and made a point that deserves to be heard again in this Committee. She said that the experiences of victims are being “weaponised” and used as a rhetorical cover for reforms that do not

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. New clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), would address cases in which the prosecutions need to start a second or third time. It would reclassify offences and move the threshold of offences that are in the Crown court to summary offences. It would increase the maximum possible sentence reduction on a guilty plea to two fifths, remove the r

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. I think we sometimes forget, sitting in our rarefied environment, that a lot of the people out there—our citizens—are not well educated or able to write a proper paragraph or construct an argument. Sometimes they can just about get two or three simple sentences together. As they often do not have legal representation, allowing them to automatically appeal against a sentence or conviction is a really important safeguard for them. The Crown court and

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 8, page 19, line 13, after “charge” insert— “including any behaviour or communication preceding the charge that is connected to the event itself”.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

I will not press the amendment, which is self-explanatory, to a vote, but I ask the Committee and the Minister to think about it.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 9, page 20, line 12, leave out “substantial probative value” and insert “relevance”.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 13, page 27, line 37, at end insert— “(7) Disclosure of the details of any connection between the independent supporter and the complainant is required prior to seeking the court’s agreement of the independent supporter.” This proposed addition is simple. The clause centres on witnesses being accompanied while giving evidence. Essentially, it states that if somebody wants another person to accompany them, they should be able to do so if the court is satisfie

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 Evidence about previous false complaints relating to sexual offences Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The amendments are fairly self-explanatory: they just ask to insert a few words. I will leave it at that.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I will speak to amendments 64 to 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. We have had a discussion about this provision. The amendments seek to give a right to renew an application for permission to appeal orally, and to allow grounds for appeal to raise issues of procedure and fact arising in the trial, as well as issues of law. Clause 7 currently suggests that a person can only appeal in writing on matters of law, which m

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Amendment 29 would insert into subsection (3) an additional ground for a lengthy or complex case to be tried without a jury in England or Wales, to require agreement by the defence and the prosecution that the trial is likely to exceed five months. Amendment 30 is almost self-explanatory: it would provide a right of appeal against a judge’s decision to prevent a case from going to a jury trial. We seek to give a right of appeal to the defence—and the prosecution—if the judge decides that the cas

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

As I said, my amendments are probing amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I will not press my amendment to a vote. In fact, Ms Butler, I notify you and the Committee that I am not asking to vote on any of my amendments.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I rise to support the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, about the importance of legal aid. There has already been a real reduction in the number of cases in which legal aid is given. Many defendants turn up at the magistrates court without any legal representation because of the constraints on legal aid. Bearing in mind that such defendants could now, if the Bill goes through, be facing up to 24 months imprisonment, it is important that legal aid

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert— “(3A) A court may not make an order under this section if it considers that it is the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have a trial with a jury.”—(Dr Mullan.) This amendment prevents a judge-only trial in complex and lengthy cases where it would be in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to be tried with a jury.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

On a note of clarification, I understand that Opposition Members have mentioned defendants cross-examining victims, but, in fact, the procedures have been changed. For sexual or domestic abuse-type offences, a defendant cannot cross-examine the victim or complainant himself, or herself. Instead, the court will appoint a solicitor or barrister to do the cross-examination for them. I just add that for clarity.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. Amendment 34 would ensure that the negative procedure—what I call the back route—cannot be used to allow magistrates courts to take away people’s rights for up to 24 months; it would require a proper debate and a vote in Parliament.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Amendments 34 and 71 are probing amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). I will not be asking for them to be put to a vote. Amendment 34 concerns magistrates’ sentencing powers. The amendment would remove the word “regulations” and insert “made by the affirmative resolution procedure” to prevent significant changes from being made to the sentencing powers of magistrates courts without a proper debate and vote in Parliament. If such changes are to b

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 6, page 15, line 28, after “regulations” insert “made under the affirmative resolution procedure”.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I thank the Minister for her response. My amendments are short and easily identifiable. I think the offences I have suggested should be included within the categories of certain murders and homicides, but as I said earlier, I will not press the amendments to a vote.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I could go on and on explaining how evidence is presented, but all I will say from my years of experience—not just in the CPS, but in the independent Bar as well—is that I have gone through thousands of pages of documents, and juries have reacted to that and been able to deal with the cases unfazed. The issue is how well the evidence is presented, and counsel would have the same duty to do that in front of a judge. In some respects, a jury trial is be

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

I understand that. It will just save me repeating the same thing again and again in support of each of the amendments, all of which concern clause 4. I thank the Committee for enabling me to deal with them in one go. I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 4, page 10, line 34, at end insert— “(d) the length of the trial is agreed by the defence and prosecution to be likely to exceed 5 months.”

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

Could I have a little guidance, Ms Butler? Amendment 29 goes hand in hand with amendments 30 to 33. Can I cover those all in one go, instead of repeating the same speech in support of each amendment?