🏛️ Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

• The Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, outlined the problem of a record and rising backlog in the Crown courts, which she attributed to the previous Conservative Government’s inaction.
• The current backlog stands at over 73,000 cases, far more than half the number just five years ago, leading to significant delays in justice, especially in serious cases like adult rape where victim drop-out rates have more than doubled.
• To address the issue, the government announced a record investment of £2.5 billion for the next financial year, funding up to 110,000 sitting days in the Crown courts, an increase of 4,000 days from the previous year.
• Additional investments include £148.5 million for court maintenance, up from £128 million, and increased sentencing powers for magistrates courts to free up Crown court capacity.
• Despite the increased investment, the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that it alone wouldn’t be sufficient to reduce the backlog and announced a review led by Sir Brian Leveson to propose long-term reforms and potentially restructure the legal system.
• The opposition, led by Robert Jenrick, criticized the government for not utilizing all available sitting days offered by the judiciary and for failing to reduce the backlog, which he claimed had worsened under the current administration.
• The Lord Chancellor defended the government’s actions, highlighting steps taken since taking office, such as increasing sitting days and legal aid funding, and reiterated the need for systemic reform.
• Other MPs raised concerns about court closures, the impact of delays on victims, and the need for alternative dispute resolutions and digitization to improve efficiency.
• Discussions also touched on the potential creation of an intermediate court between magistrates and Crown courts to help handle cases more efficiently.
• Throughout the session, there was significant political back-and-forth, with the government blaming the previous administration for the backlog and the opposition questioning the effectiveness of the current government’s strategies.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, primarily between the Labour and Conservative parties. The disagreements are evident in the following key areas:

1. Responsibility for the Court Backlog: There is significant contention over who is responsible for the current state of the courts. Shabana Mahmood frequently attributes the crisis to the previous Conservative government, stating, “our prisons were in crisis, on the edge of collapse, and our courts faced a record and rising backlog,” which the Conservative members, such as Robert Jenrick, counter by critiquing the Labour government’s actions since taking office, as seen in his remark, “We got here because, just like in every other area, this Labour Government came into office with no plan whatsoever, and they have wasted their first eight months in office.”

2. Effectiveness of Proposed Measures: There is disagreement on the effectiveness of the measures proposed by the Labour government. For instance, Robert Jenrick criticizes the increase in sitting days as insufficient, noting, “Is it third time lucky for the Justice Secretary? No. What we have learned again today is that she is still turning down available sitting days, and astonishingly, she has conceded that the court backlog will keep on rising.” In contrast, Shabana Mahmood defends her actions and the allocation of 110,000 sitting days as a record high and blames the backlog’s persistence on the complexities of the cases and the limitations of resources alone to fix the issue, stating, “Knowing that, it would be unconscionable if I stood before this House and behaved as if resources alone would fix the problem.”

3. Sentencing Guidelines: A specific point of contention is the new sentencing guidelines mentioned by Robert Jenrick, which he criticizes for potentially creating a “two-tier approach to sentencing,” stating, “Why is the Justice Secretary enshrining this double standard—this two-tier approach to sentencing?” Mahmood strongly refutes this claim, emphasizing equality under the law: “As somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch or under this Labour Government.”

4. Cross-party Reactions and Supplementary Points: Other members from various parties, including the Liberal Democrats and Democratic Unionist Party, raise supplementary questions and express views that also highlight disagreements. For instance, Josh Babarinde (Liberal Democrat) emphasizes the need for support for victims and survivors, indirectly critiquing the approach of the last Conservative government, while Sir Julian Smith (Conservative) suggests reducing costs in the civil system as a way to benefit the criminal justice system, indicating a different strategic priority.

While there is clear disagreement, it is mostly focused on the critique of past versus current government actions and the proposed solutions. The tone is political but remains within the bounds of parliamentary decorum, without escalating to personal attacks or deeply divisive arguments. Therefore, the disagreement is noticeable but tempered by the structured format of the session and the focus on policy critiques rather than personal enmity, earning a rating of 3 out of 5.