· ·

Courts and Tribunals Bill Passes Commons After Jury U-Turn

MPs passed the Courts and Tribunals Bill 301-193 after ministers dropped most judge-only trials. What it changes for juries, magistrates and victims.

ByPeter Peters
Empty wood-panelled English courtroom with green leather jury seats, judge's bench and glass-walled dock
AI-generated illustration

The House of Commons passed the Courts and Tribunals Bill on 13 October by 301 votes to 193, according to the official division record. The vote came hours after ministers removed the bill’s most contested measure: a new Crown Court “bench division” in which a judge, not a jury, would have tried many cases. The bill still ends the right of adults charged with some mid-level offences to choose a jury trial, and it now goes to the House of Lords.

At a glance

  • Bill: Courts and Tribunals Bill, a government bill on criminal courts in England and Wales, introduced on 25 February (bills.parliament.uk).
  • Vote: third reading (the final Commons vote) passed 301-193. Labour MPs voted in favour; Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK and other opposition MPs, plus two Labour MPs, voted against.
  • Change on the day: the government removed clause 3, the general rule sending some Crown Court cases to judge-only trials.
  • Next: House of Lords stages; no Lords dates were listed on the bill page as of 13 October.
Empty wood-panelled English courtroom with green leather jury seats, judge's bench and glass-walled dock
AI-generated illustration

What the bill does

Ministers say the bill responds to a Crown Court backlog that Justice Secretary Alex Norris put at “nearly 81,000 cases—more than double the level in 2019,” Hansard records. Its main measures, as described by ministers and MPs in the debate:

  • Jury election. Clause 1 removes the right of adult defendants charged with “either-way” offences (crimes such as theft or assault occasioning actual bodily harm that can be tried in either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court) to insist on a jury trial. The court would decide where the case is heard.
  • Magistrates’ powers. Clause 6 raises the maximum prison sentence a magistrates’ court can impose. Shadow minister Kieran Mullan told MPs this doubles it to 24 months.
  • Fraud trials. Courts Minister Sarah Sackman said the government will keep judge-alone trials for “complex and lengthy fraud and financial” cases to spare jurors trials that can last months.
  • Appeals. Appeals from magistrates’ courts would need permission, which Sackman said would filter out appeals “without merit.”
  • Victims and families. Rules on evidence in rape and sexual offence trials change, following Law Commission work, and special measures for witnesses become easier to use. The bill also repeals the Children Act 1989 presumption that a parent’s involvement benefits a child.

Where it stands

  • 25 February: first reading in the Commons.
  • 10 March: second reading (the first debate on the bill’s principles).
  • 25 March to 28 April: public bill committee, where MPs examine it line by line; the bill was carried over into the new session in May.
  • 13 October, report stage: MPs rejected a Conservative sunset clause, 189-306 (division 2434); a Conservative amendment to delete clause 1, 196-304 (division 2435); and a Liberal Democrat amendment on legal aid rates, 89-312 (division 2436). The government’s amendment removing clause 3 was agreed without a vote.
  • 13 October, third reading: passed 301-193.

What supporters and critics say

Norris told MPs the bill “has victims at its heart” and that the government had “listened to the strength of feeling from across the House and the legal sector,” so that “almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown court will continue to be tried by a jury.” Sackman cited a rape survivor who waited more than two years for a conviction after her trial was cancelled twice, and said “justice delayed is justice denied.” Labour MP Jess Phillips asked whether only defendants, not victims, should be able to choose a jury.

Mullan welcomed the removal of clause 3 but said clause 1 “completely strips” defendants of a “historic right” to elect a jury trial. Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said the bill still contains “dangerous provisions” and that the Conservatives voted against it “to preserve equality before the law.” Liberal Democrat Jess Brown-Fuller called it “still fundamentally a flawed plan” and warned of pressure on magistrates’ courts. Independent MP Karl Turner welcomed the change on clause 3 but opposed higher magistrates’ sentencing powers “without a credible plan” to recruit magistrates and staff. Sir Geoffrey Cox (Conservative) said magistrates’ courts face a growing backlog; Sackman replied that they have “a substantial caseload” and that magistrate numbers are rising toward 21,000.

Analysis: the 108-vote majority reflects the government’s Commons numbers, but the bill changed substantially to get there. Its next test is the Lords, where Sir Brian Leveson, whose review Norris said underpins the bill, now sits as Lord Leveson of Liverpool.

What happens next

The bill now receives a first reading in the Lords, followed by second reading, committee, report and third reading there. If peers amend it, the Commons must consider those changes before the bill can receive Royal Assent, the monarch’s formal approval that makes it law. Track each stage on our tracker below.

Sources

Recommended articles