Westminster update: Ministry of Justice chief reveals court backlog target will be missed

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) funding for Immigration and Asylum accreditation extended

There has been an extension to a deal saving immigration and asylum solicitors hundreds of pounds on accreditation.

The funding contribution for members who are looking to gain or renew immigration and asylum accreditation which was introduced last year is now expected to run until 31 December 2025.

Court backlog target will be missed, MoJ chief reveals

The permanent secretary to the MoJ, Dame Antonia Romeo, acknowledged that improvements could be made to the legal aid system in a Public Accounts Committee oral evidence session on the Crown Court backlogs.

Dame Antonia was being pressed by Clive Betts (Labour) on the impact of legal aid neglect on court efficiency.

Betts asked whether the need for an independent review shows that the department has “lost its grip of the situation”.

Dame Antonia reassured the committee that the MoJ hopes the recent announcement in fees will stabilise the sector and that “the fact that the review made recommendations that we are now implementing means that there were… improvements that could be made to the system”.

Oliver Ryan (Labour) highlighted the MoJ target for reducing the backlogs to 53,000 by March 2025 and asked about the current ambition for open Crown Court cases.

Dame Antonia answered that, at the moment, the number will not come down to target by March 2025 and that progress will depend significantly on the Leveson review.

Ryan also asked whether the backlog is purely an issue of capacity.

Dame Antonia replied that the issue has been “different things at different times” – sometimes due to physical constraints and at times a result of staffing issues.

Andy Slaughter (Labour) asked whether the MoJ should be putting all its eggs in the basket of the Leveson review. He argued that it would take years for the review’s recommendations to be actionable.

Dame Antonia answered that the issues are whole system and that the wide-ranging nature of the review will help to modernise and streamline court processes.

Slaughter rebutted that the MoJ should look at utilising capacity where courts are not sitting.

Slaughter noted his personal visits to nightingale courts which highlighted that one in five are not sitting. He asked why the MoJ is not looking at inefficiencies right now rather than at a report that might take years to improve the situation.

Dame Antonia argued that actions are being taken right now such as investment in the courts, but that the department can only work with the money it has.

Mental Health Bill: Law Society amendment debated

An important amendment we proposed to the Mental Health Bill was debated by members of the House of Lords on Tuesday 14 January during the first day of the bill’s committee stage.

We have been successful in getting several important amendments tabled at committee stage.

The first of these would prevent the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards scheme being used to replace detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act for people with learning difficulties or autism who do not have a mental health condition.

Baroness Browning (Conservative), who tabled the amendment, thanked the Law Society for the amendment. She said it strengthens the Mental Capacity Act in determining the treatment and assessment of an individual case.

The amendment was fully supported by Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat) and Lord Kamall (Conservative).

The government responded that they were pleased to provide the reassurance that the proposed changes to the section 3 detention criteria mean that it would no longer be possible to detain someone with a learning disability or an autistic person under section 3, unless they have a psychiatric disorder.

Despite the cross-party support, opposition to the amendment was shown by Baroness Berridge (Conservative). She argued that the “independent review did not recommend what is currently in the bill, which is the removal of learning disabilities and autism from the act.”

The session briefly touched upon the Mental Health Tribunal. The government tabled amendments that would allow for automatic referral rights to the Tribunal to be commenced separately for patients who will be subject to conditional discharge subject to deprivation of liberty conditions.

Lord Kamall said that the proposal to commence these provisions two months after Royal Assent is pragmatic and necessary to provide patients with timely access to justice.

On the subject of advance choice documents, the minister, Baroness Merron, said that the government strongly agrees with the principles of advance choices. She said the government are committed to mitigating any barriers that people may face in creating an advance choice document or making their wishes and feelings known in advance.

She said the intention is that people are given a standard template to complete, alongside supporting guidance and, where the individual wishes to receive it, the support of mental health practitioners.

Jury trial under spotlight in the Lords

Labour Peer Baroness Hazarika used an oral question in the House of Lords on Wednesday 15 January to ask if it is right that minor drug offences sit in the Crown Court, while rape victims face years of delays before their cases reach court.

Responding for the government, justice minister Lord Ponsonby said there is an argument for “bold and ambitious reform”. He hopes Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the courts will deliver.

The review will be considering Crown Court demand, reclassification of offences and the introduction of an intermediate court. Reforms will come forward by the spring.

Lord Ponsonby declined to commit to retaining jury trials in all cases currently tried by juries, telling Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour) that some cases may not be appropriate for jury trials.

Speaking for the Lib Dems, Lord Marks highlighted how a shortage of judges, lawyers and court staff, caps on sitting days and prisoner transport issues are driving the backlog and asked what steps would be coming forward to deal with these issues.

However, Lord Ponsonby said the underlying factor is the increase in cases coming to the Crown Court and repeated his view that there must be “radical reform” to address this.

Speaking from the Conservative benches, Lord Keen noted that Crown Courts are often sitting at half capacity due to a shortage of defence counsel and called for barristers’ pay to be increased following recent increases for criminal defence solicitors.

Lord Ponsonby said the government is looking at incentivising early resolution of cases, which will help everyone in the criminal justice system.

Home Office questions tackle grooming gangs and Elon Musk

On Monday 13 January, MPs took to the chamber to ask Home Office oral questions. They focused on the issue of violence against women and girls.

These questions came in the context of the past few weeks, where questions about grooming gangs in the UK have been at the centre of the news cycle.

Safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips has been attacked online by right wing commentators, including X CEO Elon Musk, who called her a “rape genocide apologist”.

The businessman’s attack on Phillips came after the government rejected calls for a new public inquiry into the scandal.

Last October, Phillips also rejected a request from Oldham Council for an independent public inquiry into historic child abuse by grooming gangs. It was her view that a locally run inquiry would be better.

Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrats’ Home Affairs spokesperson, said that inquiries can be a powerful tool for uncovering the truth about injustice. However, they only reach their full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully.

Smart therefore asked the government to commit to a timeline for introducing the Hillsborough law to parliament.

Phillips said that the law was committed to in the manifesto and that she will keep in touch about a timeline.

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, asked that the home secretary agree with the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham and Dan Carden MP that there is a need for a proper national public inquiry into grooming gangs.

He said that the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report covered only six of the towns affected, and noted that local inquiries do not have the legal powers to compel the production of evidence.

The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said that the government supports further investigations, inquiries and action into child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. This includes new action to get police reporting evidence on the scale of grooming gangs, including around ethnicity. She did not go into detail about what this meant, or commit to any further inquiries at this time.

Since these Home Office questions, home secretary Yvette Cooper has announced plans for a nationwide review of grooming gang evidence and five government-backed local inquiries.

She has stopped short of launching a statutory national inquiry, as called for by the Conservatives and some Labour MPs, but this marks a clear shift in the government's position.

The Conservative Party has continued its call for a full national inquiry.

Coming up:

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before parliament:

• Arbitration Bill will have its second reading in the Commons on 29 January
• Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will begin its committee stage in the Commons on 21 January
• Data (Access and Use) Bill will have its report stage in the Lords on 21 January
• Employment Rights Bill is continuing its committee stage in the Commons which began on 26 November
• Mental Health Bill began its committee stage in the Lords on 14 January
• Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will begin its report stage in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Renters Rights Bill will have its second reading in the Lords on 4 February