Labour Party MP for Finchley and Golders Green since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
753
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
15
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£14,762.50
9 of 15 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Finchley and Golders Green | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Trevor Chinn - £1,250.00 | £1,250 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Michael Sternberg KC - £2,400.00 | £2,400 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Sir Trevor Chinn - £1,250.00 | £1,250 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Trevor Chinn - £1,250.00 | £1,250 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Sir Trevor Chinn - £1,250.00 | £1,250 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Richard Greer - £1,000.00 | £1,000 | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 2. Donations and support | Strathgrove Ltd - £2,500.00 | £2,500 | Labour | Register record |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Miriam Grabiner - £1,300.00 | £1,300 | Labour | Register record | |
| 1.1. Payment for work | Payment received on 10 January 2025 - £2,562.50London Borough of Camden Planning Department | £2,562.50 | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Practising barrister. | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 1. Employment and earnings | Self-employed barrister - Ricardo Gama | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 1. Employment and earnings | Self-employed barrister - London Borough of Camden Planning Department | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 6. Land and property | Property in London | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Vice-chair of the Jewish Labour Movement. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Ex-officio Director, Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Administrative Court (Recording and Broadcasting) and Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The two orders before the Committee today are all about open justice. Taken together, they extend the broadcasting regime that already operates successfully in our courts. Specifically, they remove the prohibitions on recording in three areas: first, proceedings in the administrative court which is part of the High Court; secondly, proceedings involving litigants in person in the Court of Appeal; and thirdly, the magistrates court, to enable the recording and broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the chief magistrate in open court. The filming and sound recording of court proceedings is generally prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, but the Supreme Court has allowed filming since it was established in 2009, and a small number of further exceptions are set out in secondary legislation. Orders specifying the circumstances in which those prohibitions may be lifted can be made with the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice. Broadcasting of court proceedings has been expanded carefully and incrementally over time, and has been a successful and important route to increasing public access to, and understanding of, our justice system. Following the example of the Supreme Court, filming was extended to the Court of Appeal in 2013, and then to sentencing remarks in the Crown court, where the first broadcast took place in July 2022. There is clear public interest in understanding more about what happens in our courts, and growing expectations that we should take advantage of technology to expand access to courts, allowing for greater flexibility and transparency. The two instruments before the Committee will build on that success by extending broadcasting further, supporting wider public access to our justice system. In all circumstances, the final decision on whether filming is permitted will rest with a judge. That will ensure that there is always in each case a judicial assessment of the extent to which broadcasting is appropriate. The two orders take broadly the same legislative approach as earlier instruments made under section 32(1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Consistent with previous practice, each court has a separate recording and broadcasting order. The judiciary supports these policy changes. The extension of broadcasting to the administrative court was specifically recommended by the judiciary-led Transparency and Open Justice Board. The Lady Chief Justice, whose agreement is required under section 32 of the 2013 Act, has indicated that she is content with the draft orders. Extending broadcasting to the administrative court will increase public access to proceedings that frequently determine matters of significant public importance, including challenges to public authorities’ decisions through judicial review. I might add, on a personal note, that I thought it would take getting elected to Parliament for my mum to watch me on telly. Had I known that broadcasting of judicial reviews in the administrative court was going to be enabled, I could have stayed there. Well, there is always hope for life after Parliament, isn’t there? This order will allow the recording and broadcasting of proceedings taking place in open court, including submissions to the judge and any exchanges arising from them, and the judge giving or summarising their judgment. The first order also removes the existing restriction on broadcasting proceedings in the Court of Appeal that involve litigants in person. That restriction was originally intended to protect unrepresented parties and to avoid broadcasting only one side of the case, which could offer a distorted view of proceedings. The current framework prevents the recording and broadcasting of all proceedings involving a litigant in person, except for the court giving judgment. Our experience since broadcasting was first introduced into the Court of Appeal in 2013 is that this blanket approach is disproportionate and no longer appropriate. In practice, litigants in person very rarely appear in the Court of Appeal, and those who do are often legally trained. The change will therefore allow submissions and exchanges with the court to be filmed in cases involving litigants in person, subject as always to judicial permission. The second order will allow the broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the chief magistrate in open court. Building on the existing approach in the Crown court, that represents a careful and measured first step into the magistrates court, focusing on some of the most high-profile cases. Allowing the public to see and hear the judge explain a sentencing decision, rather than simply learning the outcome, will help to improve understanding of how and why sentences are imposed. Filming will be strictly limited to the chief magistrate passing sentence, and will not include victims, witnesses, defendants or other court users, or indeed any other part of the proceedings. The chief magistrate will be able to refuse permission or impose further conditions alongside reporting restrictions, including where remarks contain particularly sensitive details, to protect the victims of crime. The legislation allows for filming to take place via livestreaming, which is managed by the court itself, and broadcasting, which involves third-party media organisations, but to begin with, we intend filming in the administrative court and the magistrates court to be broadcast. That will build on established court broadcasting arrangements, working with experienced broadcasters who have been filming proceedings in our courts for many years. As under the existing Crown court and Court of Appeal arrangements, broadcasters, rather than His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, will meet the cost of filming. Where broadcasting is live, a short delay will allow transmission to be stopped if an unexpected incident occurs or sensitive information is disclosed. That provides an important additional safeguard to protect the proper administration of justice. The extent and territorial application of these instruments is England and Wales. I assure hon. Members that these statutory instruments will increase public access to court proceedings while preserving judicial discretion, protecting the interests of victims and other court users, and ensuring that the effective administration of justice and the dignity of the court are upheld.
I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate. It is fantastic that we have consensus and support for both orders, which, as others have said, are concerned with open justice and with demystifying what happens in our courts. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman put so well, this is about justice being seen to be done, not just being done. The orders will enable that, building responsibly and incrementally on past reforms, and I believe that all of this can only improve public confidence in our justice system. On the questions about the availability of transcripts, the hon. Gentleman will know that our ambition is to extend their availability, enabled by the rapid developments in technology that are allowing real-time transcription. However, we must be mindful of the costs, not least because transcription involves appropriate safeguards, such as redacting some of the remarks. Nevertheless, we took significant steps in the Sentencing Act, as the hon. Member for Chichester rightly acknowledged, to make transcripts of sentencing remarks available to victims. That is a big step forward. We are looking to make transcription more widely available, not just in the criminal jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions as well. That is why we have made real headway in the immigration chamber. At the same time, we must be mindful of doing this properly and in a phased way that balances the very real cost to the system with other competing priorities, of which we are all very much aware, particularly when it comes to backlogs in our courts. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has raised the issue of access to sentencing remarks with me before, and I understand where he is coming from. However, he will know that he can apply to the court in the usual way to access sentencing remarks, and it is a matter for the judge. I know that he, like other hon. Members, takes an interest in particular cases, but we cannot privilege access for Members of Parliament; it is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion.
The Government have to apply in the same way. If they are not a party to the case, they have to ask to get the remarks from the court. We have to preserve the court and the judge as the gatekeeper of the process. If access to the remarks is justified, they will no doubt be made available. A question was asked about the outage experienced not just by our courts, but by other private and public sector bodies. In a week when fridges in different parts of Europe have been damaged by cyber-attacks, and systems have gone down, we have had a reminder that although we want to open up, digitise and modernise systems, it is important that we provide for contingencies when they fail. When the Google platform went down, it showed that the systems in HMCTS were actually relatively robust, and the courts carried on working. Obviously, although the intention was for people to be able to view proceedings, that was temporarily unavailable, but it did not mean that court cases could not go ahead. As people will know, there was a series of pretty high-profile cases—there always are, particularly in some of our criminal courts—that were being closely followed by the media, many of whom would have been present in court. The question of what delays can be caused by such things is therefore apt. It depends on particular circumstances. In the Google example, there were not really any delays. In the vast majority of courts around the country, proceedings could go ahead, but when evidence is being given remotely, one can imagine circumstances where the systems going down present a problem. We want to encourage remote hearings because that is often the most efficient way for proceedings to go ahead. I know that operational colleagues in HMCTS are ensuring that, as we continue to modernise our courts—as we must—we do so in a way that ensures that there are back-up systems, so that when problems like the Google cloud outage occur, there is back-up so that proceedings can go ahead even if they are not broadcast. It is preferable that they are, which is what the measures allow, but a judge managing a court has to balance competing considerations: do we want the case to go ahead on time even without the broadcast, or do we want to wait for another day because it is so important that the world can see this being done? It is right that we leave those sorts of decisions to our judges, who are well positioned to take them. I hope that hon. Members agree that the orders are necessary and a good thing, and I commend both of them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026.—(Sarah Sackman.)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied. Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation. The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place. This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral. Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that. Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years. In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes. Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.
I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now. We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs. We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard. Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers. The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims. Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system. I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland. This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.
I do not accept the premise of that question. I do not accept that we have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial caseload. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the magistrates court hear more than 1.5 million cases a year, and it is coping well. What I do acknowledge is that we need to increase their capacity, which is why we are increasing the number of sitting days. In 2025 there were 114,000 sitting days, and we will increase that to 130,000 by 2028-29. The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous Government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, and the investment that we are putting into recruitment—quadrupling the budget—are already reaping the rewards, and we are on course to meet the 21,000 target. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) is right to say that we need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so. We are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It is vital that there is a right of appeal, but it is also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds for appeal. By introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, we will avoid a situation in which victims are needlessly put through unnecessary re-hearings where the appeal totally lacks merit. As I said, these reforms must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. That is why we are investing in our courts and in the people who make justice possible, and we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29. We are also strengthening judicial capacity by boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers, who need to see better pay and career progression.
We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose. I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear: “to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike. It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform. I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious. It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them. The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant. The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded. I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability. I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do. To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet. Question put and agreed to. New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft remedial order implements the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SW v. the United Kingdom. The order amends section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith where the judicial act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that amending section 9(3) in this way is the appropriate approach that ensures we meet our international obligations while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. The background to SW v. the United Kingdom is as follows: the particulars in the case are that the applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of SW without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant’s assignment within the local authority was subsequently terminated. In November 2016 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances. In 2021 the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention, which is the right to an effective remedy when read together with article 8. This is because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which has now been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar violations will not arise again in future. The Human Rights Act contains powers in section 10 and schedule 2 to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On 17 July 2025, the Government laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Government consider that this represents an appropriate measure to implement the findings of a breach of article 13 on the facts of this case. In November 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order. We are grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order and address the specific breach of article 13 that the Court identified in SW. The Joint Committee was of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13 where judicial acts infringe on convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principled exceptions to section 9(3) or considering removing the provision entirely alongside a number of other recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise the Joint Committee’s recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully the Government decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further as it has already been five years since the judgment became final. We have taken care to ensure that the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the Court in SW while respecting the principle of judicial immunity. While the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation of section 9(3) separately to the implementation of this judgment in consultation with the judiciary, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I want to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order. We welcome the Joint Committee’s recommendation that both Houses approve the order. Hon. Members will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity, and I just want to say a few words about that. Judicial immunity is a long-established common-law principle. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence. It protects judges from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of this remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. Given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this order will apply UK-wide. Officials have been in contact with the devolved Governments during the process of drafting the order. The draft order will ensure that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirement to procedural fairness under that article.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 4,581. 49,289 votes cast from an electorate of 77,500. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah Sackman | Labour | 21,857 | 44.3% |
| Alex Deane | Conservative | 17,276 | 35.1% |
| Sarah Hoyle | Liberal Democrat | 3,375 | 6.8% |
| Steve Parsons | Green Party | 3,107 | 6.3% |
| Giuseppe Pezzulli | Reform UK | 2,598 | 5.3% |
| Brendan Patrick Donnelly | Rejoin EU | 486 | 1.0% |
| Katharine Margaret Murphy | Party of Women | 318 | 0.6% |
| Michael Shad | Independent | 272 | 0.6% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Finchley and Golders GreenElected 1 time | – present |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)Ministry of Justice | – present |
| Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)Attorney General's Office | – |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Courts and Tribunals Bill | – |
| Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill | – |
| Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill | – |
| Constituency | Date |
|---|---|
| Finchley and Golders Green |
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .