2026-10-20
The Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed the Commons and now goes to the Lords. From there it will be a short skip to Royal Assent.
Whilst the way in which the Bill is constructed doesn't facilitate our (or more to the point, our MP's) understanding, a glance through the headings shows that the general purpose is to give judges and magistrates more powers whilst limiting the rights of the accused.
"Whilst Trial.by Jury is in place, if a right-minded citizen wishes to stand against a piece of legislation and not comply on principled grounds because he knows that that legislation works against moral right and reason, at least you could rely on your fellow citizens to protect you"
But of course in the minds of Parliament it is more important to streamline delivery of a verdict than to secure the accused's constitutional right to a trial by jury.
And this, which seems to be favoured by similar inclusion in most Bills these days:
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any provision made by this Act."
So the Lord Chancellor can change this act as he sees fit provided that neither House of Parliament actually objects. If parliament doesn't choose to debate such a statutory instrument then it stands by default. And what MP has the time to review every statutory instrument that comes his way, let alone secure a debate on it?
