Courts and Tribunals Bill
16 April 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Courts and Tribunals Bill House of Commons
00:01 - 00:28
Speaker 1
Order. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I would like to remind members to please switch off electronic devices to silent and teas and coffees are not allowed during sitting. We now come to Group four and Amendment 25 to Clause three, with which it will be convenient to consider Amendments twelve and forty three. I call Yasmin Kureshi to move Amendment 25.
00:28 - 02:42
Speaker 2
Thank you, miss Jordan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Amendment 25 is in relation to the retrospective allocation of cases to the Crown Court bench division. So what I'm asking is to add on nine thirty eight that provision of allocation for trial without jury when election already has been done. The point to here make is that in all jurisprudence of the world, retrospective legislation is bad law and is bad jurisprudence and goes against the rules of natural justice.
Why? Because there is a breach of legal certainty. The core principle of rural law is that an individual should know the legal consequences of their action. People also have a legitimate expectation of the procedural framework in place at the time of commission of offence. Retrospective allocation rules disrupt that expectation and actually weaken the trust in our justice system.
It is a selective tightening of procedures by the the state and this risks abuse of legislative power and inconsistency. Article seven of the European Commission on Human Rights argues against retrospective criminal law penalties. Whilst it is correct that here we are not talking about retrospective criminal penalties, I would say that article seven is being briefed here because even if penalties are not increased, it undermines legitimate expectations. Defence and legal representatives prepare case based on existing court structures and known procedures and practices. To suddenly set new procedural rules and different evidential expectations is just not cricket.
The rest of the transcript is for Pro customers
Unlock the full transcript, chat, and every analysis feature with Polyfact Pro.
The video itself stays free to watch, in full, no account needed.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.