Woking MP calls for court to reopen amid backlog of cases
The government is being urged to reopen a Surrey court complex to help deal with the backlog of cases in the county.Woking's Liberal Democrat MP Will Forster said in the House of Commons on Thursday that there were 1,500 cases waiting for their date in Crown Court in Surrey alone, including 166 sexual offences against women and girls."Prosecutors have been telling victims that they have between two and five years' wait to get their day in court, and I think that's appalling," he said.The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said additional sitting days had been funded and that it was committed to delivering longer-term reform.
The closure of Woking's court building was announced in 2010, with the MoJ at the time stating it had a responsibility to ensure there was "an effective and efficient court service to deliver justice".Solicitor General Lucy Rigby responded to Forster in the Commons, stating more than 260 court buildings had been closed by the previous government, which had "clearly led to considerable court backlog".She added that additional crown court sitting days and increasing magistrates' court sentencing powers had been introduced to deal with court backlog.The delays were also contributed to by the pandemic, the BBC previously reported.The Conservative Party has been approached for comment.An MoJ spokesperson said: "This government inherited a record and rising courts backlog – that's why we've asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims."We've already funded an additional 2,500 sitting days, raising court capacity to the highest in almost ten years and are committed to working with our partners to deliver longer-term reform."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Millions of taxpayers' money has been spent on prisoner laptops
Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on providing prisoners with laptops. A Freedom of Information Request submitted by the campaign group Senedd Waste revealed that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) had spent £6.28 million on laptops for prisoners in England and Wales over the past three years. The framing of the response from the ministry suggests that the primary objective of this scheme is to provide prisoners with access to 'Launchpad', which is an 'in-cell tech programme that gives prisoners secure laptops with digital services in their cells to support their rehabilitation'. The programme has been rolled out in 19 prisons, reaching around 12,900 inmates. But the MOJ's description of Launchpad continues, going considerably further beyond what the average law-abiding Joe would reasonably consider necessary to rehabilitate a convicted criminal into society. We are told that the programme is designed to offer 'distraction to empower prisoners on the inside, to live better lives on the outside'. Is the purpose of prison to distract convicted criminals while they serve their sentences? I would call this a hopeless infantalisation of our criminal justice system but the reality is more absurd. Even children on the naughty step are invited to reflect on their behaviour as they serve out their period of exclusion. The programme is designed to improve inmates' 'peace of mind knowing their laptop can only be used by them', because 'prisoners report they like 'something just for them''. The MOJ further notes that 'prisoners engaging with fresh, relevant, useful and relaxing content 24/7 [emphasis added] report improved mood, reduced self-harm and lower frustration levels'. In their response to Senedd Waste's Freedom of Information request, the MOJ confirmed that the laptops, which provide prisoners with 'tools and technology to help maintain relationships, support health and wellbeing', are issued to be used 'without supervision'. Which raises the very logical question, also put to the ministry by the campaign group, what safeguards are in place to ensure the laptops are not used for nefarious purposes. This query was declined on security grounds, so we are left to arrive at our own conclusion. A spokesman for the DOJ however confirmed to me that 'all in-cell technology is fitted out with tough security measures and cannot be used to browse the internet.' But tech security is a tricky business. Adding convicted criminals to the mix demonstrates a sort of unfounded self-confidence which only the taxpayer-funded public sector can afford to entertain. Such as that shown by Humza Yousaf in 2020 as Scotland's Justice Secretary, when £7.6 million was spent on providing inmates – including 'murderers, paedophiles and gangland thugs' – with personal mobile phones to keep in touch with their families during the pandemic, 'to aid the mental health and wellbeing of those in our care and their loved ones.' The scheme had to be abandoned after the phones were found to be used to commit 'more than 8,000 security breaches, including drug deals, hit jobs and the fire-bombing of family homes' as, rather predictably, illicit SIM cards could be easily used to bypass restrictions. As we reported last year, the mobile phones were then replaced with landlines, taking the total cost of the scheme to £12 million. For taxpayers' sake let us hope that the MOJ has more robust security precautions in place. But is there a framework in place for the ministry to record and assess the success of the programme? At the time of writing this, four days have passed since I posed this question to Shabana Mahmood's department. I have yet to receive an answer. Hardly a day goes by without our criminal justice system hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. From releasing dangerous criminals early to providing child-killing terrorists with access to sweet treats in prison, the news reports paint a picture of a system which is completely out of sync with the nation, chipping away at the public's confidence in it. This story is a depressing reminder of just how great the chasm remains between those who run prison services and those who pay for them.
Scotsman
10 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why Tories must stop agreeing with Farage and start attacking him to survive
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On April 15, 2010, the UK held its first-ever televised general election debate, pitting Labour's Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, against David Cameron of the Conservatives, with Nick Clegg expected to do little more than make up the numbers. However, if that was the anticipated script, no one told Clegg, who spoke so persuasively that the catchphrase of the night was 'I agree with Nick' as both Cameron and Brown sought to side with him. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In a snap YouGov poll after the contest, 51 per cent declared the Liberal Democrat leader to be the winner, with Cameron on 29 and Brown on 19. While 'Cleggmania' proved short-lived, the clear lesson was that agreeing with a political opponent tends to benefit them. Delegates at the Conservative party conference in 2023 pose for a photograph with Nigel Farage (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images A political cataclysm looms Fifteen years later, and the Conservatives' current strategy to defeat Reform UK, by echoing its rhetoric, is backfiring even more badly. While the 2010 debate was a one-off event, the Tories have effectively been campaigning for Reform for years. In Thursday's Hamilton by-election, the Conservative candidate received just 1,621 votes, down from 6,332 at the last Scottish Parliament election, while Reform got 7,088, not far behind the winner, Labour's Davy Russell, and the SNP in second. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As the Scottish Tories prepare for their party conference this week, a major topic of discussion must be about finding ways to disagree with Reform, if they wish to survive what threatens to become a political event as cataclysmic as the collapse of the old Liberal party after the First World War. Farage is out to destroy the Tories, and they must be as determined and ruthless. There is much to go at. Many of Reform's policies are patently ridiculous and some are downright dangerous. Keir Starmer's claim that Farage would 'crash the economy' like Liz Truss was a good line, and the Conservatives need to find similarly resonant ways of highlighting the very real dangers of voting for Reform.
The National
10 hours ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
