Paul O'Callaghan

The Victims Commissioner backs limiting jury trials but won’t say she’d change her mind even if it won’t actually deliver faster justice for victims.

"I don't blame jury trials at all." That's the verdict of Sir Brian Leveson - Chair of the Independent Review of Courts - when I asked why trials are taking so long. So why is David Lammy and the Government scrapping jury trials for so many?

Watch Claire Waxman, the Victims' Commissioner, outline the emotional impact of court delays on victims of crime and why timely justice is so important 👇

Nine Labour MPs are among 79 who have written to Shabana Mahmood and Wes Streeting to protest the decriminalisation of abortion up to the point of birth The cross-party letter argues proceeding without an impact assessment would be “reckless”

There’s a lot of confusion around this claim. The statistic being cited comes from a very specific subset of high-conflict cases—typically where abuse is alleged and parental alienation is raised in response. It does not reflect the overall reality of the family courts. In the vast majority of cases, residency does not suddenly switch from mother to father. Mothers remain far more likely to be the primary resident parent after separation. What this research actually shows is how complex and contested a small number of cases can become—not that fathers are routinely “believed” or awarded custody. The real issue is how that small subset is then used. A tiny fraction of the most difficult cases is presented as if it represents the norm—and then used to justify sweeping changes to the entire system. We’ve already seen that logic used to challenge the presumption of contact. Family justice shouldn’t be built around the most extreme cases. It should reflect the reality of the system as a whole.