Question

Asked by Manuela Perteghella to Justice on 10 November 2026 — tabled under the Andy Burnham government

Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact of delays in serious sexual abuse cases? One such case, which was brought to my attention, took so long to reach trial that the defendant’s health deteriorated and they were ultimately found not fit to stand trial, denying the victim the opportunity to see justice done. Will the Minister consider prioritising cases where there is a risk that delays can prevent a trial from ever taking place?

Answer

Answered by Sarah Sackman (Labour)

The hon. Lady eloquently describes the devastating human impact of those delays. Our judiciary looks to prioritise cases where there are circumstances such as the one she describes. That is exactly why we need to bring forward the reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to end these unacceptable and intolerable delays.

Verdict: AMBER (60/100)

The Minister clearly acknowledged the serious human impact of the delays, which answers the first part of the question directly. On the second part, the reply pointed to the judiciary already prioritising cases like this, but did not say whether the Government itself will consider such prioritisation, and it cited the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which addresses delay in general rather than this specific issue. The asker would likely need to follow up to get a firm commitment on the second point.

How we got there

Question itemCoverageSpecificityRationale
Does the Minister recognise the impact of delays in serious sexual abuse cases? Addressed Direct The reply explicitly acknowledges the devastating human impact of the delays, which is what the question asks the Minister to recognise, and the following statement ties this to the government's reforms.
Will the Government consider prioritising serious sexual abuse cases where there is a risk that delay could prevent a trial from taking place? Partially Addressed Direct The reply says the judiciary already prioritises cases like this, which is relevant, but it attributes the prioritisation to the judiciary rather than saying whether the Government will consider it; the Courts and Tribunals Bill reference addresses delay generally rather than this specific prioritisation.

Feedback on this grading

Think this verdict is wrong, or that the question and answer have been mismatched? Let us know.

Submitting this needs Google reCAPTCHA to block spam, which sets cookies from google.com on your device — see our Cookies policy for details. Accept these cookies to show the form.