David Lammy’s ‘soft justice’ reform of jury trials is backed by MPs in first Commons hurdle after Labour MP condemned curbs in emotional speech about being raped

David Lammy’s ‘soft justice’ reforms to jury trials have been backed by MPs who passed the bill with a majority of 101 votes at its first Commons hurdle.

Tonight’s decision to back the controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill comes despite a Labor MP condemning restrictions on emotional speeches about being raped.

Charlotte Nichols said the attack, which happened while she was an MP, left her with PTSD and led to her compartmentalizing for her own safety.

He accused the Justice Minister of ‘weaponizing’ the experiences of rape victims to legitimize changes that ‘are not directly relevant to them’.

A significant majority of Labor MPs abstained from voting for the bill on Tuesday night, following multiple objections.

No votes from around 90 Labor MPs were recorded, indicating significant opposition and raising questions about whether it will become law.

Ten Labor MPs voted against it, but 301 voted in favour, allowing it to clear the first House of Commons hurdle.

Seven Labor MPs, including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, also voted for the Conservative Party to reject the bill. The amendment was defeated.

The bill was read a second time despite Jo Hamilton, a victim of the Post Office scandal, warning that blocking jury trials would lead to ‘many more miscarriages of justice’.

More than 3,200 lawyers, including 300 senior lawyers and retired judges, also signed a letter saying the plans were ‘based on very little evidence’.

The Moot Courts and Tribunals Bill will likely abolish jury trials for cases with sentences of under three years, in a bid to tackle court backlogs.

Ahead of the Commons vote, Mr Lammy, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, faced fierce backlash over his plans.

Addressing MPs, he acknowledged the changes had sparked ‘fierce’ debate but said it would shorten hearing times and free up trial days.

He said that if no action was taken, the backlog could reach 200,000 cases in a decade and pointed to research which said it would reduce trial times by at least 20 per cent.

‘The election before the parliament is very tough. “We cannot continue this increasing accumulation,” he said.

‘Victims are worn out right now, people are giving up, cases are breaking down and criminals are going free. ‘Free to roam the streets, free to commit more crimes, free to create more victims.’

But Ms Nichols accused the Government of failing to help rape victims because she waived her right to anonymity to reveal she had been assaulted.

He explained that he had waited 1,088 days for the hearing, criticizing the court’s backlog for making his experience worse.

He accused the government of pitting survivors and defendants against each other in a “deeply damaging” way.

“Don’t say this bill helps achieve justice for rape victims until it materially materialises,” he told Mr Lammy.

Ms Nichols added: ‘There is so much we can do for rape victims that the Chancellor does not use as a cudgel to push through reforms that do not directly concern them.

‘In this debate it feels like experiences like mine are being weaponized and used rhetorically to mislead.’

Meanwhile, rebel ringleader Mr Turner said the Government’s proposed changes to juries were ‘useless, unfair, unpopular and unnecessary’.

However, the former lawyer said that he would abstain because he was sure that these measures would not become law.

‘I am now more confident than ever that the worst parts of this bill will be eliminated at the amendment stage,’ he said.

He added that under the proposed legislation, none of the 900 deputy postmasters convicted in the Horizon scandal would have the right to be tried before their peers.

It comes after former deputy postmaster Jo Hamilton, who was wrongfully convicted in the scandal, appealed to Mr Lammy not to abandon the “safety net of the jury”.

Labor MP Stella Creasy said she could not support the bill because she did not believe magistrates’ courts had the capacity to handle cases that would no longer be heard by crown courts.

Labor MP Jon Trickett also described the plan to restrict access to jury trials as ‘oppressive’ and ‘authoritarian’.

He said jury trials ‘are a fundamental part of our constitutional system, and the idea that we should somehow start giving up on that is a misconception.’

He added: ‘I’m not convinced. This is oppressive, authoritarian and frankly, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, as much as I appreciate it, it is also reactionary.’

Nick Timothy, the shadow justice secretary, said the Government was attacking an ‘ancient British right’ that had made the UK legal system the ‘envy of the world’.

He said the Government was ‘rushing’ proposed changes to jury trials through Parliament with ‘excessive speed’.

Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh said the court backlog was a ‘temporary administrative crisis’ and should not be used to justify changes to jury trials.

Meanwhile, victims’ minister Jess Phillips said the court was the victim of a backlog involving a man accused of breaching a restraining order against him that is not in the crown court until 2028.

Under the Courts and Tribunals Bill, cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less will be heard by just a single crown court judge without a jury, in the biggest change to the criminal justice system in 800 years.

The powers of magistrates will be increased, allowing prison sentences of up to 18 months from the current 12 months, so they can deal with more cases.

The proposed changes follow recommendations from a review published last year by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson.

The Commons vote came after thousands of lawyers signed a letter accusing Mr Lammy of trying to erode ‘a deeply entrenched constitutional principle for insignificant gain and at significant risk’.

The letter was drawn up by the Bar Council and signed by senior lawyers, including former director of public prosecutions Sir David Calvert-Smith.

He cited ‘chronic underfunding’ as the cause of the backlog, adding: ‘Juries did not cause this crisis. Practically speaking, the recommendations are based on very little evidence.’

The controversial court reforms passed their first Commons hurdle with a majority of 101, with 304 MPs voting in favor and 203 against.