David Lammy faces Labour rebellion despite juries u-turn | Politics | News

Robert Jenrick has warned that Keir Starmer and David Lammy believe “ordinary people are too stupid to sit on juries and oversee justice”.

Justice Minister Mr Lammy told MPs that judges would decide guilt in new so-called “Speedy Trials” in cases “requiring sentences of three years or less”.

But Mr Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, warned the bombshell proposals were “the beginning of the end for jury trials”, adding that the controversial plans “will not even guarantee a reduction in the backlog”.

It comes as Labor MPs vowed to rebel and try to block the legislation.

The plan to abolish jury trials will be deemed successful if the backlog begins to reduce by the end of Parliament in 2029.

But Mr Lammy admitted the situation “will get worse before it gets better”.

Mr Jenrick said: “If Lammy’s proposals are accepted it will be the beginning of the end for jury trials.

“If Lammy wanted to tackle the court backlog, he would have the courts on duty 24 hours a day. But he denies this. He even admitted today that reducing jury trials does not guarantee a reduction in the backlog.

“The truth is that many in the Labor Party do not trust ordinary people to make decisions.

“Starmer’s message is clear: Ordinary people are too stupid, too troublesome and too time consuming to be trusted to deliver justice.”

Plans leaked last week revealed the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to go further, with juries only hearing “cases in the public interest” involving murder, rape, manslaughter and those carrying sentences of five years or more.

These are set to address the Crown Court’s record backlog, which is currently at a record high of more than 78,000 cases, with some cases being listed as far into the future as 2030.

This number is expected to reach more than 100,000 by 2028.

Under Mr Lammy’s new plans, some sexual assault, burglary, drug dealing and robbery cases will now be heard by a single judge.

The Justice Department will eliminate defendants’ right to “choose” a jury trial for so-called “both crimes.”

Currently, defendants who commit crimes in either direction can have their cases heard in the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court, where they can opt for a jury trial.

But magistrates will now consider a case and if the case is “likely” to result in a prison sentence of three years or less, the case will be heard by either a magistrate or the new Crown Court Bench Division.

None of this will require a jury.

However, judges in the Crown Court Bench Division will have full sentencing power; This means that if the evidence in a case shows that a longer prison sentence is necessary, the judge can use these powers and imprison the offender for a longer period of time.

This means that a single judge, when hearing a sexual assault case, can hear all the evidence, convict and sentence an offender to four or five years in prison.

The powers of magistrates will also be increased to increase the prison sentence from 12 months currently to 18 months.

If necessary, the authorizations can be extended for up to 24 months.

Department of Justice modeling suggests the number of cases going to jury trial will be halved.

Approximately 15,000 cases have been submitted to the court by June 2025.

The Ministry of Justice believes that approximately 2,500 cases will be heard by the Crown Court Division Division, while another 5,000 cases will be heard by judges.

Only 1.5 percent of cases will be heard by a jury.

Labor MP Karl Turner said: “I have never voted against the whip in my 15 years in parliament, but unfortunately if it comes to that I will have to do it. These changes will not touch the backlog and will not put victims of crime at the front of the criminal justice system. Do the right thing, fear no one.”

“This ridiculous idea will not help reduce the backlog, if at all.”

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, President of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “Let’s be clear – despite the government’s reduction from 5 years to 3 years, the proposal announced today wreaks havoc on a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations.

“The juries are working; they are doing their job perfectly and without prejudice. The juries did not cause a pile-up.

“Although there was much in the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement that the CBA welcomed, such as its commitment to the criminal bar and increased sitting days, criminal lawyers have made it clear from the outset that we are overwhelmingly opposed to trials involving lone judges in the Crown Court.”

The Law Society of England and Wales warned that the proposals “go so far as to erode our fundamental right to be tried by a jury of our peers”.

Brett Dixon, the association’s vice president, said: “Allowing a single judge, operating in an under-resourced system, to make a guilty verdict in a serious and potentially life-changing case is a dramatic departure from our shared values.”

And a judge at Winchester Crown Court said he believed juries were needed to “be objective”.

Retiring Judge Jane Miller KC, thanking the jury in the rape case, said: “We who sit on this court feel that the only way these types of cases are tried by jury, and not just cases like this.

“We think juries bring an objectivity to cases like this that those involved in these types of cases don’t always do.”

The reforms come in response to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in July to overhaul the court system.

In his review, the former senior judge found that there was no “constitutional or common law” right, or a right in European human rights law, for a defendant to have a trial by jury, and so there was no need to limit the reforms.

Mr Lammy defended his plan, telling MPs: “This Government has inherited an emergency in the courts: a record and growing backlog of cases, currently at 78,000.

“Victims face painful delays because some cases have not been listed for years.

“Meanwhile, defendants are biding their time. Criminal charges have decreased every year since 2020. And by June, 11,000 cases had been dropped after impeachment because victims no longer supported the case or didn’t think they could.”

“There are real people behind the statistics: Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner.

“She reported him to the police in 2017. But then she had an unbearable wait for 6 years for justice to be served.

“During this time, he lost his job due to deteriorating mental health. He became increasingly isolated, lived in fear, and lost faith in the court system. This is not an isolated failure. It is systemic.”