Nobody believed David Lammy would do this – UK politics is like Only Fools and Horses | Politics | News
When it was “leaked” last week that David Lammy was planning to abolish jury trials “for all but the most serious offences” in a bid to reduce the backlog of around 80,000 crown court cases, the anger among criminal lawyers was tempered by the fact that no-one actually believed it.
We read the report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice from retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson to find cost-neutral solutions. And we suspected this was a market trader bargain where one starts ridiculously high and mirrors the starting point for the inevitable compromise. Perhaps a worthless tactic for someone with the title of Lord Chancellor, but we see it all too often in the Only Fools and Horses version of modern British politics.
It was no surprise to read Tuesday’s official announcement and see Lammy watering down the plans, “backing away from the most radical reforms”, as the BBC put it.
There are few details even now – perhaps an indication of the scant thought that has gone into these proposals – but they can be summarized as follows: In England and Wales, jury trials for crimes likely to attract a prison sentence of less than three years (it was five years at the leak) will be abolished; defendants will lose the right to request a jury trial where a case could be heard by magistrates or a new form of crown court with judges only; Defendants facing fraud and complex financial crime charges will no longer be able to attend jury trials.
Magistrates’ powers to impose prison sentences of up to two years will also be increased, up from the current maximum of six months (or 12 months for multiple offences). What is commendable is the clarity of the announcement, even if it lacks useful details. At this stage the proposals appear to speak for themselves. But a clear idea is not necessarily a good idea.
Statistics show that magistrates use custodial sentences over the alternative at a much higher rate than crown courts. Currently they can only do this for multiple offenses for a maximum of 12 months. If we increase the sentencing powers of this court to cover many more cases, the trend is that we will see many more criminals sent to prison.
Some may say “so be it”, but we do not live in a world where “so be it” is simple. We live in a world where our prisons are already overcrowded and thousands of prisoners are being released early. Without a prison reconstruction program to address the impacts, what good will this proposal do to anyone?
Obviously the most controversial issue is the automatic removal of the right to trial by jury, which has been the cornerstone of English justice since the 12th century.
As Lord Devlin wrote in 1956: “Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp by which freedom lives.” So I have a simple question: Will abolishing the millennium-old right to trial by jury help reduce the crown court backlog? And my answer is no, it won’t help at all.
There are many reasons for the crown court backlog, and they all stem from the systemic underfunding of criminal justice that began in the 1990s. The main reasons for this include the fact that the Government will not pay for the operation of existing courtrooms; and the conditions that make the work criminal, as well as their reluctance to pay criminal lawyers even a tiny percentage of the fees they could charge commercially in other areas of the law, have led to a flight from the profession. In short, there are no longer enough lawyers and judges.
Now guess what didn’t contribute to this accumulation? Lack of jury. In fact, with fewer lawyers and locked courtrooms, we have more people than we can handle. This being the case, what benefit will abolishing juries have? We still won’t have enough lawyers or judges.
The government still won’t pay to open the 20% to 25% of courtrooms it keeps locked. In other words, we will still lack all the essential elements needed to hold a hearing. Jury trials did not cause this backlog. Removing them will not cure this either. Instead, it will deprive us of a basic right so Lammy and his cronies can say they are doing “something.” Even if it won’t work at all. It’s time to show that we see their actions for what they are. It’s time to fight back.
Tony Kent is the author and principal attorney at Ewing Law.
