Lammy Urged To Keep Jury Trials Amid Labour MP Warning

David Lammy’s forced announcement last week after the apparent accidental leak of his plans to scrap some jury trials came as a shock to Labour backbenchers.

There was reference in our election manifesto to addressing the Crown Court backlog which grew exponentially under the previous government, but there was never any suggestion that we, the Labour Party, would ever consider doing away with the rights of those accused of serious crimes to be tried by a jury of 12 good men, women and true.

Not least when current justice ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, have made very public statements pleading the case for juries in criminal proceedings, to be maintained. After all, juries have existed in the English (and Welsh) legal system for over 800 years.

Threatening to restrict jury trials is both a dereliction of duty and an ineffective way of dealing with a crippling backlog of cases. The erosion of jury trials not only risks undermining a fundamental right, but importantly, will not reduce the backlog by anything like enough to speed up justice for victims and those that are accused and prosecuted by the Crown.

If this ever comes to the House of Commons, I will rebel and vote against it, and I think the government would be defeated on this issue. The House and the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are more effective ways to reduce the backlog.

Sir Brian Leveson is a well-respected figure whose words carry much weight but even Sir Brian is not wedded to this idea. But the outcry from stakeholders in the criminal justice system must not be ignored.

Our system rightly prevents the judiciary from speaking out on such matters, but when you have the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association united in their opposition to these destructive plans, then it is easy to work out what judges and recently-retired judges are saying to lawyers when they are speaking privately.

These warnings need to be heard and acted upon before it is too late. Let’s be honest now, the problem (which is massive) was not caused by juries and it will not be solved by their removal. If this is not ditched, then the government risks another embarrassing defeat.

Labour MPs deserve better from the prime minister to have us marched up the proverbial hill to be marched back down again and then have us pretend that we were never asked to do the unthinkable in the first place. Parliamentarians from across the political divide recognise the constitutional importance of trial by jury and the danger of their erosion from public life.

Backbench MPs see this as a step too far, and no responsible parliament can allow a cornerstone of justice and our democracy to be savagely attacked on the basis that the government is actually doing something to fix the problem when in fact anybody that is anybody, practitioners, academics or the judiciary itself know full well that these plans will not do what it says on the tin and will most definitely not protect and promote the interests of victims of crime.

The Lord Chancellor would be better promising less and doing more. There is much to do. The government chief whip is a good and well-respected MP, but he isn’t Paul Daniels – the chief whip’s best magic trickery cannot magic the inevitable rebellion away.

One of the primary causes of the backlog is the restriction on ‘sitting days’, the number of days Crown Courts operate a year. Around 130,000 sitting days are available to the courts, but, despite a capacity crisis, sitting days are restricted by around 20,000 a year.

While the government has rightly announced that it is increasing the number of sitting days by 5000, this is still a substantial shortfall. This inexplicable misuse of court time needs to be rectified.

The parliamentary timetable for these wrongheaded proposals is most likely to be the second half of next year, perhaps October or November. If the emergency is now, then why isn’t the justice secretary arguing for time on the floor of the House now?

Why, if it is so very urgent and just about reducing the backlog, won’t David Lammy put in a sunset clause on the face of the bill so that this policy can be scrapped once the backlog is down to a manageable number? At which time he himself would revert to saying that “criminal trials without juries are a bad idea, you don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair”.

And why not start using the promised £550 million for victims support service immediately? The government doesn’t need primary legislation for that. There isn’t a backlog in every court centre. Certain courts have managed to delete any backlog to manageable numbers by proactive case management. Let’s look at the model before we throw out the baby with the bath water. The government should reconsider this now, before lasting damage is done to public confidence in our courts, the justice system and this government.

Karl Turner is the Labour MP for Kingston-upon-Hull East