JUDGES TURN ON LAMMY’S PLANS TO SCRAP JURY TRIALS
Judges have described David Lammy’s plans to curb jury trials as a “harmful distraction” that will fail to reduce court backlogs.
The judges – both serving and retired – have spoken out amid a backlash from both Labour and Tory MPs against the Justice Secretary’s plans to halve the number of jury trials.
Mr Lammy is proposing to axe jury trials for defendants facing prison sentences of less than three years. They will instead have their cases heard by magistrates or by a new Canadian-style tier of judge-only courts.
Lord Thomas, the former lord chief justice of England and Wales, said the reform “won’t fix the backlog quickly enough”.
“Our system depends upon someone having to make a choice to plead guilty or not guilty quickly, and if you delay that you will go on increasing the backlog,” he said.
He also criticised Mr Lammy’s decision for not taking up former appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation to have an intermediate court of a judge and two magistrates.
“We ought to pause long and hard before we remove the lay element from trying the more serious cases,” he said. “It produces balance, it brings to a court what a jury brings, which is some experience of people with everyday knowledge of life.”
Paul Dodgson, the former circuit judge, said: “I have no doubt whatsoever that jury trial is the fairest and most effective means of deciding whether someone is guilty of an offence.
“I can honestly say that I only remember one verdict from a jury that I fundamentally disagreed with and although I disagreed with the verdict I understood why the jury came to it.”
‘Unnecessary battle lines’
Geoffrey Rivlin KC, a former senior circuit judge, said: “In this time of crisis, it a great pity that any reform of the jury system should arise at all. It is not necessary; it can only do harm.
“Yet, it inevitably means that juries have taken, and will remain, centre stage – a distraction, creating unnecessary battle lines and efforts to save face. It will soak up valuable time and energy when there is much vitally important work to be done.”
Serving judges are historically barred from making political comments but after passing judgment on a case this week, Judge Richard Marks said: “We are very proud of the jury system in this country – long may it remain.”
Chris Kinch KC, who was the most senior judge at Woolwich crown court until stepping down last year, said: “I just don’t think this is going to sort out the problem.
“Nobody’s talking about how you get rid of the current backlog, because you can’t unless you make these changes retrospective, which everybody would be up in arms about.
“The only answer is to provide the judges and the courtrooms and the legal aid funding to do it, which I suspect is why they won’t, because the [Ministry of Justice] is obsessed with saving costs and cutting the budget.”
He said the move would undermine justice. “I know there are a lot of people who will say, ‘Oh, juries don’t understand this, they don’t understand that.’ But the fact is, over the piece, juries get things right and you have to be pretty brave to say that 12 citizens is anything other than an impartial tribunal,” he said.
“Whereas mainly white, middle-aged judges who up to now have not been involved in the fray are suddenly going to be chucked into the arena, and nobody’s really thought about that. They certainly haven’t asked the judges. So you’re going to lose that connection with the community which juries provide.”
Labour critics of the plan have suggested that there could be a big enough backbench rebellion to defeat the plans in the Commons – and there are predictions of a huge revolt by the Lords that could also threaten its passage through Parliament.
Half of the current 15,000 jury trials a year are expected to be scrapped as a result of the changes, according to Ministry of Justice modelling. It would reduce the number as a proportion of all cases from three per cent to 1.5 per cent, or just one in 66.
2025-12-12T18:20:43Z