Lammy to scrap juries for most crimes, despite calling them ‘fundamental to democracy’

David Lammy is set to scrap jury trials for most crimes despite previously arguing that they are fundamental to democracy.

In leaked documents, seen by The Telegraph, the Justice Secretary has proposed juries will only decide upon cases of murder, rape, manslaughter and other serious offences carrying sentences of more than five years.

The plans come as courts across Britain battle a record backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, with many victims of crime waiting years for justice. The documents warn that failure to ease the gridlock could lead to a “wider collapse” of the criminal justice system.

Mr Lammy set out the plans despite previously defending jury trials when they were under threat during the Covid pandemic, saying “jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement”.

Under the reforms, which require legislation next year, judges will preside alone over trials of other serious offences meriting prison sentences of up to five years, thus removing the right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury.

Magistrates’ powers are also to be increased by extending their remit from offences carrying a maximum sentence of one year to two years, further eroding the right to a jury trial.

Defendants charged with scores of offences, including burglary, affray, fraud, some sexual crimes and criminal damage up to £10,000, will be stripped of their right to elect trial by jury.

The plans go much further than recommendations by Sir Brian Leveson, a former High Court judge, in a report commissioned by Shabana Mahmood, Mr Lammy’s predecessor.

Sir Brian had proposed an intermediate court of a judge and two magistrates to hear cases of defendants facing up to three years in jail.

But the leaked document said Mr Lammy aimed “to achieve maximum impact” by going further. It said there was “no right to a jury trial”, even though it was enshrined in Magna Carta that “no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his equals”.

Five years ago Mr Lammy defended the right to a trial by jury. Writing for The Telegraph in 2020, he said jury service ensured “fairness and representation in the criminal justice system” and formed “part of the bedrock of our democracy”.

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: “David Lammy once proudly defended jury trials, but now he’s in office he’s getting rid of them in virtually every case. Scrapping this pillar of our constitution because of the administrative failure to reduce the court backlog is a disgrace.”

The reforms also put Mr Lammy on a collision course with the legal profession. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said removing jury trials undermined “a fundamental feature of the British constitution, and the British justice system, for over 800 years”.

Barbara Mills KC, the head of the Bar Council, which represents 18,000 barristers, said the criminal justice system was not in crisis because of jury trials. Untested judge-only courts would not “significantly reduce the crown court backlog”.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said the right to a jury trial was an “absolute cornerstone” of the criminal justice system. “To get rid of it requires a justification. The only justification is the fact that successive governments over 30 years neglected the criminal justice system so that it’s almost impossible to operate because of the backlogs.

“That doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to remove something that involves the public and community in the administration of justice and something that I have seen as of great importance to this country.”

Dame Alison Saunders, the former director of public prosecutions, said the plan was “surprising” and did not withstand “real examination”. “To sweep away a fundamental principle of the system because of practicalities … is quite worrying,” she said.

The document warned that with the court backlogs at nearly 80,000 cases, double what it was in 2019 and heading towards 100,000, “failure to turn the tide … would mean a gradual gridlock in the criminal courts and possible wider system collapse”.

Some cases are now being scheduled for 2029, with defendants increasingly “playing the system” by pleading not guilty and choosing a jury trial in order to boost the chances of proceedings collapsing.

The changes will mean that as many as 75 per cent of trials will be heard by a judge alone instead of a jury. As well as offences with sentences of up to five years, judges will also sit alone to hear complex fraud, financial and cyber crime cases, ending the need for juries to give up a year or more of their lives.

Defendants will also lose their automatic right to appeal under the plans. Instead, it will be replaced with a requirement for permission to appeal.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “No final decision has been taken by the Government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims — with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising — which will require bold action to put right.”

[Source: Daily Telegraph]