Discontent among MPs may lead to the defeat of proposed changes to jury trials, according to a Labour MP who is standing against the new plans.
Karl Turner, representing Kingston upon Hull East, expressed his confidence that backbench MPs will successfully challenge the government’s initiative to limit jury trials to only the most serious offenses. Speaking on Times Radio, he shared that many members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) are quite frustrated with Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy regarding this policy, suggesting that the Prime Minister should feel embarrassed by these developments.
Turner, who has a background as a criminal barrister, stated, "I have asked the Prime Minister for a face-to-face meeting specifically about this issue, and I expect him to direct Lammy to reconsider his approach." He emphasized that the dissatisfaction among the party ranks is palpable, highlighting that this change was not included in the party's manifesto.
He added, "If it were the Conservative government proposing such a move, Labour MPs, including Starmer and Lammy, would be outraged."
Moreover, he pointed out that several legal authorities, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, and the Criminal Bar Association, have privately expressed doubts about the feasibility of this policy. He noted that even Sir Brian Leveson suggested that further analysis is required before implementing such changes, indicating that there is no certainty it would be effective.
In Turner’s 16 years as a Labour MP, he has never voted against the party line, but he believes that if the government is reckless enough to introduce this legislation as part of the courts bill later this year, there is a strong likelihood it will be defeated.
Currently, if Lammy’s proposed reforms pass through Parliament, juries would only be involved in high-profile cases such as murder, rape, or manslaughter, while most other cases would be adjudicated by judges alone unless they are deemed particularly severe or are in the public interest.
David Lammy, the Secretary of State for Justice, advocates for this restrictive approach, maintaining that juries should handle only the gravest cases. In a memo disclosed in November, Lammy indicated to fellow ministers and senior civil servants across government departments that a re-evaluation of jury trials is necessary due to a lack of constitutional guarantee for such rights in the UK and to address the growing backlog of cases in the crown courts of England and Wales.
This initiative will necessitate the introduction of primary legislation into the House early this year. Lammy’s plan to establish a new court tier where serious crimes would be judged solely by judges diverges significantly from Leveson’s recommendations, which suggested forming an intermediate court with a judge and two lay magistrates. Lammy's recent communication hinted at removing the lay element in trials for many serious offenses.
Turner remarked that the PLP is reacting strongly after experiencing a series of controversial policy reversals. He cited examples such as winter fuel payments, welfare benefits, and changes to inheritance tax for farmers, noting that many in the Labour Party are taken aback by these decisions.
He asserted, "The PLP is understandably shocked by these policy choices. Why wouldn’t we be surprised about the jury trial changes? The evidence does not support any link between jury trials and the backlog of cases. It’s clear that this is not about addressing delays; rather, it seems to be an ideological move to diminish the number of jury trials. We are rightly upset about this. I reached out to Keir Starmer and told him he should be ashamed, and I feel the same way about David Lammy."
