{"id":272638,"date":"2025-12-02T10:14:38","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T10:14:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=272638"},"modified":"2025-12-02T10:14:38","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T10:14:38","slug":"david-lammy-expected-to-back-down-on-plans-to-scrap-most-jury-trials-trial-by-jury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/david-lammy-expected-to-back-down-on-plans-to-scrap-most-jury-trials-trial-by-jury\/","title":{"rendered":"David Lammy expected to back down on plans to scrap most jury trials | Trial by jury"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

David Lammy is expected to back down from removing jury trials for all but the most serious charges of murder, manslaughter and rape, but trial by jury will still be radically reduced for more minor offences.<\/p>\n

The justice secretary said there had been \u201ccabinet feedback\u201d on the plans and suggested on Tuesday he was minded to follow the recommendation in a report by the retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson that \u201ceither-way\u201d offences<\/a> likely to result in a sentence of three years or less should be dealt with by the magistrates courts or a new judge-only division.<\/p>\n

A memo leaked last week had suggested Lammy was looking at going further<\/a>, suggesting jury trials would be applicable only for public interest offences with possible prison sentences of more than five years, removing the ancient right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury.<\/p>\n

Lammy has described the current court backlog as a \u201ccourts emergency\u201d<\/a> that will surpass 100,000 outstanding cases, saying it is leaving victims waiting years for justice.<\/p>\n

The proposals expected to be tabled by Lammy on Tuesday would now be closer in line with the report by Leveson, who had suggested diverting more offences to magistrates courts or to a new intermediate court called the crown court bench division.<\/p>\n

Speaking on Sky News, Lammy said: \u201cWhere should the threshold be? [Leveson] suggested it should be three years \u2026 and that\u2019s what I\u2019m looking at.\u201d<\/p>\n

That threshold would be likely to mean more serious offences beyond rape, murder and manslaughter would be looked at by juries, but lesser assaults, thefts and handling stolen goods could be dealt with by magistrates or judge-only trials.<\/p>\n

The justice secretary suggested on Sky News that discussions in cabinet had led to the current proposals, raising the prospect there had been a cabinet backlash to such radical reforms.<\/p>\n

Lammy dismissed it as a \u201cprocess question\u201d \u2013 but added: \u201cI\u2019m going to be making a statement to parliament later and setting out my view. There is a process by which you discuss with cabinet colleagues what you might be looking at. They feed back. You make a judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked if there had been a backlash, Lammy said: \u201cOf course you discuss these things with cabinet colleagues. It\u2019s on that basis that you reach a judgment, and I\u2019ll be laying out that judgment later on.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

He said: \u201cI also believe fundamentally in the jury system, and I thank the 300,000 or so people every year that play a role in our juries. It\u2019s fundamental in our system. I\u2019ve stood up for juries all of my life, fundamental belief in it. But I don\u2019t want the system to collapse. I want it to continue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposals have faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals<\/a>, including from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council, which said: \u201cThere is no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury \u2013 from both a principle and practical position.\u201d<\/p>\n

Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases and lesser \u201ceither way\u201d offences when a judge deems it appropriate.<\/p>\n

The Law Society of England and Wales said it had not seen any \u201creal evidence\u201d it would work to reduce the backlog. Keir Monteith KC, the criminal barrister who has raised issues of institutional racism to help quash the convictions of young black men, said: \u201cLammy\u2019s 180 degree U-turn to replace juries with judges is not only unconstitutional and politically naive but it will create further unfairness and miscarriages of justice for black and minority ethnic defendants.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the MoJ, nearly half of the cases in the backlog concern alleged violent and sexual offences, and only about 3% of criminal cases are heard with a judge and a jury.<\/p>\n

Lammy also confirmed that two prisoners were still at large after being released in error. He told LBC he could not give details of the circumstances of the two prisoners.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n