David Lammy announces new “swift courts,” aimed at
delivering rapid verdicts in thousand cases, marking a major reform push in the
UK’s judicial system.
The justice secretary announced proposals to eliminate
juries in so-called either-way cases that would likely result in a sentence of
three years or less in prison as part of extensive changes to the criminal
court system in England and Wales.
These include crimes like theft, affray, burglary, and
threats to kill. Serious offences, including murder, robbery, grievous bodily
harm and rape, will still go before a jury.
In response to criticism from the legal community and
political rivals, Mr. Lammy, the deputy prime minister, maintained that the
changes were "bold but necessary" because victims are experiencing
"agonizing delays" in the system; by 2028, the backlog in the crown
court is expected to reach 100,000.
After the original plans were released, Lord Chief judicial
Sir Brian Leveson, who suggested a series of proposals to tackle the court
backlog, described the judicial system as being “on the brink of collapse”.
Although he generally applauded the initiatives, he warned that there was
"no silver bullet" to address the situation.
The Conservatives denounced the measures as the “beginning
of the end of jury trials”, suggesting that Mr Lammy was tearing away centuries
of individual rights.
However, a Merlin Strategy survey of 2,000 voters found that
between 40% and 34% of respondents supported the revisions.
Announcing his criminal court reform in the Commons, Mr Lammy said:
“I will create new swift courts within the crown court with a judge alone deciding verdicts in trial of either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends.
Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20 per cent faster than jury trials, and whilst jury deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open courts, so this will hardwire transparency in our new approach.”
“The changes I’m proposing will require legislation, it will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect.
But we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition is for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this parliament remains.”
Currently, offenders of either-way charges can have their
cases tried in the magistrates’ court or crown court, where they can elect to
have a jury trial. However, this option will no longer be available to defendants
under the plans.
The idea to cancel additional jury trials has already met
opposition from MPs and legal professionals concerned over fairness,
restricting rights and a lack of evidence the measure will even assist bring
down the backlog.
The crown court queue is at present at an all-time high of
more than 78,000 cases, and some cases are being set as far in the future as
2030.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, responded to
Mr. Lammy by accusing him of "twisted logic."
He accused him of “ripping up Magna Carta” and of betraying
his values while in administration, having previously defended juries.
“This year alone, 21,000 court sitting days have been missed and the court backlog is up 10 per cent on their watch,”
he said.
“Instead of depriving British citizens of ancient liberties, David Lammy should get his own department in order.”
Labour MPs also urged against the revisions amid concerns
they would diminish people's legal rights.
Eltham and Chislehurst MP Clive Efford warned it will “create an us and them” situation in the legal system, while Stella Creasy said:
“I think many of us will worry whether the justice secretary’s prescription is the solution because, as he points out, jury trials account for less than 3 per cent of cases.”
Only around 3% of criminal cases are now heard with a judge
and a jury, according to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and roughly half of the
backlog of cases are related to violent and sexual offenses.
The reforms "send a chill through my heart," according
to Leeds MP Richard Burgon.
Diane Abbott warned men and women will “undoubtedly suffer
miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed”.
Just minutes after Mr. Lammy's statement, Winchester Crown
Court Judge Jane Miller KC stated that she thought juries were essential for
their "objectivity."
In order to handle more cases involving both parties,
magistrates will be able to impose penalties of up to 18 months in prison, as
opposed to the present 12 months. The powers could even be extended to 24
months if necessary.
Some £550m will also be granted to victim support agencies
over the next three years to help survivors and witnesses through the judicial
process, such as through therapy and advice on attending court.
Incoming victims’ commissioner Claire Waxman, who will take up the role in the new year, welcomed the MoJ funding as a “necessary step”, but added:
“The sums pledged are not a silver bullet for the wider crisis facing the sector.
Ultimately, these services are crucial to a victim’s recovery – and they will be just as essential to the recovery of the justice system as a whole.”
He said:
“We ought to pause long and hard before we remove the lay element from trying the more serious cases.”
Mark Jones, criminal defence partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, warned:
"Eroding access to jury trials is not justice. Jury decision-making is a vital safeguard, bringing public scrutiny and diverse perspectives to the justice system."
Former Law Society president Richard Atkinson said the extra
financing was helpful but “only papers over the cracks and doesn’t address the
fundamental problems”.
The changes are a reaction to Sir Brian's July suggestions
to restructure the legal system.
In his study, the former senior judge ruled there is “no
constitutional or common law” right, or right within European human rights law,
for a defendant to be tried by a jury, and so there was no need to limit
reforms.
On Tuesday, he said:
“In more than 50 years working in the criminal justice system, I have never seen pressure on the courts at such an unacceptable level.
The rising backlog in the crown court means victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting months, sometimes years, for cases to come to trial – unable to move on with their lives. It is no exaggeration to say that the system stands on the brink of collapse.”
What legal challenges could be mounted against removing jury trials?
Challenges under Composition 6 ECHR( right to fair trial)
could argue judge-only trials undermine equity and public confidence,
especially without a jury's lay perspective. While not absolute,
proportionality must be shown; critics claim backlog does not justify mask
junking for thousands of cases, potentially violating HRA s. 3 interpretation
duties.
Jury trial is an "abecedarian principle" of
English common law( Bushell's Case 1670), defended by Magna Carta( clause 39).
Judicial review might test if reforms infringe verbal indigenous rights, with
courts assessing necessity via Leveson review substantiation. Precedents like R
v Sussex judges advise against" appearance of bias."
Claims under Equality Act 2010 or Composition 14 ECHR could purport difference for vulnerable defendants( e.g., ethnical nonages stewing judicial bias), citing Lammy Review findings on systemic difference. Lack of jury diversity might transgress representativeness morals.