Can Labour save a failing system by hollowing out its safeguards? David Lammy, the justice secretary, thinks so. Under his proposals, jury trials in England and Wales will be effectively halved. Currently, defendants charged with “either-way” offences have the right to choose whether to be tried by magistrates or a jury. But Mr Lammy wants any case where the likely sentence is less than three years – everything from sexual offences to theft to violence to narco-crime – to be judge-only. This is the most sweeping change to criminal justice in modern British history. Only the gravest crimes – such as murder and rape – will retain lay participation.
Mr Lammy once said juries filter prejudice. He should rethink plans to strip away ancient rights without evidence they will speed up justice. Jury trials account for less than 3% of all criminal cases. They are not what clogs the system. Sir Brian Leveson, whose review Mr Lammy cites as inspiration, did not recommend a blanket scrapping of defendants’ right to opt for a jury. He did not suggest using speculative sentence predictions to determine the mode of trial. He did not propose removing lay participation from “either-way” trials. He did not call for expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years, nor for judge-only trials across whole categories of crime.
