Government plans for court reform could make it more likely for defendants with previous convictions to face a jury trial than those with clean records, MPs have warned.
This disparity is an "unintended consequence" of a proposed new trial allocation process, which will factor in the likely length of a sentence when deciding if a case should be heard by a jury, a Justice Committee report stated.
Under the Sentencing Code, previous convictions are an "aggravating factor", meaning repeat offenders are likely to face longer jail terms, thus increasing their chances of a jury trial.
The government’s proposals, following recommendations from a review by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson last year, suggest cases with a likely sentence of three years or less would be heard by a single crown court judge.
Magistrates would potentially deal with cases carrying a likely sentence of up to two years.
A law reform charity called the issue "deeply unfair", while shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said it was "not right".
“If a defendant has previous convictions, then under the Government’s proposals, they are more likely to be allocated a jury trial than a defendant charged with the same offence who has never been convicted of a criminal offence,” the Justice Committee said.
The Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association’ told the committee the “differential impact” on defendants would amount to “a penalty for being of good character”.
The process could also disproportionally affect children, who should usually receive a sentence of between half and two-thirds of what an adult would get under sentencing guidelines.
Fiona Rutherford, chief executive of the campaign group Justice, told the Press Association: “By reserving jury trials for the most serious offences, the Government confirms it sees juries as the gold standard.
“It is deeply unfair on both victims and defendants that those with previous convictions are more likely to retain that protection than those with none.
“This is one of the many reasons the Government should drop jury trial cuts and turn to measures to actually improve the court backlog, such as better scheduling, prisoner transport and legal aid.”
Mr Timothy told PA: “Under Labour’s reforms a repeat offender will be more likely to get a jury trial than a first-time offender facing the same charge. This is not right.
“The right to a jury trial, whoever you are, is one of the foundations of our constitution.
“Labour are taking this right away – except, it seems, for repeat offenders.”
The Courts and Tribunals Bill cleared its first Commons hurdle despite dissent from Labour backbenchers, including accusations from one MP that Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy was using victims as a “cudgel” to push them through.
Charlotte Nichols, who represents Warrington North, spoke publicly for the first time about being raped, as she said “experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection”.
Meanwhile, Kingston upon Hull MP Karl Turner, a qualified barrister who has been an outspoken critic of the proposals, lost the Labour whip.
The founder of Sir Keir Starmer’s former barristers’ chambers is among those to have condemned the plans.
Geoffrey Robertson KC said the proposed reforms would “take an axe to a piece of English heritage”.
Elsewhere, the Justice Committee said it was not convinced that magistrates’ courts will be able to cope with the potential increase in caseload as a result of the reforms.
It also said the target of reaching 21,000 magistrates by 2029 is unrealistic and there is a chronic shortage of suitably qualified legal advisers.
