David Lammy is under pressure after reports the Government is seeking to row back on controversial plans to scrap jury trials.
Just 48 hours after Mr Lammy’s briefing document was leaked, justice officials were left scrambling following reports that the Government was already seeking to water down the controversial reforms.
The Deputy Prime Minister was accused of cowardice and ‘constitutional vandalism’ amid a furious backlash from MPs, judges and lawyers after it emerged that around 95 per cent of jury trials may be axed under his plans to tackle the crown court backlog.
The leaked memo sent to senior civil servants in all government departments stated all criminal cases where there is a possible sentence of up to five years would be determined by a judge in future, with the only exceptions being murder, rape, manslaughter or cases deemed to be in the ‘public interest’.
It stated: ‘The Deputy Prime Minister has now taken his final decisions and is currently seeking collective agreement via write round.’
But on Thursday, things seemed less certain after unconfirmed reports that the Government is set to scale back the reforms, which will be less far-reaching than envisaged after ministers were taken by surprise by the level of the backlash, including from their own MPs.
The Government has insisted that ‘no final decision has been taken’, but Mr Lammy’s absence from a bruising debate in the Commons did not go unnoticed, as furious MPs accused Mr Lammy of ‘constitutional vandalism’.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick demanded to know: ‘Where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send a search party to Saville Row in case he’s taken the morning off again?
Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy was missing from the Commons after the shake-up was revealed
Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, accused the Government of not trusting ‘ordinary people’ with law
‘Or perhaps he couldn’t face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the principles he once championed.’
He highlighted Mr Lammy’s hypocrisy on the matter, after the Justice Secretary previously described jury trials as ‘fundamental to our democracy – we must protect them’.
Mr Jenrick accused the Government of not trusting ‘ordinary people’ with law and order, after analysis by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) suggested more than 77,000 jury cases could be axed, with around 95 per cent of crown court cases heard only by a judge under the plans.
Justice minister Sarah Sackman defended Mr Lammy, claiming his previous comments were ‘obviously in a very different context’ and stressing that the ‘most serious cases’ would still be decided by jurors under the plans.
She insisted: ‘The right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.’
Ms Sackman told the Commons that 60 per cent of rape victims are pulling out of trials due to delays and criminals are ‘literally laughing in the dock’.
But a number of Labour MPs raised concerns that shelving jury trials could lead to more racial discrimination in the justice system.
Kim Johnson pointed out that Mr Lammy’s own review of racism in the criminal justice system in 2017 ‘found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias.’
The Labour MP added that there is no evidence the plans will reduce the backlog and they risk ‘deepening disproportionality and undermining the confidence in the justice system’.
Mr Jenrick, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and 54 other MPs have sent a joint letter demanding the Government increase court sitting days instead of taking a ‘constitutional axe’ to 800 years of jury trials.
CBA Chair Riel Karmy-Jones, KC, said the reforms will ‘destroy justice we know it’ adding: ‘If the latest Government proposals are legislated for by Parliament it seems that about 95 per cent of trials would be heard by judge alone.
‘There must be serious concerns about miscarriages of justice under these proposals, as they will affect tens of thousands of people, young and old, from all ethnic backgrounds, whose fate will fall to be decided by a single judge, without the check and balance that a jury of 12 provides.
‘Victims of serious crime, including serious violent and sexual crime, and those accused of such offences may be deprived of any sense of justice if juries are in effect all but eviscerated from the justice system.’
