Lawyers elevate issues over plans to scrap most jury trials
The Justice Secretary David Lammy wrote to other ministers and senior civil servants warning drastic action was needed to cut the backlog of cases in the crown courts
The Government has been urged to reconsider sweeping reforms that would see jury trials ditched for all but the most serious cases.
According to a memo seen by The Times, the Justice Secretary David Lammy wrote to other ministers and senior civil servants to say that there was “no right” to jury trials in the UK and that drastic action was needed to cut the backlog of cases in the crown courts in England and Wales.
Under the changes, juries would decide only murder, rape or manslaughter cases, with the majority of cases heard by a judge alone.
READ MORE: Jury trials could be ditched for some cases as court backlog reaches record highREAD MORE: Children, families and domestic abuse victims ‘let down by unacceptable court delays’
The plans go well past those recommended by Sir Brian Leveson, who was commissioned to review the criminal courts and reported in July.
Government sources told The Mirror the change would help get through cases quicker, and support victims who were waiting far too long for justice and their day in court.
The move is highly controversial, with senior criminal justice figures already warning it could lead to “star chamber” justice. The Star Chamber sat between the 15th and 17th centuries and had judges hearing cases alone.
Now the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, warned such radical reforms could see trust in the justice system decimated.
Chair of the Bar Council Barbara Mills KC said: “The criminal justice system is not in this crisis because of jury trials.
“Removing the right to jury trial and introducing a new intermediate court has not been piloted or thoroughly modelled with there being little evidence that it will significantly reduce the Crown Court backlog.
“This is a time-consuming measure that requires legislative change and hinges on increasing court resources that could be better diverted to the existing estate.
“The focus should be on fixing the swathe of inefficiencies plaguing the system, which could be resolved and make a real difference now. The government should first test whether efficiency reforms would make a difference before making any major constitutional change.
“At the very least, the proposed intermediate court should be modelled and piloted before doing away with a longstanding tradition, which may result in a further lack of trust and confidence in our criminal justice system.”
The Justice Department has been approached for comment.
