Judges can be vulnerable to intimidation by prison gangs if majority of jury trials are axed, high barrister warns

Judges would be at risk of intimidation by criminal gangs if the majority of jury trials are abolished, a senior barrister warned today. 

Justice Secretary David Lammy is expected to unveil plans to restrict juries to serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape or terrorism. 

Other verdicts would be delivered by judges in a new, lower tier of courts, according to the contentious proposals. 

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association – which represents criminal barristers – fears the overhaul could leave judges more vulnerable.

‘It’s easier to intimidate one person than it is to intimidate 12,’ she told the FT. ‘It’s easier to identify one person than it is to identify 12.’

Ms Karmy-Jones warned ‘there could be risks’ in cases where ‘there’s a lot at stake’ for defendants. 

She gave as one example fraud cases that ‘may well have money behind them’. 

A leaked memo sent to senior civil servants stated all criminal cases where there is a possible sentence of up to five years would be determined by a judge in future. 

The only exceptions would be murder, rape, manslaughter or cases deemed to be in the ‘public interest’.

The Government has insisted that ‘no final decision has been taken’ on the reforms – which have been mooted as a way to clear a record court backlog of nearly 80,000 cases. 

Justice Secretary David Lammy is expected to unveil plans to limit jury trials to serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape or terrorism

While reports of intimidation of juries and judges are rare, Ms Karmy-Jones suggested any roll-back of jury trials would ‘change the equation’.  

‘Judges might well find that they have to have security measures in place to protect them going to and from court,’ she said. 

‘Judges would have to write their judgments, which would be public, and as individuals they are more exposed to threat as a result,’ she added.

The proposals have been met with a furious response from much of the legal profession, including Sir Keir Starmer’s former chambers.

Doughty Street Chambers, where Keir Starmer worked for more than 15 years, said the plan was ‘wrong in principle’.

And the leading human rights set claimed there was ‘no evidence’ that cutting back on criminal trials heard by jurors would help tackle the backlog of Crown Court cases.

Its intervention will put more pressure on Mr Lammy, who is expected to tell MPs this week that victims will be denied justice without radical reforms to the system.

Doughty Street Chambers, whose current roster of barristers includes Amal Clooney, said in a statement: ‘Trial by jury is a deeply entrenched constitutional principle and anchors our liberal democracy… We are firmly opposed to the proposals to remove trial by jury for all but the most serious of crimes.

‘These proposals are wrong in principle, and there is no evidence that they will resolve the current backlog. Anyone who works within the criminal justice system will know that the problems have been caused by chronic underfunding over a number of years.’

The Tories said the intervention was an embarrassment for Sir Keir, who helped set up Doughty Street in 1990 and was appointed Joint Head of Chambers in 2007 before becoming Director of Public Prosecutions the following year. 

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Daily Mail: ‘This is the latest embarrassment for the Prime Minister.

‘The right to be tried by our peers has existed for more than 800 years – it is not to be casually discarded when the spreadsheets turn red. Keir Starmer and David Lammy once knew this – but now they’re in charge they have sold out their principles.

‘Labour would rather strip you of your rights than strip the state of its waste and fund the courts to sit around the clock. It’s yet more evidence that this Government is not on the side of the British people.’

In another illustration of the widespread opposition to the plan, a Labour MP described it as ‘utterly ridiculous’.

In a social media post directed at Mr Lammy, backbencher Karl Turner wrote: ‘Doing away with jury trials will make little difference to the backlog but it will make a world of difference to our democracy and our justice system. This utterly ridiculous idea needs putting in the bin fast.’

Even sitting judges have joined in the backlash. The Sunday Times told how two judges at Isleworth Crown Court made pointed comments to jurors last week about the importance of the jury trial system.

Mr Lammy’s proposal goes further than the recommendation in a review by retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson, who said offences with sentences of less than three years should not be heard by juries.

The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: ‘No final decision has been taken by government. 

‘We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims – with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising – which will require bold action to put right.’