Labour MP Natalie Fleet has issued a powerful plea to her parliamentary colleagues, urging them to back controversial proposals for judge-only criminal trials. The Member of Parliament for Bolsover, who became pregnant at 15 after being groomed and raped by an older man, argues that the current justice system is fundamentally skewed in favour of criminals, leaving victims to suffer through intolerable delays.
A Survivor's Perspective on Systemic Failure
Speaking with stark personal insight, Fleet declared she would actively discourage fellow survivors from seeking justice through the courts under the present arrangements. "The hell of being raped is made worse by the hell of going through delays in the system," she stated, drawing from her own traumatic experience growing up on a council estate in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.
Fleet contrasted this victim experience with the strategic behaviour of offenders. She highlighted how drug dealers facing 'either-way' offences—those that can be tried in either magistrates' or crown courts—routinely opt for lengthy jury trials. "They choose a jury with the intention that they knew it would take longer," Fleet explained, describing this as a deliberate tactic to 'game the system', delay imprisonment, and continue illicit activities.
Backing Lammy's Radical Court Reforms
The MP is a vocal supporter of Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy's proposed overhaul. The plans advocate for a new criminal court structure featuring:
- Magistrates-only hearings for offences carrying a maximum two-year sentence.
- Judge-only trials for complex fraud cases.
- A broader shift intended to accelerate the process and clear the immense backlog, particularly in rape and serious sexual assault cases.
Fleet's endorsement comes amid significant political turbulence. The proposals have ignited fierce backlash from within the legal profession and from dozens of Labour MPs and peers. Notably, Labour MP Karl Turner has threatened to resign and trigger a by-election unless party leader Keir Starmer abandons the plans.
Confronting the 'Barrister Class' and Legal Lobby
In a direct challenge to critics within her own party, Fleet positioned herself firmly on the side of victims. "I'm not angry on behalf of the barrister class and the lawyer lobby. I am angry on behalf of the victims," she asserted. "You can shout and you can scream and you can brief and you can threaten a byelection. Or you can support the government on behalf of victims."
Her comments underscore a deep frustration with the pace and priorities of justice. She cited knowing many women from her community who had been raped, reinforcing her argument that the system's failures are widespread and personal.
Mounting Opposition and Practical Concerns
Despite Lammy's determination to proceed, the path to legislation is fraught. Officials reportedly fear struggling to pass the package through the House of Lords without significant compromise, potentially adding to a list of government policy reversals. Opposition is cemented, with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat frontbenches set to oppose the changes, and 'significant disquiet' persisting among Labour backbenchers.
Eminent legal figures have raised profound concerns. Labour peer Helena Kennedy, President of the campaign group Justice, warned: "At a time of low trust and limited judicial diversity, weakening jury trials could strip the justice system of legitimacy." Former shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti also questioned the wisdom of exceeding the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson's review without including a 'sunset clause' for temporary provisions.
Report Casts Doubt on Time-Saving Benefits
Adding a layer of practical scrutiny, a new report from the Institute for Government (IFG) suggests the time-saving benefits of judge-only trials may be limited. Published on Thursday, the analysis indicates that while the number of jury trials might halve, the overall reduction in courtroom time would likely be only 7-10%. Judge-only trials themselves would contribute to less than a 2% saving of time in crown courts.
This data presents a complex counterpoint to the reform's stated aim of efficiency. It suggests that clearing the notorious court backlog, especially for rape cases—which Fleet passionately argues is critical—may require more than this structural change alone.
Natalie Fleet's intervention, rooted in painful personal history, has ignited a crucial debate about power, delay, and justice. It forces a confrontation between the traditional sanctity of trial by jury and the urgent need for a system that survivors feel they can trust and use.
