Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy has been put on notice that he faces a substantial rebellion from his own Labour MPs over controversial plans to dramatically curtail the right to a jury trial in England and Wales.
Backbench Fury Over 'Barmy' Proposals
This week, Mr Lammy unveiled proposals to establish new 'swift courts' where a judge would sit alone, without a jury, to hear a wide range of criminal cases. The move is aimed at tackling the severe backlog in the crown court system, which is projected to hit 100,000 cases by 2028. However, the plans have sparked immediate and fierce opposition from within his party.
Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East and a former barrister, has vowed to break the party whip to vote against the measures. He warned that many of his colleagues would join him, setting the stage for a humiliating parliamentary defeat for the government.
In scathing criticism, Mr Turner branded the policy "the daftest idea that any justice secretary of any political party could ever have come up with" and called it "absolutely stark raving barmy". He accused the Deputy PM of being "fundamentally dishonest", stating that the claim the reforms are needed to fix the backlog is a "complete lie".
What the Reforms Would Change
The core of Mr Lammy's plan involves removing the defendant's right to choose a jury trial for 'either way' offences if the likely sentence upon conviction is relatively short. Under the proposed new system:
- Cases with a "likely" jail term of up to two years would be overseen by a panel of newly empowered magistrates.
- Offences potentially carrying a three-year sentence would be heard by a single judge in a new crown court bench division.
- Complex fraud trials, requiring specialist knowledge, would also be heard by a judge alone.
- Only crimes punishable by more than three years in prison would automatically go before a jury in a crown court.
This means that while serious crimes like rape would retain jury trials, offences such as certain sexual assaults, stalking, and sharing indecent images could be decided by a judge or magistrates.
A Stunning U-Turn and a Battle Over Backlog Causes
The controversy is heightened by Mr Lammy's own past comments. Just five years ago, he wrote that "criminal trials without juries are a bad idea". Now, he argues the reforms are "desperately needed" to end "agonising delays" for victims.
Mr Turner and other critics fundamentally reject this reasoning. In an article for The House magazine, Turner argued that eroding jury trials is a "dereliction of duty" and an ineffective solution. He contends the "primary cause" of the backlog is the government's restriction on the number of days courts can sit.
"The House of Commons and the country more broadly will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right," Turner wrote. He reiterated his threat to rebel, adding, "and so will many more Labour MPs."
In a detailed breakdown on LBC, Turner, who described Lammy as "one of my pals", dismantled the Justice Secretary's statistical argument. He explained that only a tiny fraction of total cases—approximately 3%—actually proceed to a jury trial, with many of those pleading guilty on the day. "The argument that this system is causing the backlog is just a complete lie," he stated.
The stage is now set for a major political and constitutional clash within the Labour Party, pitting the leadership's policy agenda against backbench defence of a centuries-old legal right.
