𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

David Lammy is facing a political backlash after reports emerged that the Government is preparing to scale back his controversial plans to restrict jury trials in England and Wales. The controversy erupted just 48 hours after a memo reportedly written by Mr Lammy was leaked to senior civil servants in all government departments.

The document reportedly stated that all criminal cases carrying a possible sentence of up to five years would be decided by a judge alone, with exceptions only for murder, rape, manslaughter, or cases deemed to be in the public interest. According to the memo, Mr Lammy “has now taken his final decisions and is currently seeking collective agreement via write round”.

But the Mail and Financial Times have both reported that the Government is reconsidering the scope of the reforms after ministers were taken by surprise by the intensity of the backlash, including from their own MPs.

The apparent retreat has fuelled suggestions that Mr Lammy is making a U-turn, moving closer to the recommendations of retired High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, which would limit judge-only trials to lower-level offences and reserve juries for serious cases and complex fraud.

Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, said, “The Government does not trust ordinary people with law and order, suggesting a ‘lawyers know best’ approach.

“Or perhaps he couldn’t face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.”

He highlighted Mr Lammy’s previous description of jury trials as “fundamental to our democracy – we must protect them,” calling the current proposals a stark reversal.

The scale of the proposed changes has alarmed MPs and legal figures. The Criminal Bar Association suggested more than 77,000 jury cases could be axed, meaning around 95 per cent of Crown Court trials would be judged without a jury.

Kim Johnson, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said: “The 2017 Lammy Review found jury trials were the only part consistently free from racial discrimination.” She added: “Restricting juries risks deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system.”

Brian Leishman, Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said: “Judges tend to be privately educated and predominantly white, unlike representative juries,” raising concerns about fairness and public trust.

Kiel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “The reforms will destroy justice we know. About 95 % of trials would be heard by judge alone. Victims of serious crime, and those accused, may be deprived of any sense of justice if juries are in effect all but eviscerated from the system.”

Brian Altman KC, barrister, told the FT: “Implementing judge-only trials would require significant retraining and investment, and I doubt it would reduce court backlogs in the short term.”

Justice Minister Sarah Sackman said: “No final decisions have been taken and jury trials for the most serious cases will be retained.” She defended the reforms as necessary to modernise the courts and reduce delays, noting that “60 % of rape victims withdraw from trials due to long waiting times,” while some defendants reportedly “laugh in the dock” because of the backlog.

Ms Sackman added: “The right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. Around 90 % of all criminal cases are already dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates without a jury.”

Jeremy Corbyn, former Labour leader and independent MP, said: “It is a fundamental right in our system. It should not be undermined because the Government has a current and temporary, hopefully temporary, problem about capacity.”

Sir Edward Leigh, Conservative MP and Father of the House, said: “Jury trials are the greatest defence against totalitarianism.” Sian Berry, former Green Party co-leader, said: “Curtailing juries, combined with measures such as digital ID and facial recognition, risks creating a toolkit for authoritarians.”

The apparent U-turn comes as officials emphasise that any changes will now closely follow Sir Brian Leveson’s review.

The second part of the Leveson review, focusing on court processes and the use of technology, is due by the end of the year and is expected to influence the Government’s final position.