𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

A Labour minister has been lampooned with a new nickname after claiming that jury trials would be scrapped even if there was no crown court backlog. Courts minister Sarah Sackman effectively torpedoed her own Government’s arguments to axe half of jury trials when she said: “People ask me, Sarah, would you be doing this if there wasn’t a crisis in our courts? And I say yes.”

The Ministry of Justice wants to scrap the right of defendants to “elect” a jury trial for either-way offences, which can be heard in either a crown or magistrates’ court. Instead, judges will assess the case and rule that it be heard by magistrates or a Crown Court Bench Division if it is likely to result in a sentence of less than three years in prison. It means some sexual assault, burglary, drug dealing and robbery cases will now be heard by a single judge.

Standing in for Justice Secretary David Lammy, Ms Sackman said: “We need a better system – one where courts, not criminals, triage cases. One that makes better use of jurors’ time, and so that someone accused of shoplifting is not in the same queue as another victim.

“No one has had the guts to take on a programme of reform of this scale. But this Government does have the guts.”

She claimed she had listened to the concerns of detractors and said: “I’m not putting my fingers in my ears.”

But Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick hit back at Ms Sackman for revealing Labour’s true colours on the issue, while legal sources branded her “Ms Double Down stealing our juries”.

Mr Jenrick said: “Labour just said the quiet part out loud. David Lammy’s plan to slash jury trials is ideological, not practical.

“Like Blair before them, they don’t like jury trials. They just don’t trust ordinary people.”

Ministers have warned that the backlog of crown court cases could rise to 100,000 by 2028 if nothing is done, with a growing number of victims giving up on seeking justice because of the lengthy delays.

But ministers faced mutiny from their own Labour MPs, with Karl Turner branding it a “ludicrous proposal”.

“I will vote against this ludicrous proposal every step of the way, including voting with the Opposition,” he said.

“These proposals will not reduce the backlog one iota.

“I don’t dispute the fact it is quicker for a single judge.

“But what happens to the writing up? What happens to the judgment? Giving the reasons.

“That doesn’t take minutes. It’ll take days. So any savings are lost by having to write up the reasons.

“The Secretary of State for Justice would have been going off his head about the prospect of this being proposed by the previous Conservative government.”

Andrew Thomas, vice-chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “Rape trials have been disproportionality hit by the crown court backlog, compared to other types of serious crime.

“Judges are required to fast-track cases where a defendant has been remanded in custody.

“Solutions are not difficult to find. The Government could act on recommendations to open specialist courts for rape and serious sexual offences, along the lines of the extra ‘Nightingale’ courts, which were really successful during the Covid pandemic.

“David Lammy has been clear. His proposed changes to jury trials will not be retrospective, so they will do nothing for the cases which are already in the backlog.

“Also, rape cases will still be tried by jury.

“Getting rid of juries is not the solution. Funding for specialist courts is the best way to remedy the injustice in rape cases.”