THE Shadow Justice Secretary has accused David Lammy of ripping up ancient liberties instead of putting “a bit of money” into the justice system.
Speaking on GB News, Robert Jenrick said: “David Lammy used to be a strong proponent of jury trials and now he’s in office he’s scrapping them in all but the most rarest cases, all for fixing an abject failure in the administration of the court that has led to this massive backlog.
“There is a different way to handle this situation without getting rid of our most ancient liberty as a pillar of our Constitution: get the court sitting around the clock, as David Lammy himself used to advocate.
“And as it happens, the Lady Chief Justice, the most senior person in our judiciary, was actually in Parliament today, telling MPs that there are more courts that could be sitting. There are more sitting days and she’s offered the government this solution.
“They’ve rejected it on cost grounds, and instead of actually doing that, getting on with the hard yards of governing, David Lammy is ripping up this ancient part of our constitution.
“It’s not often that I agree with David Lammy, but I agree with the old David Lammy. He was absolutely right to say that when there’s an administrative failure, you don’t reach in the first instance, for ripping up something that’s existed for hundreds and hundreds of years in our country, that’s a gift that we’ve given to the rest of the world.
“Instead, you actually do the hard yards. Get the court sitting around the clock. Today, there are actually dozens of courthouses across the country that are either not sitting at all or half of the courtrooms are empty.
“There is a better route for this, which is just to tackle the administrative failure of the system, not to rip up our ancient liberties.
“I believe in people who are being charged with very serious offences being able to go before their peers and ultimately submitting themselves to the common sense of British men and women, as has happened for generations.
“I think the Labour Party, Keir Starmer and now it seems David Lammy as well, ultimately believe that the rule of law means rule by lawyers and judges, and that is a fundamental difference of opinion.
“We in this country for a very long time, arguably, since Magna Carta, have believed that for many offences, the most serious crimes, you should be able to go before a group of your own peers and ask them to decide your guilt or otherwise.
“The senior judge, Lord Leveson, he made this recommendation. I didn’t agree with him at the time, nor did many other people who wanted to defend jury trials. But it seemed like Leveson and Shabana Mahmood, the then Justice Secretary, wanted this more limited intervention, and Lammy has decided to go much further.
“So now it will be very rare that you’ll get a jury trial. It’s only for the most serious cases like murder or rape, and you won’t have this balancing by having magistrates alongside the judge, it will just be a judge.
“It’s basically saying that judges know best and that magistrates or jurors should be out of the picture altogether. Why is this? Well, I think it’s because under Labour, the backlog that was already bad under the last government has just got much, much worse, and it’s growing by 500 cases every month, and it’s completely out of control.
“They don’t know the solution, so to fix that, they’re scrapping jury trials.
“[Removing the right to appeal is] a very strange decision, and one which cuts across basic freedoms in this country; that you stand trial, if you’re found guilty, you’ve got a right to appeal that.
“Now that won’t be the case for everyone, and that’s something that we should all be concerned about. Because if, God forbid, we’re ever in this situation, you’d want to be able to be firstly, in front of your peers in a jury, and then secondly, have the right to appeal that, if you felt you needed to.
“I don’t pretend that everything was perfect under the last government. The main factor that led to this backlog in the courts was actually covid, because during the pandemic, courts weren’t able to sit. It was much more difficult than to bring back juries.
“Actually, there were people at the time saying scrap jury trials. The Conservative government said No, supported by David Lammy and many others, because we felt it was just too important to scrap, even if it led to a backlog in the courts.
“But it’s just getting higher and higher. It’s now 500 cases a month and growing more and more. The answer to this, though, is to get the court sitting around the clock. And as I say, the most senior people in the judiciary, like the Lady Chief Justice, are actually saying that there are courts, from small, local ones to the big ones, like the Old Bailey, where there are courtrooms sat empty, there are judges, there are clerks, there are people ready to organise these trials.
“But instead of giving them the go ahead, which costs a bit of money but is the right thing to do, instead, we’re going to scrap jury trials. I think it’s a total disgrace.”
