David Lammy is to face down Labour rebels next week by pressing full steam ahead with his controversial plans to curb jury trials.
The Justice Secretary is due to unveil the legislation without any alterations despite fierce opposition from within his own party.
Legal professionals are also almost unanimously opposed to the plans, which would see up to half of jury trials scrapped and replaced with judge-only courts or magistrates.
You know, actual fascism and where is The Sage?
Don’t forget, jury nullification is the whole point of the exercise.
Since Blair set the precedent for packing the judiciary and Lammy is setting the precedent for judge-only trials, we should definitely use these weapons in due course for expedited trials of what will be the newly-reinstated offence of misfeasance in public office.
I don’t think this idea came from “null points” Lammy. He’s just the front man for it.
Maybe Lammy would feel more comfortable with Tribal Elders making life and death decisions instead of the messy English system?
That’s what we already have, isn’t it? I think Martin M25 nails it. Falconer is behind this, but there are others behind Falconer.
Lammy doesn’t know how to use bog paper, let alone think about jury trials. I don’t know for sure, obviously, but just judging from the intellectual statements he’s made…
If this stupid idea goes through, it will have to have a catchy name. How about, “Star Chamber”?
I was surprised to see Murphy claiming that the legal profession were near unanimously against it. Apparently he is correct! (had to happen one day).
I had been 100% against scrapping jury trial but if the legal profession are against it, the idea must have merit. Especially as the legal profession would like to see increase in legal aide instead and that clearly would make them richer.
I’m wondering if most criminal law offers low returns to lawyers so few take that path as opposed to the the more lucrative compensation litigation where they can get 40% of the inflated sum awarded.
From the Free Speech Union, the real reason they’re doing this (my emphasis)
“Mr Lammy’s plans must be called out for what they are: a brazen assault on an ancient British right. The court backlog is unacceptably high. However, the solution cannot be to do away with our traditional rights.”
Despite warnings from all four Bar Councils, Starmer’s former mentor, his former chambers, Labour MPs, opposition MPs and victims of crime, David Lammy remains hell-bent on slashing our right to trial by jury.
Courts Minister Sarah Sackman has now confirmed that the plan will apply retrospectively, meaning around 30,000 defendants who expected a jury will instead have their case heard by a lone judge.
Lammy has shown a concerning disdain for due process and appears unwilling to engage with the facts.
Free Speech Union research shows that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in the Crown Court, before a jury, than in a magistrates’ court without one.