Why Labour MPs are revolting over plans to curb jury trials

As a Christmas gift, yet another backbench rebellion must be something of a disappointment for the prime minister and his lord chancellor, David Lammy. Almost 40 Labour MPs have signed a letter to Keir Starmer telling him that Lammy’s proposal to scale back the number of trials by jury is “madness”. Signatories, led by Hull East MP Karl Turner, also warn that “there is a growing number of our colleagues who are not prepared to support these proposals”.

For a government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority, it seems to struggle to retain the loyalty of its own parliamentarians.

They argue that Lammy’s reforms aren’t just an assault on an ancient human right, but that they are based on a flawed analysis of the situation and just won’t work. As the letter puts it: “The backlog has been caused by a multitude of complex, interrelated factors, including of course the Covid-19 pandemic, and it will require a complex response to fix. The drastic restriction of the right to trial by jury is not a silver bullet. To limit a fundamental right for what will make a marginal difference to the backlog, if any, is madness and will cause more problems than it solves.”

This is not clear. It’s certainly the case that the backlogs have built up as a result of a lack of funds, a shortage of judges and the pandemic, and that more money would relieve the situation; however, Lammy’s case, implicitly, is that the Treasury won’t release the money, and faster trials save money. This can be achieved by eliminating the jury element in cases where it is deemed not vital (in this instance, for offences carrying less than a three-year sentence). Turner and the critics say this saving is “marginal”; Lammy disagrees, but the point hasn’t yet been proven either way.

Lawyers have laid into the details of Lammy’s proposals, which will need to be cleaned up before they become legislation. Barrister Joanna Hardy-Susskind, for example, points out: “It seems once a judge has told you the case is worth less than three years and you are denied a jury trial, they can then give you more than three years anyway – ‘no jury trial for you because this was only worth 18 months but now I’ve heard the evidence it’s worth 4 years and if I’d known that before you’d have got a jury trial.’”

Although growing, the numbers aren’t there to overturn the government’s majority of 148, but you never know. The botched welfare reforms last summer illustrate how even a central piece of government business can be defeated if handled badly enough.

Like the changes to social security for sick and disabled people, these jury reforms are complex and will meet stiff resistance from vested interests. Also, and just like other rebellions, what starts with a fairly leftish group of serial rebels can draw in others – including the 2024 intake, which seems to be more “soft left” rather than Blairite in its outlook.

It is almost certain that the opposition parties will unite with Labour rebels to force revisions to the Lammy reforms, or even their withdrawal.

They’re both trained lawyers and have the full resources of the state behind them, but history tells us that legal reform is peculiarly difficult. It wouldn’t be surprising if the political battle were accompanied by a parallel one through the courts – some sort of judicial review on human rights grounds, for example.

Even Margaret Thatcher, another lawyer by trade, abandoned a plan to open up the bar to solicitors.