Ministers have confirmed those already awaiting trial may lose their right to have their case heard by a jury – in a major escalation in the battle over the future of the justice system.
Weeks after Justice Secretary David Lammy declared the measures would not be retrospective, the courts minister Sarah Sackman has doubled down on the reforms.
She told Sky News that where a trial date has not been set, “what you want is those measures to kick in straight away, so they can bring down the backlog”.
This is likely to inflame the row over the changes, with the Bar Council arguing it could breach a fundamental legal principle and may result in a legal challenge.
Mr Lammy and his team are proposing that if MPs and peers agree, soon almost all crimes with a penalty of up to three years in prison will be tried by only a single judge – with no option to opt for a jury.
In one of the strongest outbursts by a mainstream Labour MP about the party leadership in years, Karl Turner, the lawyer leading the rebellion, said he was “ashamed” of Sir Keir Starmer, called Mr Lammy “lazy”, and told Sky News the government needed to realise he and colleagues may end up quitting the Commons.
“At least 60” Labour colleagues are also willing to rebel over the plans, according to the Hull MP, reaching a tipping point where “it’s not difficult for five more and 10 more and 15 to come on board because you’ve got the security of the numbers”.
“The chief whip can’t start suspending 80 members,” he added.
He warned that if he was threatened, he could end up saying “I’ve had enough, I’m off” – triggering a by-election.
His comments feature in a Sky News investigation into the courts system, as part of a series about whether politics is breaking or mending the UK.
We witnessed hours of court sitting time at Snaresbrook Crown Court taken up by missing paperwork, lawyers, and defendants.
We saw offenders unable to undertake rehabilitation courses, arrest warrants not entered in the police computer system, and court staff using their personal email to order psychiatric reports.
No sign of compromise despite backlash
A recently retired judge criticised the government’s plans, which hand judges more power.
“At the moment, judges have quite enough power,” Christopher Kinch KC, an ex-senior circuit judge, told Sky News.
“I’ve always thought an important part of the whole process was that having decided the framework and the shape of the case, the judge then said ‘this is too important for me, and it’s over to you as 12 members of the public’.”
Senior lawyers refused to rule out strike action over the proposal to roll back jury trials in some cases.
Simon Spence KC, from the Criminal Bar Association, said: “I don’t think we as a profession are going to rule anything out. They conducted a survey and found over 85% of those who responded said that they were opposed to the abolition or reduction of jury trials.”
The courts minister definitively rejected a compromise reform plan, floated by government sources, that would see cases being heard by a judge and two magistrates.
Ms Sackman said: “We think the judge-only proposal is robust. It’s what they do in Canada. I’ve got confidence in our judges to be able to run this.”
The courts minister also revealed the government would press ahead by stripping some people already facing trial from their right to a jury.
She said: “In terms of the measures themselves, while cases that already have a trial date set for a jury or are already in train, of course those will have to proceed.
“But cases that are already in the system where a trial date hasn’t been set, these measures will apply to those because what you want is those measures to kick in straight away so they can start to bring down the backlog.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Ms Sackman did not say Mr Lammy was wrong when he previously said the measures would not be retrospective, but had been answering a question “in a different context”.
However, the Bar Association warned this could violate the principle of “lex mitior”, which means that such a rule should not be applied retrospectively.
“The government will need to be clear on the cut-off point for commencement of provisions,” said a source.
Read more:
UK ‘won’t back down’ in row with Musk’s X
Home secretary has no confidence in police chief
Labour rebel: Why I’m ashamed of Keir Starmer
Some 39 MPs signed a letter before Christmas suggesting they might rebel.
Mr Turner, who is co-ordinating the rebellion, told Sky News: “I’m not going to be bullied by threats of losing whips or anything else. It’s taken me 16 years to lose my temper at a government policy.
“I’m only sorry that it’s my own government, led by Keir Starmer, King’s Council, who has built his professional career on a brilliant reputation of being an incredibly impressive eminent lawyer and, sadly, a human rights lawyer.
“So, when I say I’m ashamed of Keir Starmer, I mean it.”
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Pressed on what he would do if the legislation passes, he said: “The question is: is there going to be a by-election? What I’ve said to the chief whip is ‘don’t ring me to lecture me and threaten me with suspension from the Labour whip’. I don’t care.
“My integrity is more important to me. But what you do need to worry about, Mr (Jonathan) Reynolds (the chief whip) is the fact that Labour MPs like me are sick to the back teeth of being marched up hills only to be marched back down again when the penny drops that the proposals that have been put forward by way of policy, which were not in the manifesto, which were a shock to us, are sprung on us like a rabbit from a hat.
“I’m fed up with it. All the Labour MPs are fed up with it, and you’ve got to concern yourself about some of us saying, ‘I’ve had enough, I’m off’.”
