38 Labour MPs Write to Starmer to Demand Jury Trial U-Turn – Guido Fawkes

“Dear Prime Minister,

The Lord Chancellor’s announcement that he will restrict jury trials is an ineffective way of dealing with the crippling backlog of cases in our criminal justice system. The proposals to remove trial by jury for all but the most serious of cases will have an incredibly limited impact while also depriving individuals of a fundamental right to trial by their peers. When this is put to the House as primary legislation, there is a growing number of our colleagues who are not prepared to support these proposals.
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.

However, as the Lord Chancellor has rightly mentioned, the backlog of cases is appalling, and has a detrimental impact on both victims and defendants. It is a problem that we intend to work with the Government on constructively and have laid out below a list of recommendations that could be implemented to reduce the backlog.

One of the primary causes of the backlog is the restriction on ‘sitting days’. Around 130,000 sitting days are available to the courts, yet, despite a capacity crisis, sitting days are restricted by 20,000 a year. While the Government has rightly announced that it is increasing the number of sitting days by 5,000, this is still a substantial shortfall. This inexplicable misuse of court time needs to be rectified. Alongside the welcome commitment to increasing legal aid funding, the Government needs to heavily invest in the number of judges, particularly Recorders (part time Crown Court judges who maintain their own practices). An increase in the number of Recorders available to the courts will have a significant impact on the court’s ability to utilise all available sitting days. Presumably the Government has already committed to the recruitment of new judges, as the proposed CCCD will be staffed by judges, rather than lay Magistrates. If the Government invested that money into the recruitment of new Recorders and Crown Court judges, it could lead to a considerable uplift in the number of days utilised, which would have a substantial impact on the backlog.
Many cases within the backlog will almost certainly be brought forward on a lower charge. The CPS needs to be empowered to review – through the utilisation of the self-employed Bar, if necessary- to go through the backlog and work out which cases could acceptably be dealt with a lesser charge. This will have the dual benefit of keeping a case within the confines of the Magistrates Court while also increasing the chance of conviction because a lower charge may be easier to prove and prosecute. This should be done in conjunction with attempts to re-classify a select number of either way offences which would ensure that more live cases can be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

One of the most appalling aspects of this whole crisis is the inefficiency of prisoner transport. Criminal barristers regularly email me to explain that case after case is delayed due to the late arrival of defendants at court. While exact data on the number of days wasted by the inefficiency of private contractors is difficult to come by, there are demonstrable problems associated with their terrible service. A return to a full publicly owned prison estate and prisoner delivery is clearly not feasible; however, heavy sanctions should be imposed on Serco, G4S and others for the late delivery of prisoners to court. This, alongside the crumbling infrastructure that is the now the norm in our criminal justice system, is a far greater contributing factor to the backlog than juries.

Numerous questions have been raised by the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. Will those who have opted for trial by jury have their wishes respected? Or will that right be removed? If the Government removes that right, there is a risk of overburdening the courts with numerous appeals and judicial reviews, risking greater inefficiency.

The question of appeals is vexing. The Lord Chancellor has announced that he will restrict the right to appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court solely to points of law, removing the right to appeal on sentence and conviction. With judges in the proposed CCCD being required to provide reasonings for their decisions on guilt, will that lead to a glut of appeals in the higher courts as defendants disagree with the reasonings why they have been convicted? This alteration to the right of appeal from the Magistrates Court will presumably be judicially reviewed.

Our last point is around the proposal to increase the sentencing powers of the Magistrates Court to 18 months from 12 months. This, when combined with the watering down of the right to appeal, risks being incredibly damaging, The 2017 Lammy review discussed at length the widespread distrust amongst members of the public with the Magistrates process. These proposals risk undermining trust in criminal justice even further.

In any event, as of March 2024 the backlog in the Magistrates Court was at 273,498, that backlog cannot be down to juries because there is no such thing in the Mags but this proposal will clearly increase the backlog there.

It is our belief that the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government can do to more effectively reduce the backlog. We urge you to think again and come back to the House with a more credible proposal. This problem was not caused by jurors, nor will it be fixed by their eradication from public duty. Every day during the Second World War Juries continued to sit reverting from 12 to 7 Juror’s, we are not at war!”
We Labour Members of Parliament are asking you to pause this proposal until proven evidence can be provided that this proposal will substantially reduce the backlog in the Crown Courts.”