The proposal to eliminate jury trials represents "a cure worse than the disease," according to the founding head of the chambers where Sir Keir Starmer once practiced law. Geoffrey Robertson KC, of Doughty Street Chambers, has launched a scathing critique of Justice Secretary David Lammy's controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill, which aims to dramatically reduce the number of jury trials in Crown Court proceedings.
Radical Overhaul of Criminal Justice System
Lammy's legislation seeks to address the enormous backlog plaguing the criminal justice system by approximately halving jury trials. The bill would establish a new tier within the Crown Court system called the 'Bench Division,' where judges alone would hear triable either-way cases likely to result in custodial sentences of three years or less. This represents a fundamental shift in how justice is administered in England and Wales.
The scale of the backlog is staggering, with nearly 80,000 criminal cases awaiting hearings at Crown Courts and over 360,000 cases pending in Magistrates' Courts. The government contends that under the new system, jury trials would be reserved exclusively for the most serious indictable-only offences, including murder, rape, manslaughter, and serious grievous bodily harm.
Constitutional Concerns and Historical Precedents
Robertson KC argues that the government has fundamentally disregarded the constitutional importance of trial by jury, describing the proposals as a "betrayal" of fundamental freedoms. "Labour is taking an axe to a piece of English heritage, one part of a criminal justice system which, unlike the others, is actually trusted by most people," he stated emphatically.
The senior barrister highlighted historical cases that would have been affected by such legislation, noting that under the new bill, Clive Ponting could not have been tried by a jury because his Official Secrets Act prosecution carried a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. Robertson further explained that this would mean prominent figures like Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would lose their right to jury trial if ever prosecuted under similar circumstances.
Political Connections and Legal Legacy
The criticism carries particular weight given Robertson's position as founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, where Starmer served as a member and later as joint head. Robertson previously joked that, after three of his members became government ministers, "Doughty Street has become Labour's equivalent of Eton for the Tory Cabinet."
Lammy's proposal follows Sir Brian Leveson's comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, which included the controversial decision to remove juries from serious and complex fraud cases. The current bill represents an even more extensive reduction of jury trials across a broader range of criminal cases.
Current Legislative Status and Future Implications
The Courts and Tribunals Bill is currently at its committee stage this week, where it faces intense scrutiny from legal experts, opposition parties, and civil liberties organizations. The debate centers on whether reducing jury trials represents a necessary efficiency measure to address systemic backlogs or an unacceptable erosion of centuries-old legal protections.
Legal professionals across the spectrum are closely monitoring the bill's progress, with many expressing concerns about the precedent it might set for further reductions in jury participation. The outcome of this legislative battle could reshape the fundamental nature of criminal trials in England and Wales for generations to come.
