Britain’s Barristers Oppose Labour’s Attack on Jury Trials
Britain’s barristers have voiced their opposition to Labour’s plans to scrap jury trials, urging Sir Keir Starmer to “change course”. The Telegraph has more.
The bodies representing barristers in the UK and the Republic of Ireland have told the Prime Minister that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s proposals.
David Lammy, the Justice Secretary, provoked an outcry after announcing plans this month to scrap half of all jury trials as part of radical plans to bring down crown court backlogs.
Defendants in cases involving crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years will no longer have the option of having a jury trial.
Now, the Four Bars have warned that restricting jury trials would undermine public trust in the criminal justice system, adding there was “no evidence” the changes would bring down court backlogs.
In a rare joint statement, the heads of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Scotland’s Faculty of Advocates, the Bar of Ireland and the Bar of Northern Ireland said: “The curtailment of jury trials has predictable negative consequences, including undermining the public’s trust and confidence in our criminal justice systems.
“Trial by a jury is long established and respected throughout the common law world for its veneration of democratic ideals, its age, gender and ethnic inclusiveness, and its respect for citizens’ and judges’ roles in the administration of justice.”
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans, magistrates’ powers will be increased to be able to hand down sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, up from 12 months currently.
Only defendants accused of crimes likely to merit sentences of more than five years, such as murder, rape, other serious sexual offences, terrorism, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and possession of firearms, would be entitled to have their case heard before a jury.
The changes will mean that just 1.5 per cent of all cases, an estimated one in 66, will be heard before a jury.
The announcement was made with fierce opposition from the Tories and several members of the legal profession.
There is also disquiet among some Labour backbenchers at the plans, spearheaded by Karl Turner, the Labour MP for East Hull.
The MP, who studied to become a barrister before his political career, wrote on X on Monday about the plans: “I didn’t ever feel like I had to break the whip under [Jeremy Corbyn’s] leadership.
“Makes one wonder the direction [Labour] is heading in when it’s under [Sir Keir] that I have no option but to say that I’d have to break the whip.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“The curtailment of jury trials has predictable negative consequences, including undermining the public’s trust and confidence in our criminal justice systems.
“Trial by a jury is long established and respected throughout the common law world for its veneration of democratic ideals, its age, gender and ethnic inclusiveness, and its respect for citizens’ and judges’ roles in the administration of justice.”
Fooey. I don’t care about “public trust” or “inclusiveness” or “respect”. I want to be protected from Government tyranny and activist judges. That’s why jury trials started.
We are drip-fed just enough elixir to make us believe we’re not being drip-fed elixir. A Marxist utopia cannot be born whilst the will of the people has influence, hence the need to remove jury’s. What the approved media does well – and the DT is the star pupil, pushed relentlessly by the DS – is push an elitist agenda whilst seemingly supporting the proletariat. It serves multiple purposes: a controlled chamber to vent, a reason to believe all is not lost (distraction), subtle psychological programming. The Marxists are all around us, they and they often wear our uniform.
With friends like the DT, who needs enemies?
Jury trials have a history of making the ruling class think again about their administration of justice hence one reason why they wish to abolish them. Also, they show up multi culti world where certain communities are reluctant to convict one of their own. All very embarrassing for TPTB.
If you were really trying to reduce a backlog of court cases you wouldn’t scrap jury trials as a major response. You could allow the current system to continue for new cases and propose various methods (such as generous plea deals, no fault convictions, ‘rewards’ for pleading guilty, just dropping the most minor cases, elective non-jury trials, 24 hour courts, and so on) to clear the backlog.
My suspicion is that the powers standing behind Lammy wish for the unreliability of juries to be diminished, and reducing the backlog merely a ‘justification’. Perhaps they believe the general public cannot be trusted?
I think all of what you say is true beyond doubt
I think it’s in the nature of politicians not to trust the public, and in general in the nature of anyone in a powerful position to feel that those over whom they exercise power are a threat
What they want is that when the next lot of violent protests kick off, to be able to lock people up for years at a time with no recourse to our traditional rights.
Clammy’s dumb idea is never going to happen before Labour are removed, and we shall see if he survives the departure of Two Tier I Hate Everyone Here Kier after May.
Let’s hope you are right.
They’ll be a civil war, mark my words. Probably after the 2029 election as the political scene falls apart in sectarian voting.
Cant we deport the Lammy?
That is excellent news, except for the strange inclusion of a Foreign Country whose judicial system will not be affected by any decisions of the British Parliament.
Including the Foreign Country of Ireland in “The Four Bars” is like including France. Jim O’Callaghan is Ireland’s Justice Minister, and he is in charge there, not Lammy. The Bar Council of Ireland should stop poking its nose into Britain’s affairs.
The four nations of Britain are England, Wales, Scotland and NORTHERN IRELAND.
And the barristers saying they are “deeply concerned” seems a bit lame, when faced by one Ethnic African man attempting to overturn the Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
Neither Lammy nor Starmer nor ANYONE has the right to do this, and it should be thrown out of both Houses of Parliament, and Lammy charged with treason.
Catholic Ireland was NOT OUR ALLY in World War II, and DECLARED NEUTRALITY, refusing to help the Allies, and welcoming Nazi Submarines into Irish harbours as a convenient base from which to attack THE AMERICAN FOOD CONVOYS carrying food and supplies to war-torn Britain.
Our genuine Allies in the Anglo-sphere are the ones whose opinions on the Ethnic African’s Communist attempt to destroy the Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights would be MOST WELCOME: Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, whose legal systems are based upon our own, and whose warriors were maimed and killed fighting alongside the troops of England, Scotland, Wales and Protestant Northern Ireland in World War 2, a war fought to set the Jews and Europe free.
How have all the Anglo-sphere’s wartime sacrifices been repaid, we wonder?