A strong backlash emerged against Justice Secretary David Lammy after he suggested removing juries from certain court cases. The proposal, aimed at streamlining the judicial process and addressing delays, has been fiercely criticized by legal professionals.
Former Solicitor General Robert Courts KC appeared on GB News, where he harshly condemned Lammy’s suggestion, describing it as an attack on one of the foundations of British justice. Courts argued that juries play a critical role in maintaining fairness and public trust in the legal system.
“The right to a trial by jury is a cornerstone of our democracy. Weakening that principle would undermine justice itself,” said Robert Courts KC.
Many within the legal community echoed similar sentiments, warning that such reforms could give excessive power to judges and erode transparency in criminal proceedings.
Lammy defended his ideas by pointing to the need for reforms that reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency in the courts. However, opponents counter that logistical concerns should not override constitutional rights that have existed for centuries.
Legal commentators noted that any attempt to restrict jury trials, even partially, could ignite public outrage and lead to constitutional challenges. They called for the government to seek alternative measures—such as expanding court capacity or improving case management systems—instead of removing juries from the process.
The debate over Lammy’s proposal highlights a growing tension between judicial efficiency and the preservation of traditional democratic safeguards.
Author's Summary: Lawyers strongly oppose David Lammy’s proposal to scrap jury trials, warning it threatens democratic principles and public trust in British justice.