Diane Abbott delivered a withering attack in parliament as she criticised Keir Starmer and David Lammy over plans to restrict jury trials.
Quoting Starmer’s own writing from 1992, Abbott reminded MPs:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual.”
She warned that curbing jury trials would risk miscarriages of justice, especially for women and minority groups.
Abbott added the PM’s long-held stance “was as true then as it is today” — and questioned how Labour could justify abandoning it.
⚒️ Lammy’s New Reforms Spark Internal Labour Revolt
David Lammy has unveiled major changes to the justice system, announcing:
- No defendant will be able to choose a jury trial for “either-way” offences if the likely sentence is under three years.
- Magistrates’ sentencing powers will rise from 12 to 18 months, with the possibility of extending to 24.
- A new tier of “judge-only courts” will handle a huge volume of cases.
Jury trials will be reserved for the most serious crimes such as murder, rape and cases carrying more than three-year sentences.
Lammy told MPs the changes are needed to prevent the court backlog from spiralling to 100,000 cases by 2028.
🚨 Labour MPs & Peers Condemn “Erosion of Justice”
Senior Labour MPs and peers have attacked Lammy’s proposals as dangerous, unfair — and ineffective.
- Stella Creasy argued jury trials make up only 3% of cases, questioning how curbing them could meaningfully reduce delays.
- Clive Efford warned the policy risks creating an “us-and-them justice system” that hits working-class defendants hardest.
- Richard Burgon described the plans as “chilling” and compared them to legal systems under authoritarian regimes.
- Helena Kennedy KC accused Lammy of misrepresenting rape victims’ experiences and said the reform “would be the end of jury trial”.
A leaked memo suggests Lammy originally considered going much further — including removing jury trials for cases with sentences up to five years — before internal backlash forced a retreat.
🧾 Starmer & Lammy’s Past Comments Come Back to Haunt Them
Critics have highlighted years of public statements from both Lammy and Starmer — all defending the core principle of trial by jury.
Robert Jenrick told parliament:
“The best opponent of Lammy’s plans is David Lammy himself.”
He cited Lammy’s own words from 2020:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
Jenrick also reminded MPs of Keir Starmer’s past position:
“There should be a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases.”
The contradictions have fuelled anger within Labour ranks — and accusations that Starmer’s government is abandoning long-established principles.
⚠️ What the Proposal Means for Defendants
Under Lammy’s plan, defendants accused of offences such as:
- burglary
- fraud
- stalking
- sexual assault
- drug dealing
- criminal damage (up to £10,000)
…would lose the right to have their case heard by a jury.
🔍 Why Lammy Says It’s Necessary
Lammy argues the reforms are essential to stop the justice system collapsing under the weight of delays.
He insists:
- transparency has improved
- AI can help monitor judicial decisions
- the reforms are “pragmatic and necessary”
But opposition remains fierce — both inside and outside parliament.
You may also like: Watch: BBC presenter challenges David Lammy over past statements on jury trials
Leave a Reply